1966-10-07

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Macaluso.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table the correspondence exchanged between the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and myself. In a letter dated October 5 the president, Mr. Ouimet, states that because of certain personal and professional reasons he has come to the conclusion that he should not carry on as head of the corporation after the proposed new legislation comes into effect, which he considers will be early in the new year.
When I received this letter I replied to Mr. Ouimet that in the circumstances outlined in his letter, which is now being tabled, I felt that, on behalf of the government, I would have to accept his decision, which I did with great regret; and I added, in my letter, an expression of gratitude and appreciation for the outstanding contribution Mr. Ouimet has made to the corporation over a long period of years.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the correspondence referred to by the Right Hon. Prime Minister be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I will say at once, as far as the president of the C.B.C. is concerned, that we appointed him when we were in power and that he has served at length in the position to which he was appointed.
However, behind all this there is great uncertainty regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I feel the committee on broadcasting should be convened at once. We would like to know what is to happen to Captain Briggs. Has the government communicated with him? Has he been informed whether he is to be continued in office beyond the period for which his appointment runs, which I believe is up to the latter part of January, 1967.
We should also like to know the circumstances in which Mr. John Kerr was appointed as supervisor of programs, one of the most sensitive of the senior positions if the C.B.C. is to remain politically unimpaired.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel I must intervene, if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would allow me to do so. My understanding of the statement made by the Prime Minister is that the correspondence tabled referred exclusively to the president of the C.B.C., and the practice is to limit comments to the subject matter of announcements or statements made by the Prime Minister or other ministers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the resignation as part of the major problem, but Your Honour rules I cannot do so. Therefore I simply conclude by saying that what is happening indicates that all is not well in the C.B.C., and that the time has come for a parliamentary investigation.



CONSUMER CREDIT


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, if the house gives its consent I move, seconded by Mr. Allmand:
That the first and second reports of the special joint committee on consumer credit, presented to the house on Friday, April 1, and Thursday, October 6, respectively, be concurred in.


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


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party gladly concur in these two reports because we think it is

October 7, 1986
Legislation
imperative that a committee with such a heavy responsibility be allowed to sit while the house is sitting. My only purpose in rising is to express the hope that the terms of reference of this committee are wide enough to cover a general investigation into consumer prices.
The other day when we endeavoured to raise the matter of car prices it was suggested by members of the cabinet that the committee on consumer credit would deal with it. I can understand that the committee must set up certain orders of priority, and I believe at the present time it is dealing with food prices. I wish to express the hope that it will go on to deal with automobile prices fairly soon, because 1967 cars are now on the market, or will be in the course of the next few weeks, which makes this an appropriate time to have an investigation into car prices.
If the terms of reference are not sufficiently wide, then I hope the committee will bring to the house a request seeking the necessary powers for an investigation into the newly announced prices for 1967 model automobiles.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in saying that there is an urgent need for this joint committee on consumer credit to carry on with its important investigations. I understand there are a large number of witnesses to be called; therefore we are in agreement that every opportunity should be given to the committee to carry on with its work. We support the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to encourage the initiation of programs and the expansion of existing programs of scientific research and development in Canada by the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, on the authorization of the Minister of Industry, to corporations incorporated in and carrying on business in Canada, of grants in respect of capital expenditures in Canada, and in respect of increases in current expenditures in Canada over a specified base period by such corporations on scientific research and development in fiscal periods commencing with the fiscal periods of such corporations ending in 1966;

to provide that such scientific research and development grants shall be exempt from income tax; and to provide for amendments to the Income Tax Act that are incidental to or consequential on the introduction of the said measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for the Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to further encourage the demand for housing by increasing the loan ratio for rental housing from 85 per cent of the lending value to 90 per cent of the lending value; by providing that loans made to persons who intend to purchase, improve and occupy existing housing be insurable on conditions similar to loans made for new housing; by increasing from eight and one-half billion dollars to nine and one-half billion dollars the aggregate amount of all loans that may be insured under the Act; by increasing from three and one-quarter billion dollars to four billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; by authorizing the corporation, with the approval of the government of the province concerned, to make loans for student housing projects which will not be restricted only to the accommodation of university students; by increasing from two hundred million dollars to three hundred and fifty million dollars the amounts that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund as loans for student housing projects for reimbursement for losses sustained on loans for such projects; and by extending for an additional three years the period within which the construction of a sewage treatment project in respect of which a loan has been or is to be made under part VIB of the act must be compleed if the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation is to be forgiven payment of a part of the principal amount of the loan and of the accrued interest thereon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister is one which I am sure already has received his attention, namely the heinous suggestion in Der Spiegel which casts an unwarranted slur on members of the Canadian armed forces. I refer, of course to
Oclober 7, 1966

the article which suggests that on May 13, 1945 certain unnamed Canadian authorities assisted in the trial and execution for desertion of two German prisoners of war.
Has this matter been reviewed, and will the Prime Minister assure the house and the country that this story is a tissue of falsehoods?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the right hon. gentleman has brought up this matter. I have been discussing it with the Minister of National Defence, and he is in a position to reply.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as Professor McWhinney brought this Der Spiegel article to our attention we referred it to the appropriate officials of the department for a complete investigation. The investigation is under way and a certain amount of preliminary information is available. As soon as all the facts are assembled we will be in a position to make a statement to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister prepared to say, on the basis of the preliminary investigation, that this story now, after 21 years, is without foundation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inadvisable for me to go into detail, but I do think in so far as this story is concerned the facts will indicate as the right hon. gentleman has suggested.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to ask when he or the responsible minister will make a statement to the house giving the reasons the government has reversed its decision with regard to the construction by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines of a pipeline through the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would very glad indeed to have the minister make a statement at the first opportunity. It is not a question of the government reversing its decision; it is a question of Trans-Canada reversing its decision and providing for certain undertakings 23033-534
Inquiries of the Ministry which, had they been included in the original application, would have enabled the government to arrive at a different decision. I will be glad, however, to go into the matter in detail at the first opportunity.


Mr. R. K. Andras (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure us that the related requirements of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, which includes looping of the existing line through northern Ontario beginning in 1970, will be written as firm legal contractual obligations, with appropriate penalties for non-performance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend and the house that the undertaking referred to will be incorporated in a formal agreement between the company and the minister responsible. As hon. members know, exports and imports of gas cannot be made without licences issued by the National Energy Board and approval by the governor in council. Licences in this instance will be related to the formal agreement between the company and the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister how soon copies of this agreement will be available, and how soon he expects the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be making a statement on this matter to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That should be possible shortly. I would hope it could be done next week. I will discuss it with the minister at once.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Could the right hon. Prime Minister give the house some idea when it is expected the F.P.C. will be considering the new decision by the Canadian government in relation to the United States part of the Trans-Canada pipe line.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The federal power commission has been considering this matter and will now be considering it in the light of the recent decision taken in Ottawa. I cannot tell my hon. friend when that consideration is likely to result in a conclusion. I would hope it would be without unnecessary delay.
October 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can the hon. member tell us whether, as a result of the recent announcement made by the Board of Broadcast Governors, it can be expected that free television service will soon be extended, as everywhere else in Canada, to the Chibougamau-Chapais, Parent, Clova region and other centres in northwestern Quebec?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman for not being able to answer the question in the language in which it was posed. I am sure he knows there is included in the white paper a program of priority of services to be extended wherever possible to all individuals in Canada who are not now receiving such services. The C.B.C. is able to read and has read the white paper and is, I am informed, already in the process of making its plans in order to fulfil the purpose of that paper.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry in his capacity regarding defence production. In light of the reports to the effect that Defence Secretary McNamara has decided that the United States defence department will not purchase the F-5 aircraft, has the minister been able to confirm this decision; and if so, how will this affect any defence production sharing agreements we may have with the United States in connection with these aircraft?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It
was not contemplated at the time that the F-5 was ordered for use by Canada there would be production of the aircraft in Canada for use by the United States. As the hon. gentleman knows, it is already in production in the United States. The decision of the secretary

of defence of the United States, if indeed such a decision has been made, not to purchase the F-5 would not have any bearing on the production or manufacture of the F-5 in Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary
question. Will the minister indicate just how this decision will affect defence production facilities in Canada having regard to our potential requirement for the CF-5? Will he also indicate at the same time whether 125 aircraft are still to be produced, or has this figure been reduced to something in the neighbourhood of 80 or 85?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the first question is involved and would require a very complex answer. At the present time there has been no change in the number of CF-5's ordered.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of National Defence in reference again to the matter raised yesterday by members of the official opposition. In light of the representations which the minister said yesterday he had not read, has the minister or the government reconsidered this question of referring the subject matter of the unification of the armed services to the defence committee of this house before the house is asked to approve in principle a bill dealing with this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend is aware, in order to refer a bill after first reading we would require unanimous consent of the house. I think hon. members would want to address themselves to the other question, as to whether that course would in any event be desirable.


Mr. Winkler:: Just try us.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question. Would it not be possible to refer this subject matter to the defence committee before first reading in order that we do not have to approve of it in principle before that committee has thoroughly studied the matter?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 7, 1966


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence in the ability of members of this house to consider the issue involved, and I am sure that if we proceed in the normal manner and the opportunity is provided for full discussion of that issue, members will be able to take their responsibility in the normal manner.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house whether there is one logical reason why this whole question could not now be referred to the defence committee, so that officers, former officers and other persons could testify before the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and it is this. In view of the revelation by Admiral Landymore that his evidence was changed while in the possession of the minister and before presentation to the committee, does the minister not consider this is something that the defence committee should look into to ascertain whether the policy that will be set out in the bill to be introduced is indeed one for the benefit of Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. I think when the bill is referred to the committee full opportunity will be available-


John George Diefenbaker: That will be too late.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -if the committee so desires to check all allegations of this nature and to look at the original document and what he actually said side by side. When that is done they will find there was no restriction whatsoever in so far as his discussion of unification was concerned; none.


John George Diefenbaker: In that gratuitous addition to the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, does he say that he did not have a change made in the evidence while it was in his possession?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Does he say that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are at this time having the debate the minister says we should have in committee.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Now that the minister has admitted to Mr. Scott Young of the Globe and Mail that his premature retirement of service personnel in 1964 and 1965 was very damaging to morale, will he not agree to an immediate examination by the committee on defence of his unification program to avoid similar error?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member who asked this question will recognize it is not asked in proper form. The question contains allegations that are not normal in such questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had hoped for a vague answer from the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be very pleased to provide one, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: There is an admission.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't change Hansard tomorrow.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Finance. I would ask the minister, will the government reconsider its freeze on research spending in view of the very latest reports indicating that our medical teachers and medical research personnel are continuing to move to the United States?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the hon. member has asked this question, because there is no freeze. There will be a very substantial increase in research expenditure by the government; not as great as we would have felt desirable, but very substantial indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for answering to the house on medical research matters. Can the minister assure the house that this substantial increase in expenditure will include medical research, in order to stop a potentially serious doctor shortage in this nation?
8442	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: can give that assurance right now, Mr. Speaker, and I will be elaborating, more fully on this matter I hope, later this afternoon.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this increase will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Gundy report, which has been endorsed by the deans of faculties of medicine across Canada as well as by hundreds of scientists-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question now being put by the hon. member is argumentative.



WHEAT-PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the record wheat crop which Russia expects to harvest this year, will the minister advise the house what effect the wheat board estimates this will have on Russian orders for Canadian wheat during the next 12 months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that this is a proper question, but I will be governed by your ruling. The wheat board believes there will be a very active demand for Canadian wheat over the next few years.



ALLEGED CONTRADICTION IN MINISTERS' STATEMENTS RESPECTING CREDIT FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a problem which refers to a contradiction between statements made by ministers of the crown. If both these statements had been made in the house a question of privilege would of course be involved. However, since one was made outside the house I will have to try to find out by questions to the ministers which is the correct statement.
The question I wish to put is based upon an article which appeared in the Free Press on September 29, 1966, under the byline of Joyce Fairbairn, in which she is quoting the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the subject of assisting those nations which are buying wheat from us on credit under long
[Mr. Grafftey.l
DEBATES	October 7, 1966
term agreements to obtain that credit. These words in the article are in quotation marks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot make a speech at this time. He can ask a question which should be short, succinct and to the point. He cannot quote from a newspaper report in asking a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question in this way; it is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) apparently made a statement on September 29 that credit would be made available under the Export Credits Insurance Act. I should like an affirmation that this assurance, given by the minister in charge of the Export Credits Insurance Act, is correct and was made on that date.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this statement.
1Translation]



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusle Choqueite (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Transport and I trust that he will be able to solve the problem.
In view of the tragedy which occurred at a railway crossing in Lotbiniere county where there are no signal lights and which cost the lives of four people, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to take the necessary steps and use all his influence with railway companies so that signal lights or adequate protection may be installed at all railway crossings?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question is primarily of local interest. I admit it is important-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Another tragedy occurred in Drummond county-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will undoubtedly wish to make representations to the minister if he believes the matter is urgent or, if he prefers, put the question on the order paper.


Auguste Choquette: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
October 7, 1966



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we received assurances from the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that there was no change in the winter works program other than the $500 winter housing program. Would the Prime Minister take the necessary steps to ensure that no lay-offs will take place in the Louisburg project screened behind the fact that the assistance with which the government maintains the winter works program is not available this winter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will do our best to see that this does not happen.



POSSIBLE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN MARITIME PROVINCE MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. I apologize for not giving him notice, but would the minister mind informing the house whether the government is giving serious consideration to the bringing of certain coal mines in the maritimes under public ownership?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the question of coal mining in the maritimes is a subject which has been under serious examination by the government for some time. As soon as this examination has been concluded an announcement will be made.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to address to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that one year and two days ago, on October 5 last, the Minister of Labour made a statement regarding assistance for the coal mines in Nova Scotia, does he not think it is now time to make a decision to do something in this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I be permitted to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, and say to the house and to the hon. member that the Donald report, which is one of the main documents concerned here, will be tabled on Tuesday.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Can the minister tell the house whether a contract authorizing the construction of a motel on the new C.B.C. site in Montreal has been signed and with whom?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: I should, therefore, Mr. Speaker, like to discuss this matter at ten o'clock.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SHEPPARD REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State, particularly in view of the statement made today by the Prime Minister regarding the president of the C.B.C. Is it the intention of the hon. lady to table the Sheppard report so members of the house can share in the revelations it undoubtedly contains?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the so-called Sheppard report is a confidential report prepared for the office of the Secretary of State. It is a very long document and it is still being considered. I have not as yet even received comments from the various agencies. If it is to be tabled, and that decision has not yet been made, it will not be soon.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? I wonder whether the hon. lady would then consider making the report available for consideration and study by the standing committee on broadcasting films and assistance to the arts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will consider it, but that would certainly be making it public.
October 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR RETURN OF PROGRAM &quot;AUJOURD'HUI&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has already been informed of the question I wish to direct to her. My question is as follows. Has the hon. lady the intention of taking the necessary measures to order back to our local T.V. screens in the Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean region the program entitled "Au-jourd'hui"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not received notice of this question; however, I will be happy to take this as notice. As my hon. friend knows,
I have no responsibility for programming and will have to refer it to the C.B.C.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of National Defence. Were the militia forces included in the recent pay increases?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. The question is being considered separately from that of the regular force .


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from that answer that the salaries of this citizens' group, which has always been the backbone of the armed forces, will be brought into line with the present pay structure.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and through you my hon. friend, is that all factors will be taken into consideration, such as the present rates of pay, the requirements in respect of those rates of pay, the tremendous contribution they have made to Canada in the past, their present relationship to the armed forces of Canada, and the best value possible for the taxpayers of this country.



CHURCHILL FALLS-INQUIRY AS TO EXPORT APPLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Resources and ask him this. Now that the Johnson government of Quebec has approved of the purchase of power from Churchill Falls, thus making possible one of the largest hydro developments in North America, what is the situation with regard to export of power to the United States? Second, has any conclusion been reached regarding the export of power to Consolidated Edison in New York and to the state of Vermont; and third, has there been any application made to the National Energy Board in this connection?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No applicaion has as yet been made, Mr. Speaker. I am informed that in a few days we will receive the answer to these questions from the premier of Quebec himself.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Quebec government has communicated with his department-


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe is now speaking on a supplementary question.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if the Quebec government has communicated with the federal authorities concerning the possibility of setting up nuclear plants on Quebec soil and if a report may be tabled on that matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am told that the Quebec government has made an exhaustive study of the whole subject before making a decision.


Gilles Grégoire: A further supplementary question, since this is not quite the answer to the question I have asked.
Has the Quebec government inquired of the central government as to the possibility and necessary details related to the setting up of a nuclear energy plant on Quebec soil?
October 7. 1966


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question is out of order. He is merely asking whether the Quebec government looked into certain matters. I do not believe the question can be accepted as presently worded.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, allow me to reword my question so that it might be in order.
Has the federal government made an investigation, at the request of the Quebec government, into the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in the province of Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A statement has already been made with regard to the construction of a nuclear plant at Becancour. I do not know whether that is what the hon. member has in mind, but that plan has already been announced and its construction is now in the process of being launched.


John George Diefenbaker: On a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said an announcement would be made by the premier of Quebec, but my question had to do with the responsibilities of the federal government. Does the minister suggest that the export of power is a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that the National Energy Board has no authority?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was not saying that at all. I was saying that the announcement with regard to the content of the agreement between Quebec and Brinco will be made in the coming days. Then we will know if there is any export content in this contract, and we will know if the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board will apply.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister at this moment does not know what the contents are; is that his suggestion?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have no trouble in admitting that is true.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Five or six supplementary questions have already been put on this point and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) has caught my eye.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: had a question I wanted to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but perhaps in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Having in mind the far reaching recommendations by the commission on government in the north tabled in the house yesterday, will there be an opportunity for the people of the north to express their reaction to these recommendations before this house or the government implements them? I should like the minister's secretary to take notice of this question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement last night by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada intends to assist and encourage in every possible way trade between mainland China and this country, is the government considering at this time the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with mainland China as a positive means of assisting this Canadian-Chinese trade?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The trade to which my hon. friend refers, of course, is trade in non-strategic materials, and as my hon. friend knows that particular trade is within the list set up by our friends. The other question is one of far reaching importance, and I am not in a position to answer it on orders of the day.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question for the Solicitor General in relation to the arrest of the unfortunate man in Toronto in connection with the murder of an 88 year old woman. Can the Solicitor General advise this house whether he will be defended by an able lawyer on his way to the bench or an avaricious fiction writer on her way to the bank?
8446	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the minister's announcement during the recess that the implementation of formal collective bargaining in the civil service is being postponed, will the government consider negotiating with its employees in the meantime on the basis of collective bargaining principles?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, under existing legislation the government has not got the right to do this. My hope is that the legislation will be dealt with by the committee and by the house rather quickly, and that we may be able to determine the ultimate salaries of group D employees, which are presently up for consideration, through the collective bargaining process.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wanted to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister received representations from the International Association of Machinists in Toronto protesting what they term the inadequate pay increases for their skilled personnel, and complaining that if this experience is widespread it will result in skilled labour flowing out of the Post Office Department? Has consideration been given to these representations and what is the nature of the response, if any, to them?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: I did not receive the representations personally, but I will check in my office.


Reid Scott: Let me make those representations now.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as reporting to this house for the Canadian Wheat Board.

DEBATES	October 7, 1966
In view of the optimistic remarks the minister made a few minutes ago with regard to the possibility of Canada selling a large amount of grain in the next few years, will the minister and his officials take every step to see that a new international wheat agreement is developed with an increase in price for the farmers of western Canada to help eliminate the cost-price squeeze?


Mitchell William Sharp: This will be the objective of the Canadian delegation.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It may be that I have missed this information, but in the light of reported statements by the minister that he would be tabling a white paper on immigration, could he tell the house now whether a firm date has been fixed for that tabling so we can get on with the legislation which is holding up so many applications?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I cannot give a firm date, but I can tell you it will probably be some time next week.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would undertake to make a statement in this house respecting what now appears to be an undue delay in the issuing of cheques for the cream subsidy. It appears some farmers have not received them as yet, though they were under the impression they were going to get these cheques months ago. There must be a reason, and I am just asking the minister if he would explain to these people why they are not receiving their cheques.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows there are a great number of recipients of cheques this year who were not previously registered. I must say that we are encountering some administrative difficulties in having them all enrolled as quickly as we would like. Some of the factories are not getting their returns in sufficiently quickly. I will look into it. My
October 7, 1966
estimates may be before the house shortly, in fact I have been told they may be before the house today, and I will be prepared to give a statement at that time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us what position Canada will be taking at the United Nations with regard to the mandate of South Africa over South-West Africa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making a statement in the United Nations on this matter this afternoon, I expect, and I would hate to scoop the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Prime Minister arrange for an explanation of the minister's statement to be produced so we will know what it means?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend may not know what it means, but 115 delegates in New York will.


Mr. Starr:: There is some question about that, too.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Did he receive a request from the governments of Newfoundland and Quebec for exemption from the corporation profits tax of all companies operating, developing or distributing energy resources in two or more provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Canadian Livestock Feed Board Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister inform the house what arrangements have been made to move and save the Indian shrine known as Mistaseni, which could be lost under the rising waters of the South Saskatchewan river dam if it is not moved to higher ground soon?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, arrangements were made to have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act officials negotiate and discuss this question with the local committee, which I think has a particular interest in this matter as it has raised some funds, to try to see if some way could be determined for preserving at least part of the rock on a basis that was economically feasible.



CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sauve for the second reading of Bill No. C-218, to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take full advantage of this opportunity to make some remarks on the Canadian livestock feed board contemplated under Bill No. C-218.
Because of the importance of the principle of this bill the members of the opposition have followed its development with a great deal of interest. Certainly, on hearing the remarks of the minister, and having had an opportunity of examining them in detail, we can find no quarrel with the object of the bill, which is to rectify an unfortunate condition that has existed in eastern Canada for some years with respect to what was considered by livestock feeders and the producers of feed grains as abnormal profit taking, especially under conditions of short supply or increased transportation cost.
Having said that we have no objection to the principle of the bill, may I take these few moments allocated to me to point out some clauses of the bill which have given me great misgivings.
In developing this bill to correct a grave problem the government has, by the provisions of the bill, projected itself further into free enterprise. That is so because under the

October 7, 1986

Canadian Livestock Feed Board provisions of this bill the committee as set up can have almost unlimited power as far as the flow of feed grains is concerned. Once again this is an attempt to correct the situation in one segment of Canada. As happens in matters of this kind when such corrective measures are taken, something, that can be of benefit to one locality of Canada very often works a hardship to other sections of Canada.
When we look at the principle of this bill and the way in which it is set out, the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that we seem to be working to contrary ends. It is true that we have a grain board in the west that has worked very successfully throughout the years and has been responsible for the continuing high prices received by western producers of feed grains and grains of all kinds. Now, however, under this bill the government proposes to set up a government bureau the principle of which is in effect almost directly contrary to the principle of the wheat board in the west.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it is to use every means within the power granted by the government to procure feed grains for eastern Canada and British Columbia at the lowest possible price. So we have in one region of Canada a government bureau which has been set up to promote the highest possible prices for feed grain, and in another region of Canada another government bureau which has been set up to promote the very lowest prices for feed grain.
Not only does this seem to involve an impossible situation, but consider, if you will, where it puts provinces such as Ontario, which is becoming a major producer of feed grains. In fact, Mr. Speaker, with respect to such grains as corn, oats and feed wheat, we in Ontario may soon find ourselves in an exporting position. Consider, if you will, where the carrying out of the principle of this bill would place the producers in Ontario.
There is no doubt that the only market the producers of Ontario feed grain will have is in the east. This is our traditional market, and this bill places us in this impossible position: we shall be selling feed grain to our traditional eastern market-which is and will be controlled, if the bill passes in its present form, by a government agency-in direct competition with the producers of feed grain in the west, who are protected by another government agency.
[Mr. Danforth.l
I think this should cause us to reflect on exactly what the government is doing. Also, Mr. Speaker, because of the government's subsidy on all western feed grains going into eastern Canada, we in Ontario have the additional handicap of having to pay freight on our grains going into eastern Canada in some instances six times as high as that paid with respect to feed grains coming from western Canada into eastern Canada.
If this bill is passed and such principles are set in motion-where a government agency controls the price of feed grains in an entire Canadian region and the avowed principle of such agency is to keep feed grains at the lowest possible price-in what position does it put those farmers in that region whose sole livelihood is derived from the production of feed grains? They would not be able to take advantage of any tremendous rise in the market. They would not be able to take advantage of the laws of supply and demand. Those farmers would be under direct government control in the prices they would be asked to accept.
When we look at the composition of the committee that is to administer this bill and look at the power that may or will be given to it, it is logical for us, on examining this bill, to look at the ultimate power that may be wielded by the committee as being the power we should consider. What do we find? First of all we find that this so called committee-consisting of five members, I believe-is appointed at the pleasure of the government. In other words the members are appointed for life, or until such time as they reach the age of retirement.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
Now, the power which is granted to them is the power to buy, sell, transport or store feed grain to be used in eastern Canada and British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, these are the absolute powers which are set out in any provincial marketing scheme. The only difference, as far as I can see, is that the bill fails to provide two safeguards which the provinces always include; first, that any committee set up to regulate a marketing scheme should reach decisions only after advice has been given or recommendations heard from the groups who are affected by the scheme; and second, that individuals or groups of individuals who consider themselves the victims of an injustice have the right of appeal.
I am wondering also whether the absolute power granted to this committee is not an infringement of the authority of provincial
October 7, 1968

marketing boards. I say this because in Ontario there are already marketing boards set up to control the handling of grains used for feed. How are the provisions and regulations of provincial marketing boards to be reconciled with those introduced by the board contemplated under the bill before us? There could well be a direct conflict of interest because of the regional interests of both. I fail to see how such a problem could be resolved.
There is no doubt in my mind that a serious situation has existed and does exist in eastern Canada inasmuch as excessive profit has been taken from time to time with regard to feed grain. This is a situation which should be corrected, and I think it can be corrected. But I am doubtful whether the most direct or the most effective way of doing this is by means of the sweeping powers given to the board set up under the present bill. We are being asked now, in effect, to set up a cumbersome government bureau with full administrative powers over the eastern feed grain area.
During the war, when emergency powers were in being, it was possible to police all commodity prices, all wages, all salaries. This job was done by inspectors. Perhaps instead of setting up a cumbersome government bureau we could use the services of our present inspection staff in the Department of Agriculture. From time to time inspectors could call upon the distributors of feed grain in eastern Canada to ascertain the retail prices at which they were selling to farmers. This staff, on complaints by individuals or groups of individuals, could make inspections in order to determine whether an unjust profit was being derived.
There is no doubt in my mind that public opinion is the greatest police force we have when it comes to adjusting and correcting prices. We have seen evidence of this in the United States, where great corporations have increased their prices and later been forced to reduce them in the light of public opinion. We have seen the same thing happen in Canada. As a matter of fact, due to the activities of a group of irate housewives we have seen in the past few days how the prices of foodstuffs can be affected by direct action. So I imagine that such an agency as I propose would have the desired effect. It would be easier to administer, more direct in its effect and far less costly to the taxpayers of this country.

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
Again, one of our major problems in eastern Canada is the lack of adequate storage in places where storage is needed most. The present bill envisages the arrangement of suitable storage space in terminal elevators through arbitration and discussion so that feed grain can be moved in at an early date to take care of the normal requirements of feeders in eastern Canada.
In principle this is sound, but as far as Ontario is concerned it is unlikely to work by reason of the very nature of our harvesting program, which is carried out later than in the west. From time to time when we attempt to move our feed grain to the storage allocated in these terminal elevators we find there is no longer any room for it because the policy has always been to allocate space in terminal elevators on the first come first served basis. Thus we in the east find ourselves faced not only with an increased rate for storage but also with unjust demurrage rates on freight cars which are held up at terminals for weeks waiting to be unloaded.
How can the government provide storage? I think the desired results can be achieved in another way; by continuing the 25 per cent annual write-off on private or commercial storage. This would encourage grain companies to increase their storage facilities; it would also encourage private feeders and owners of small elevators to increase their storage capacity. It would be a golden opportunity for farm co-operatives to do the same so as to be in a position to buy feed grain at a reasonable price and have it on hand for distribution at a fair and even price throughout the feeding season.
That is what we need, a price which is fair and constant throughout the season so that feeders may be able to forecast their cost and decide in advance whether to increase or decrease their production. I say that if encouragement were given for the construction of private storage facilities, the problem of storage would be solved.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The 25 per cent write-off would be a minimal expense to the government, and since the government envisages allocating at least $10 million to this new board for administrative purposes, and provision is made for more if it be needed, certainly this $10 million plus cost is far in excess of any diminished returns that could be expected as a result of the 25 per cent write-off. I ask the
8450	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board government to give every consideration to this possibility in solving the problem we are considering today.
My third recommendation, and it is not a new one, is that the government consider reassessing the entire freight rate subsidy program. This is a complicated program. It is an expensive one. It was introduced as a wartime expedient. At this late date it may be impossible to do away with it, and I am not advocating that it be discontinued, but I ask the government to examine the matter once more to see if two objectives can be achieved.
The first objective is that it be administered more equitably between zones so that borderline cases do not suffer undue hardships and tremendous price fluctuations. The second objective is that it should not work such hardship regionally as it presently does in the case of Ontario. We in Ontario are penalized in two ways because of this government policy. The assistance on freight rates on western grain coming into and through Ontario depresses the price of Ontario feed grains to the extent of the freight assistance that is paid by the government. This assistance makes the feeders in Ontario extremely happy because they obtain cheaper grain, but it makes the producers of feed grain unhappy because it cuts severely into their profit margin.
That is the first handicap. The second handicap is that it places Ontario feed grain producers in an almost impossible position when competing with western feed grain growers in the eastern market. In some instances the freight rate on Ontario feed grains shipped from Toronto to Truro, Nova Scotia, is six times greater than on western grains shipped from the lakehead to the same destination.
For these reasons I plead with the minister that if in the reassessment he finds it impossible to alter the present freight rate assistance paid on western feed grains coming into eastern Canada, then every effort should be made to place Ontario feed grain producers in the same category as western producers. We are certainly entitled to be in the same competitive position as our brothers in the west with respect to the production and sale of our feed grains. Certainly the quality of our grains is competitive, and on that same subject the producers of western feed grains need make no apology for the quality of the grains they produce and ship into eastern Canada.
[Mr. Danforth.)
DEBATES	October 7. 1966
I see no justifiable reason why the freight rate assistance should not be made applicable to Ontario feed grains so that we may take full advantage of our markets in the east. It would provide the eastern feeders with the cheaper grain they are requesting. A reduction of $20 a ton on Ontario feed grain, by the application of the western freight rates, would make a tremendous difference in the price eastern feeders pay for grain. A government assisted freight rate for Ontario grains would solve another problem. It would increase the use of Canadian grains in eastern Canada as opposed to the importation of United States grain into that entire area.
Having dealt with this matter and put forward suggestions which I feel could correct the problem, correct it faster and to the satisfaction of all areas concerned, and correct it at much less expense to the taxpayers, I wish to conclude by dealing with one other principle. On behalf of the producers of feed grain in eastern Canada I am concerned where the future power will lie with respect to the granting of licences for the importation of feed grains. If my information is correct that power now lies with the western wheat board.
Is it contemplated that it will retain control over the importation of foreign grains, or will this power be delegated to the new board, if it is ever constituted? Will the two agencies operate as separate entities? Will they be subjected to double scrutiny? This is something which fills me with many misgivings, because very often the price of feed grain in Canada is set by the Chicago grain market, plus or minus any duties involved. If the price is set by the Chicago market and it becomes impossible to import feed grain, we could face an abnormal price situation due to the fact that grain could not move freely between countries.
These are some of the facts which I wished to place on record. This is not the simple bill that many of us were led to believe it would be. It is a most complicated bill. It grants tremendous powers to a government bureau. If I felt the bill would solve the problem, solve it quickly, solve it completely, and was the best approach, I would give it my unqualified support. But, Mr. Speaker, although I believe the government has sincerely tried to meet this problem I am convinced its approach is a costly one, a cumbersome one, and damage could be done to the feed grain industry in eastern Canada before such a cumbersome board as is contemplated could take the necessary action.
October 7, 1966

1 believe the direct approach of an inspection agency, with the write-off I have mentioned and an equitable adjustment of freight rates, would solve this major problem to the complete satisfaction of the feeders in eastern Canada, and eliminate the regional difficulty with which this bill does not cope. I still maintain that Ontario will find itself in an impossible position selling to a market that is under government control, and in direct competition with another government agency.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Florian Cole (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak for the first time in the house and on a matter as important as Bill No. C-218 to set up a livestock feed board.
I say a matter as important as this bill deliberately because it is matters such as the ones we are discussing that prompted the electors of the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska to send here the man who is now speaking to you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska):: For several years, within my professional organization, I worked to see such a policy, such a measure implemented, as well as various policies about which I spoke during my election campaign, with regard to dairy farming and unemployment insurance.
But, in my opinion, the matter under consideration was the most important because as a farmer, and consequently as a buyer of feed grain from the western provinces, I suffered from those injustices in the handling of grain.
I suffered from the competition from feed producers because I was a director of a cooperative and I had, under the principles agreed to when the cooperative was created, to help those who had put their trust in me and buy grain accepted by the inspectors. Besides, at the same time, the feed producers had the chance to buy grain which had been rejected on the one hand, and which through another channel came into the hands of those who could compete with us. In his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) dealt with a situation which can be applied to these grains-I followed his speech very closely and he was right to denounce the discrimination going on; I myself have been a victim of such discrimination.

Canadian Livestock. Feed Board
The grain had been rejected because it did not fully comply with the provisions of the act; in other words, instead of an 11 per cent content in proteins, the grain contained nonnutritive elements. Their protein content had been reduced to 8 or 9 per cent. An independent dealer had the opportunity to buy such grain of a somewhat lower quality and to mix it with some other products containing protein and thus increase the protein content of the grain, since the act authorizes the feed producer to add from 14 to 16 per cent of protein. Such tamperings are not too honest for you are still left with a percentage or a volume of non-digestible matter which cannot be digested by the animal, so that the value of this animal, when transformed into meat or milk, is not such that the buyer has his money's worth.
Mr. Speaker, fears expressed since yesterday are perhaps not too well founded. I have read the bill and it contains exactly what my professional association, the UCC, has been asking the government for years, and it is toward that end that we, in eastern Canada, have been working for so long at UCC's general conventions. This is why, after having read the bill, I find it meets requirements of the farmers. Sometimes, they may be justified in voicing apprehensions such as those which the previous speaker has just expressed but if the hon. member reads the text closely, his fears will be dismissed since the board may buy in any province, in the West, in the East or in Ontario, it does not matter.
Every aspect of the problem has been dealt with and I believe no one in this house would be justified in objecting to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to learn that the bill was being introduced just as I was coming into the house. I have only been here for a few days and it is precisely for this reason that I have been sent here. It is for this reason that I was elected on September 19. Contrary to what certain people who worked against me in my constituency may have thought, it is on the strength of my platform that I was elected, and I consider it to be of prime importance. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I will support it 100 per cent and I congratulate the hon. minister for his contribution in formulating this policy which is designed to help farmers in eastern Canada achieve their objectives.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill, which finally
October 7, 1968

Canadian Livestock Feed Board has come before the house for second reading, has not received a great deal of public comment or debate of late reminds us all, I think, that it has been a matter of public concern for such a long time that perhaps there were even some who were under the impression that either it would never come up or that the bill had in some way already been passed but simply had not gone into effect.
As we were reminded in the house last evening by the minister, the intent of this bill was first brought before the house by the previous administration, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) was minister of agriculture. It is very gratifying to see the present administration carrying on this good work and implementing the intent through this bill.
Needless to say, speaking as a maritimer, we have been under the greatest duress in obtaining feed grain over the past number of years due to the great fluctuations in price which have occurred. It is somewhat unnerving to be informed that recent events have taken place which lead one to wonder whether even with the implementation of this board we may be placing powers and placing our good faith in the government when we might not have the right to do so. I am referring to two things in particular which have occurred during the last month which have greatly affected maritime producers. One is with regard to the storage subsidy and the other is with regard to the drastic change in rates of freight assistance.
I am informed that about the first of September producers in the maritime region were notified that the storage subsidy which normally would go into effect on September 15 had been cancelled. In effect this could mean a loss of some $100,000 in Nova Scotia. Why such action should be taken when we are in the process of setting up new machinery to administer a very difficult and complicated area in our economic and productive life, I am not really sure.
The fact of the matter is that most of the producers already had committed their grain to storage, had counted on this subsidy, and then at the last moment it was withdrawn, the only explanation being that those economists whose wisdom seemed to be greater than that of the producers thought the subsidy had no effect in recent years; in fact they said it had not in any way decreased the cost of the feed to the producers themselves. I would argue rather, in a day and age of


increasing costs, that the subsidy may in fact have enabled some of the feed costs to have held the line.
An even more serious occurrence took place a few days ago, when notification was received on or about September 30 that on October 1 there would be a drastic change in freight assistance rates which could mean a possible loss of from $200,000 to $250,000 in the maritime area. No one is as yet quite sure whether this will mean a great increase in the rates. Meetings of feed representatives are being held today in the maritimes, and there will be meetings next Wednesday of representatives of the federation of agriculture to study this situation.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I mention all this only to indicate that it seems a strange thing that now, when we are contemplating these drastic changes in the distribution and cost of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia, we should be doing such massive tinkering with laws and controls which we hope within the next six months will be greatly changed in themselves. I can only hope, as many in the maritimes do, that no more serious changes will be made until there has been a prolonged and exhaustive study made under and by the new board in order that the right assistance can be provided.
I am strongly convinced that one of the reasons the whole feeding and livestock program in eastern Canada has been at a serious disadvantage is that there has been only one agency at work looking after the feed program. That is the Canadian Wheat Board, which is concerned much more with the exporting and handling of wheat from western producers. When I speak today I speak not just on behalf of my own area or the province of Prince Edward Island, which in fact is producing a great deal of its own feed grain, particularly in the matter of beef raising; I think the minister mentioned 80 per cent but I feel the present figure is a little closer to 75 per cent. I am speaking for every maritime area including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, most of which can only produce about 25 per cent to 40 per cent of their own feed grain.
These new policies are of great importance to agricultural producers in the Atlantic region, and they have been far too long in coming. There have been many resolutions initiated by a great number of farm organizations, and the word I have heard throughout
October 7, 1966

the maritimes is that this program must be implemented at the earliest practical time.
There are some fundamental questions that must be raised and there are some disquieting thoughts that come to mind in terms of the kind of policy that will eventually be spelled out in great detail and implemented by this new board. For instance, what are the dangers inherent in a program that may be produced by this board in directing or encouraging a program for vertical integration? What in fact is the size of the operation we are encouraging? Will the policy and program be directed toward encouraging the development of large combines, or is there some thought in the minds of those who have drafted this bill that this will be a great boon to those who are still convinced that the family farm has a role to play and a place in our country? These are things that will have to be spelled out. When will that be done? Will we just gather fragments and bits of information from this new board?
I hope that will not be the case, Mr. Speaker, but that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Forestry, or the Minister of Finance or whoever is in essence the one who devises agricultural policy in terms of people-it is people that concern me-will be able to state at some early date some specific answers to these questions.
I am in agreement with the belief that in terms of many in the maritime region this will make operations that are now just barely viable, successful operations. If this is so, then many of these farming areas can be utilized to the fullest extent and many of the small farmers particularly can extend their herds and make full use of their farms, increasing their grass land.
I also agree with the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) who suggested that we are granting great powers to this board which will be composed of few people, three, four or five. I for one will be greatly interested to see what kind of people are appointed to these extremely important positions. There is perhaps a natural fear, because of past experience, that the kind of persons appointed will be the kind who can only examine cold statistics and who are intrigued by the economist and his slide rule, rather than by the practical experience and knowledge which exists now in various regions that make up this country.
Therefore what may be greatly important to us here in examining this bill will not only be the powers and composition of the board but the powers and the composition of the
Canadian Livestock Feed Board advisory committee, about which I will have more to say later. In this regard I am reminded very sadly of the many advisory committees that have been set up in similar circumstances which have turned out to be nothing more than rubber stamps, comprised of people who lose their local contacts three or four months after appointment.
That is not that kind of advisory committee I expect to see implemented or will press for when we come to the committee stage of our discussions. May I simply say, speaking as a maritimer and as a Prince Edward Islander, I feel in general terms that this bill offers great promise for the farm producers in our area.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, when workers have problems, they go to a labour leader; when we have problems with the mail, we automatically go to someone who was practically born in a post office. Similarly, when we have legal problems, we go to a man of law. We therefore wonder why, when it comes to as important a matter as feed, we must go to a minister who does not know the difference between barley and oats, or the difference between wheat flour and buckwheat flour. Why is it, also, that we must go to the rural representative who is the least interested of all interested parties? Why should this matter of feed be entrusted to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve)?
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In all sincerity, what has forestry got to do with grain, and how will grain be derived from forests? In any event, we are faced with a fait accompli, namely that this minister, a Montrealer, member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, is the one responsible for it. And thus we have before us legislation providing assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
The least I can say is that it is high time that we should deal with this problem, because, as far as feed grain is concerned, we are faced with a major problem and, in my opinion, I believe that the situation is the same at both ends of the country. But as far as Quebec feeders are concerned, and particularly those in my district, livestock feeding is the No. 2 problem, being exceeded only by the problem of taxes of all types.
The ever-increasing taxes are collected by several public bodies that are known by most citizens. But, as for feed grain, the price of grain is a mystery even for the experts.
8454	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
Clause 5 of the present bill provides the means proposed by the board to solve the problem:
Objects, powers and duties.
The objects of the Board are to ensure
(a)	the availability of feed grain to meet the needs of livestock feeders;
(b)	the availability of adequate storage space in Eastern Canada for feed grain to meet the needs of livestock feeders;
(c)	reasonable stability in the price of feed grain in Eastern Canada and in British Columbia and
(d)	fair equalization of feed grain prices in Eastern Canada and in British Columbia.
In clause 6:
The Board may, in furtherance of its objects, (a) make
(i) payments related to the cost of geed grain Storage in Eastern Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member who is now speaking to remind him that when considering this bill on second reading, he cannot refer in his statement to particular sections of the bill. I do not wish to restrict him too much, but in general, I know that he will take this suggestion in consideration.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, I was going to mention that the board will pay grants. May we hope that a grain trade in receipt of more remunerative grants will give better results? Will this announcement of grants not entail a price increase?
We are wondering about it, because following the generosity of the Quebec government in this connection, prices keep rising ostensibly due to a shortage. But it must be admitted that it was a well managed shortage since the customers were finally looked after.
In the last two years, for instance, the price of seed oats has increased by $1.50 per hundredweight following a provincial grant of 50 cents per hundredweight for that class of grain.
Last winter, we all learned about the assistance given to cattle breeders by the federal government, jointly with the Quebec government. Such assistance was granted in designated areas following crop failures due to excessive rain in some cases and to drought, in others.
However, only cattle feed was subsidized and all hog breeders and poultry farmers had to pay the general price increase of 10 to 15 per cent on grain from the week when the subsidies were granted.
[Mr. Godin. 1
DEBATES	October 7, 1966
What part will the board play in such situations? Section 8 speaks of reasonable prices.
Will the minister tell us what he means by "reasonable" and how high the price of grain will have to go before it is considered unreasonable? Will there be price control in this field? Will there be a new method of rationing or a policy of first come first served, since section 16 is a financial clause?
I should like to quote a passage, Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to do so due to my lack of experience. Clause 16 reads:
(1) All expenditures under this act, including amounts required for
(a)	payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation or the cost of feed grain storage made under paragraph (a) of section 6, and
(b)	payment of salaries and other expenses including expenses of administration . . .
shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.
And subsection 4:
No payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under subsection (2) shall exceed
(a)	the amount by which ten million dollars exceeds the balance of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board Account, and
(b)	any amount advanced under section 17.
What amount will the board be able to spend on this program? What scale will be used as a basis for deciding that a certain amount is adequate?
Will that amount be subject to credit restrictions, which have become current these days?
We can quote another statement, contained in the resolution introducing this bill, which reads as follows:
-and when authorized by the governor in council to enter into direct marketing operations in feed grain;
At this point, we ask ourselves: will some dealers be eliminated or will the new board serve as yet another middleman in already too long a list of intermediaries?
We note, as well, that the board will be authorized to made arrangements with a view to ensuring that livestock feeders have adequate feed supplies.
Will the board have men out on the road to find out what the requirements are?
Will the board provide for customers an information service like the one now provided by companies or responsible merchants?
Supposing that, for eastern Canada, the grain purchased before the close of the shipping season would represent only 25 per cent
October 7, 1966

of the expected consumption, would the board cover the risk of filling up the elevators of the areas concerned with, as sole guarantees, the consumption statistics of previous years?
Section 7 says that it shall be the duty of the board to make a continuing study of the requirements in eastern Canada and British Columbia. I hope that the word "study" here is only a word, because the time for study has been over long since and I suppose the minister will understand that now is the time for action.
In the same clause we read that the board will have to make recommendations to the minister and generally advise the government. I wonder whether the government will become very sensitive to recommendations made by its own employees it has chosen and whose names will be on the payroll?
If the government says it is ready to accept advice, how is it that the same government has always turned a deaf ear to representations made in that field by associations of grain and feed dealers, co-operatives and farm unions, as the Catholic Farmers Union?
All these questions make us believe that this board will play a very important and very delicate part. Everything will depend also on the powers given the board and the way these powers will be used.
I hope that all the farmers in the areas concerned with this new board will always receive the information to which they are entitled, and that the board will be really sure it is in a position to meet their needs and that we will have a truly improved policy, because the farmer has been the forgotten man for too long. During election period, Conservatives as well as Liberals have always taken pleasure in reminding him that he is the king of the farm. If he ever was king, we have proof that he has been dethroned for a long time, because as far as finance is concerned, his position proves that he is inferior to the majority of the workers in industry and he is far behind the majority of other professionals.
And in spite of his efforts, there is no way out for him as he finds himself caught between the price he is offered and the one he must accept for his products, and prices have gone up in the past 20 years, in some instances by 50 per cent in the case of grain and 100 per cent in the case of concentrates needed for livestock feeding.
For the last 15 years, the prices offered the farmer for eggs, chicken, turkey or other

Canadian Livestock Feed Board poultry have always been the same. The same thing can be said of meat such as beef, pork and other foodstuffs.
One must say he can hardly do something about it since he is dealing with perishable goods that he must deliver to the market as soon as they have reached the quality required by the consumer.
Such perishable products are none the less essential and farmers have proved that they know where their responsibilities lie.
I am convinced that it is precisely because they have fulfilled their duty too well that governments, regardless of who was in power, have ignored them.
The second reason why I think farmers are forgotten is because they have never honestly considered contributing to the election funds of the old line parties.
But the government realizes, I imagine, that it cannot rely indefinitely on the moral support of the farmers. The march on the Quebec Parliament organized by the farmers has proved that they can listen to electoral promises. But it has also proved that they can get together, between elections, to demand the passing of legislative amendments in their favour.
Therefore, we are anxious to see what this new board will do, and, if need be, we shall make further representations on behalf of this hardworking class which is not asking for charity but only for what is coming to them.
[DOT] (12:50 p.ra.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause from my associates on this side of the house.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: And from the other side of the house as well in at least one case. In rising to take part in this debate I wish to say at the outset that I do not categorically oppose this legislation. I think it has the prospect of considerable merit. In any case, the situation is such that one can afford to be optimistic, because I think there is hardly any field in what one might call agricultural economics where there is more room for improvement than the feed grain program for eastern feeders.
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
I do not want to be repetitious but I think it is well to recall the circumstances under which this policy was first brought into being. I can do no better than quote the minister's own words on this matter when speaking in this debate:
Freight assistance to teed grain and other grain products from the west to points of consumption in eastern Canada and in British Columbia was first started during the war, that is, in 1941.
Later he said:
The program served a double purpose: to expand the feed grain markets for the benefit of western grain producers and to enable farmers in eastern Canada and British Columbia to increase their cattle production.
The measure was brought into being during the war under special circumstances. We are now in the peculiar situation where an emergency program which was introduced under abnormal conditions has been continued long after its prime purpose has disappeared. It has been continued because of the side effects which the original program produced and which were possibly of relatively minor importance. This has left us in the intervening years with a very imperfect feed grain policy, and therefore I should like to say a few words of caution to the minister. This is my chief reason for rising at this time.
Ever since the introduction of this policy the two groups whose welfare seems to have been in the forefront of everybody's mind-I might include in this not only this and previous governments but also the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-have been the western feed producer and the eastern feeder.
There is a third group about whom I am greatly concerned but whose welfare seems to be considered as incidental. Nevertheless this program has had a great impact on them. I am referring to the producers of feed grain in eastern Canada, and I am specfically referring to the maritime provinces. This is of prime importance in the area from which I come. I am in complete agreement with those who wish to ensure that the commercial feeders of chickens or beef or the producers of hogs in the maritimes have a steady, reasonably priced and guaranteed supply of feed grain. But I have a further interest, and it is one which affects individual families even more because there are more farm families producing grain in Prince Edward Island than there are farm families using western feed grain.
This policy which was brought into effect 25 years ago has had a number of side effects over the years, many of which I think were


bad. This has placed the eastern producer of feed grain in a disadvantageous position. The reasons for this are rather subtle. They are small things, but in the aggregate they make it difficult for the producer to compete.
For example, back in the days when this program was introduced in the maritime provinces mechanization in agriculture had not progressed very far. In those days it was not possible for eastern farmers to produce feed grain in large quantities. Now there is at least that potential with full farm mechanization. If I remember my figures correctly, in 1944 there were something like 28,000 farm horses in Prince Edward Island, and by 1950 that number had dropped to 22,000. In 1960 it dropped further to 9,000 and a good share of these were either saddle horses, race horses or children's ponies. Now there are almost no horses used for the supply of farm power in the production of feed grain. Therefore the change in the type of farming in the maritimes has brought no corresponding change in a program which would make allowances for the increased potential in the production of feed grain in the maritime provinces.
In addition, there has been a lack of capital in the hands of potential maritime feed grain producers a chance to get high prices for risking any of the capital in their possession in the production of grain. The market has not been free in the sense of there being fluctuating prices which would give the local producers a chance to get high prices for their products in some years to make up for lower prices in other years.
In practice the situation has been that the costs to the feeder have fluctuated upward only when there was no local supply of grain. That was the only time the costs went up. The local producer therefore was in the situation of having nothing to sell when the price fluctuated upward. However, if the prices dropped down to the level of the subsidized price of imported feed grain he could not sell above that price, so that the importation of western feed grain to the Atlantic provinces tended to create a ceiling on the price the local producer could hope to obtain.
Another factor to be considered is that most or at least a great deal of the mixed feeds for the production of meat in the maritimes is supplied by local mills. Frequently they find it more convenient to have two or three carloads of western feed grain parked on their siding beside their mill rather than look in the local markets for relatively small lots of grain which would have to be bought
October 7, 1966

from individual producers and trucked to their mill. The result is that the local producer is always at a disadvantage. He is always suspected of wanting to sell grain which may have a higher moisture content and various other disadvantages in comparison with western feed grain, and he is never given the benefit of the doubt when he has superior grain to sell. All these factors taken together militate against the eastern producer being able to satisfactorily compete with the imported western feed grain.
What have been the effects of the feed grain policy on maritime agriculture over the years? I would not be so unfair as to ascribe the situation entirely to the policy which has been in effect. The facts of the matter are that although the world population is growing, and although many countries of the world are increasing their agricultural production, Canada is only doing so to a very limited degree.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
In the ten years from 1953 to 1964, the average increase in the physical volume of agricultural production in Canada was at the rate of only 1.2 per cent per year. In the United States this increase was 1.8 per cent. The production of Prince Edward Island did not change. In New Brunswick the increase was only .7 of 1 per cent. The increase in Nova Scotia was 1.2 per cent. We like to think of ourselves as making great progress in agriculture in Canada. We like to think of ourselves as an advanced country agriculturally. Our effort in increasing the production of food over the last ten years compares very unfavourably with that of other countries, some of which we think of as being underdeveloped.
For example, in the same ten year period the average annual increase in agricultural production in Israel was 9.7 per cent. There is a whole, long list of countries ahead of Canada in so far as this increase is concerned. They are Mexico, Tanganyika, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Brazil, Greece, Iran, the Argentine, Chile, Colombia, Pakistan, Tunisia, and then comes Canada. We are away down the list. In that rather sad picture the maritime provinces have been doing even worse than the rest of Canada.
In the five year period from 1956 to 1961, the latest year for which I have figures, the area of improved land in the maritimes declined from 2.3 million acres to 1.8 million acres. In other words, half a million acres of land went out of production in the maritime
Canadian Livestock Feed Board provinces during those five years. At the same time, in the three prairie provinces there was an increase of almost five million acres in the amount of improved land. I cite these figures to demonstrate the great potential in the maritime provinces, especially in Prince Edward Island, for an increase in production. The most obvious place in which this increase should occur, I think, is in the production of feed grain rather than importing so much from the west.
I am in full agreement with having a supply of western feed grain assured at reasonable prices. However, the west should not be looked upon as the source of all grain for eastern feeders. I believe that locally produced grain should be looked upon as the first source of supply and western grain as a subsidiary supply. We in the maritime provinces are in the ridiculous position of producing something like only half the meat we consume. There is a tremendous potential not only for bringing into production hundreds of thousands of acres in the maritime provinces which were once in production but also for increasing the production of those areas now in production.
I should like to quote briefly from a statement made by an official of the Acres Company, Mr. George E. Hunt. He said:
Can the maritime region produce more grain? I have here a chart which shows the effect of limestone on our highly acid sandy soil and just two levels of fertilization on oat yields. These aren't textbook figures but agronomist's data from actual work in the maritimes.
It has been demonstrated that we can have a five-fold increase in the maritimes through the use of fertilizer and lime. If we had even a twofold increase in our grain production on the land that is now producing grain, plus the bringing into production of some of the thousands of acres of land that once formed prosperous farms in the maritime provinces and are now dismal stretches of abandoned land growing up in scrub, there would be a great benefit not only to the feeders and producers of meat in the maritime provinces but to the whole economy of the area.
In closing, there are some recommendations I should like to make to the minister. I recommend that when the advisory board is constituted it have adequate representation of eastern Canadian feed grain growers. I should like to think that a more satisfactory way could be found to give some encouragement to farmers in the Atlantic provinces who would like to produce more feed grain than the mere subsidization of the import of
October 7, 1968

Canadian Livestock Feed Board feed grain. However, if even a small percentage of the large amount of money that is used for a rail subsidy could be transferred to the local grower of feed grain, that would have a very beneficial effect on the local economy and the user of feed grain in the Atlantic provinces who would have his problems met.
X should like to see even a little bit, say 10 per cent, of the subsidy that is now being applied to transfer feed grain from western Canada applied to a subsidy for the transportation of limestone and perhaps Saskatchewan potash to the Atlantic provinces. This would cost the taxpayers much less and it would have a greater beneficial effect on the local economy in eastern Canada. It would meet the problem of the eastern meat producer because he would still have his supply of feed grain. This would not militate to any degree worth speaking of against the prosperity of the western feed grain producer.
The world is now entering upon a period of tremendous increase in population and a corresponding increase in the demand for food. The population of the world last year was about 3.5 billion people. In 35 years it is going to be 7 billion people; that is the prediction, twice the population in only 35 years. It is estimated that food production can only keep up with the growth of population for perhaps 10 or 15 years, and then there is going to be a tremendous demand for food all over the world and therefore a demand for agricultural land and a demand for every means that can increase food production. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the saddest commentaries that there are thousands of once prosperous one-family farms in the maritime provinces which have gone out of production, are growing up in scrub and are going to be needed for the production of food within the next 20 years. It is going to be much more difficult to bring this land back into production a few years from now than it would be to keep it in production.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I should like to commend to the minister a publication of the geographical branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys entitled: "Land Utilization In Prince Edward Island". If he peruses that he will see what I am talking about.
Finally, I would most sincerely ask the minister to give full consideration to the producers of feed grain in the Atlantic provinces and, moreover, - consideration to the

potential of producing more feed grain and solving some of the problems that the ARDA system is set up to solve in order to bring some of the vast areas of abandoned land, especially in Kings and Prince counties in Prince Edward Island, central New Brunswick and many other places, into production. In those areas we hope there will be farm people again living a good life and contributing to the economy of the area.


Auguste Choquette: Just a few words Mr. Speaker. Being the representative of an essentially rural constituency such as that of Nicolet-Yamaska and others in this house, I believe it is my duty to join with those who rejoice at this new bill which is being passed.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that among the promises we had made-I am referring particularly to the November 1965 election-we who ran in rural constituencies, had made very specific ones: the creation of a Canadian milk board, the adoption of the Crop Insurance Act, and the passing of the legislation presently before the house.
And I am convinced that I am simply confirming what the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) was saying a while ago. I am convinced that this constitutes an indisputable asset towards living up to the confidence which our constituents have placed in us, and I am ready to support the statements made by the member for Nicolet-Yamaska with regard to his victory. He is without a doubt entitled to any farming legislation which the Liberal government has brought about.
The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve), who was called upon to introduce this bill, whatever the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) may have said, whatever may be his country of origin, whatever may be the constituency he represents, may not be too familiar with agriculture, but the responsible minister is unquestionably an able administrator, and he should be commended for his excellent work, considering the heavy task facing him, for we know that when he starts something he sees it through.
Mr. Speaker, the objects of this bill is to ensure the availability of feed grain to eastern Canada, to ensure adequate storage space and also to guarantee reasonable prices. These objectives fit in the present situation and are exactly what the eastern farmer has been asking for to meet his urgent needs.
October 7, 1966

Farmers have been requesting such legislations for a long time and today we are happy to say that their request has been granted. All the more so, Mr. Speaker, since recent surveys have shown-I am thinking here more particularly of the province of Quebec-that the production of beef, pork and lamb has declined compared to consumption.
No doubt about it, the passing of this bill will definitely help cattle, pork and lamb feeders and contribute in no small measure to increasing our farmers' productivity and also give the farm product its rightful place in our prosperous economy. Let us therefore welcome this legislation with enthusiasm because we can now go back to our own ridings and proudly say to our constituents that the pledge we had solemnly taken has been redeemed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth) outlined the position which the Conservative party takes on this bill. I agree completely with the points he presented to the house. For this reason it will not be necessary for me to repeat the points which he so ably brought to our notice. But I wish to speak for a few minutes on behalf of the Ontario producer of feed grains who wishes to ship his product to the Atlantic provinces.
We in this party favour strongly the freight rate subsidy which is paid on feed grains produced in western Canada and shipped to eastern Canada, because it helps the western producer of feed grains to sell his product. The subsidy is also of great assistance to the eastern feeder in keeping his costs of production at a reasonable level, thereby making it possible for him to sell his product to the retail consumer at a reasonable price. This is something which is most important at this time of rapidly rising costs and prices in all parts of the country.
In all fairness, I believe that something must be done to assist the Ontario producer of feed grains selling to the Atlantic provinces in exactly the same way as we assist the producer of these same feed grains in western Canada in selling to the Atlantic region. We ask no more, but we demand no less. That, Mr. Speaker, is only fair play.
As the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) ably pointed out a few moments ago, there are instances where the shipper of feed grains, shipping from some point in Ontario to some point in the Atlantic provinces, pays a freight
Canadian Livestock Feed Board rate six times as great as that paid by the producer of these same grains in western Canada. We in Ontario want no more and no less than similar producers in western Canada receive. We think that the subsidy paid on the grains being shipped to the Atlantic provinces is completely fair. We have always spoken in favour of that subsidy and we always shall. But we want an equalization of freight charges on feed grains produced in Ontario and shipped to the Atlantic provinces. This will in no way hurt the producer of feed grains in western Canada. It will be of considerable assistance to maritime feeders because in this way they will get corn, which is becoming an increasingly important feed in all parts of the country today, at a lower rate than they are at present having to pay.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no appreciable amount of corn grown in western Canada. Certainly, none is grown for export. All feed corn grown in western Canada is used for feeding in that region. If Ontario corn receives the same freight rate assistance that other feed grains from western Canada at the present time receive, feed grains that are being shipped to the Atlantic provinces, the maritime feeders will be provided with cheaper feeds for their cattle, which will be of great benefit to them.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
It is interesting to note that today the annual increase in the production of feed grain in Ontario amounts to more than the entire production of this product only eight years ago. I therefore strongly urge the minister to recommend to his colleagues the equalization of freight rates on feed grain moving between western Canada and the Atlantic provinces as well as on feed grain produced in Ontario and shipped to the Atlantic provinces.
This is fair treatment for the Ontario feed grain producers. It in no way hurts western producers and it will be of material assistance to feeders in the Atlantic provinces because they will be able to buy Ontario grain more cheaply than they are doing so at the present time. In my opinion it will be of great benefit to all concerned while inflicting hardship on no one. I believe the recommendation I have made should be seriously considered by the government. I hope they will give it such consideration and bring in an amendment to this bill along those lines.
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part briefly in the discussion on Bill C-218, an act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
This is a subject which has exercised the minds of those interested in agriculture for a long time. Thinking back across the years I can remember some of the debates which took place in the House regarding feed grain assistance and freight rate assistance. The problems which were faced then by the various segments of agriculture both in eastern and western Canada have not changed very greatly. The matters which were raised then are still of vital importance today and some of the arguments and representations being made at the present time are similar to those made years ago.
In this connection I have been checking the various manuscripts and briefs we have received in the past with reference to the establishment of a feed grain agency. I have before me a brief presented by the Federation of Agriculture dealing in considerable detail with the proposal to set up a feed grain agency and making a number of recommendations as to how it should be established and what its duties and responsibilities should be. I also have here a brief presented by the National Farmers Union to the government of Canada in which that organization also lays stress upon the necessity and importance of an agency such as is contemplated in the bill before us. In addition, I have a copy of the report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization relating to the price of feed grain. On page 6 of this document we find this recommendation:
Your committee recommends the establishment of an agency, board or commission, hereinafter called "the agency", to be known as the Canadian Federal Grain Agency or by such other name as may be determined by parliament.
As I have indicated, there has for many years been a recognition of the need to see that prices both in eastern and western Canada should be fixed at reasonable rates and that feeders should be assured of adequate supplies of feed grain. When speaking on this subject some years ago I referred to the fact that in British Columbia feeders were required to pay almost four times the price at which feed grain was being moved in our sister province of Alberta. In Alberta, of course, grain can be moved from one farm to another without having to go through the Wheat Board and adhere to other regulations.
[Mr. Hees.l
The price in Alberta was about $20 a ton while in British Columbia it was approximately $70 a ton. I do not know what the present prices are.
An ironical aspect of the situation was that our people were forced to try to compete with products raised in Alberta and imported into British Columbia. This illustrates the impossible position in which growers in British Columbia were placed. So the whole question of feed grain prices was urgent then and is still a matter of urgency today.
The bill before us proposes to establish an agency to deal with such matters. I shall not go into the subject in detail today but I suggest that the task to be committed to this agency will not be an easy one to discharge. Sometimes we have taken the position that if and when an agency such as this is set up all our problems will be taken care of and it will be an easy matter to iron out the difficulties and remedy the inequities. But the proposed agency will not have an easy task before it. Too many difficulties are likely to arise in the administration of the program and in satisfying the legitimate interests of various regions. I agree with those who have suggested that in view of the wide powers to be conferred on this agency a tremendous responsibility rests upon its members to discharge their duties in a fair, equitable and satisfactory manner.
The duties are outlined in the bill. One of the most important aspects of this legislation is that a continuing study is to be made. With the passing of time circumstances may change. New problems may arise and some of the old ones may be solved. This subject will require continuing attention on the part of the agency so as to see to it that its responsibilities are discharged in a proper manner.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
A great deal depends on the composition of the board, the persons who are to be appointed and their attitudes to the various problems. We also note the fact that an advisory committee is to be set up. In that connection I think I should refer to the suggestion made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture because this is one aspect that must receive careful consideration. At page 13 of the brief presented by the federation on February 23, 1965, it is stated:
Finally it is of the utmost importance that this agency which will be a state institution shall have advisory to it a committee composed of persons who are formally representative of organized farm groups in eastern Canada and British Columbia. Provision for effective consultation with and advice from producers is essential.
October 7, 196G
I have already referred to the fact that this is not going to be an easy task. Regional interests are involved. I have listened to the debate this morning with much interest because one of the factors has been the wide divergence of opinion that has arisen because of regional interests and concerns. These interests are legitimate. I am not saying they are not. While we in this group over the years have emphasized the absolute necessity of agricultural policies applicable right across the nation in comparable circumstances, we also recognize the fact that regions will be affected in different ways by the proposed agency and the application of particular policies.
For instance, there are regions within the prairie provinces which have different views on this matter simply because of the large geographical expanse of that whole area. This morning we heard hon. members speak of the difficulties of producers in Ontario, and just a few moments ago reference was made to the position of the maritime feed grain producers. There are even differences of opinion within the province of British Columbia due to the varied activities in that province embracing poultry, hog raising and beef production.
I mention these things just to point out that the setting up of the proposed board does not necessarily mean that everything will be automatically taken care of and that the problem will be easy to resolve. Its solution will require intensive and concentrated study. It will require a goodly measure of wisdom and discretion.
In general, while we give support to the concept of a feed grain agency we also join with those who have warned the government that because it is conferring such wide powers on this board it must see to it that the very best and most conscientious individuals are appointed to it and to the advisory committee. That is all I want to say at this stage, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give support to the principle involved and to warn the government that the problem merits great attention and consideration.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this bill has been introduced in an attempt to solve one of the most difficult problems in Canada, the equalization of opportunity for those people who make their living from the land. I believe we shall get off on the wrong foot right from the start unless we take a close look at the long-term planning of the Department of Agriculture.
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
It does not take great discernment to detect that there are a great many people in this country, particularly amongst agricultural experts, who have written off the family farm. According to them everything has to be bigger, everything has to be more efficient, and I mean "efficient" in quotation marks. In my opinion there is no efficiency in driving people from the soil. I think, and I believe I always shall, that the basis not only of a happy agricultural industry but of a happy nation must rest on a large and happy population based on its own land.
I sound this tocsin to the government and to the new board, which no doubt will be set up once we have tailored this bill to meet the ideas of some hon. members, that all of our agricultural policies must be based on the stability of the family farm. If the setting up of the proposed board will mean nothing more than the juggling of regional interests -I do not care how efficient they are in juggling them-if it means regional development and that regional development involves bigger and more "efficient" farms, then it will not solve the problem. It will not help to stabilize the living of a family that gets its living from the soil.
This bill envisages a multitude of regulations, and these may be arbitrary. The board is to regulate freight rates, subsidies and quotas, and the bill even refers to the possibility of importing large amounts of feed grain. The bill also contains a number of definitions and refers to assistance for people who raise livestock. Does this mean livestock raised on the family farm or does it mean the wholesale fattening of cattle in stockyards? There is a vast difference between the two, and I would like to go on record as saying that when it comes to a question of government subsidies and government regulations I do not think this type of operation should be developed to the detriment of the family farm.
The primary need is to protect the small producer who has no lobby and no money for lobbying, instituting lawsuits and exerting pressures. He is the man that this whole institution of parliament is designed to protect. He is the little man who has no other voice than that of his representatives in this chamber. I would suggest that it may and probably will be necessary to set quotas on the amount of subsidy which any group or individual may receive from the government.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I do not think it is right for us to sit here and say that out of the taxpayers' purse or

8462	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board out of the income of the small family farmers we should be subsidizing in any way these large or growing companies which are depriving the farmers of their legitimate birthright. As I think I said, the whole basis of this legislation should be to protect the interests of the small farmer who is very efficient in terms of humanity and in terms of the welfare of our nation in the real sense of the well-being and happiness involved in a healthy agricultural community.
There are, however, regional problems which I think should be looked at very carefully. In western Canada, particularly on the open prairies, the farmers depend very largely on one single product, wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board is faced with the problem of trying to stabilize agriculture in western Canada in the one product, wheat. But we have found in our experience that when we meddle with wheat it has a tremendous effect on all the other cereal products raised in Canada. If we sell the whole of our wheat crop abroad, it has a tremendous effect on the prices of grains in our own country.
When this new agency is set up I hope it will work very closely with the Canadian Wheat Board. I can only hope that great wisdom will be brought to bear by this agency on this problem and that the Canadian Wheat Board will not be anxious to denude Canada of cereal grains when these are very necessary for the production of livestock right here in our own country. I hope they will have the wisdom to see that such regulations as may be made with regard to cereal grains will not unduly antagonize the great republic to the south which has many of the same problems we have in respect of production, transportation, storage, and all the other difficulties with which this board will be faced. All these problems are shared by our great neighbour to the south. It may well be that with the best of intentions we may make regulations in this country regarding the feeding of livestock which will seriously affect the whole agricultural industry of this continent and perhaps of the whole world.
I hope also that this board will not be narrow and merely look at the distribution of feed grains. I hope they will take a statesmanlike world approach and try to tie in our policies with regard to the feeding of livestock in British Columbia, and particularly in Ontario and Quebec, with a world wide look at the whole situation in respect of livestock and good world relations. I hope they will put their whole weight and their whole planning

DEBATES	October 7, 1966
behind such things as the world food bank and take a realistic approach to world prices of food, be they cereal grains or feed grains, so that in the long term we do not destroy our good relations not only with the United States but with the whole world merely because we want a quick profit for our feed grain in Canada.
I know they will have these things in their minds but it is going to take, as the last speaker said, a great deal of wisdom on the part of the government to appoint the proper people to sit on this board, people who will look at the problem not only as a great Canadian problem but who will also have the statesmanship to try honestly to settle it in the best interests of all and, more than that, who will be able to co-operate as world citizens and help to develop policies which will help not only Canada itself but also our world relations.
It is stated that the whole problem will be investigated and I hope that means this agency will have wide enough powers to investigate policies starting with the farm right up to world markets so that there will be an agricultural policy which is not merely regional. I think this is going to take some sacrifice on everybody's part. Western Canada is quite willing to raise the grain, but it must also be realized that there are people in Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes and British Columbia who also raise grain and that it would be wrong to concentrate merely on the selling of excess grain from western Canada at any kind of bargain prices in these other areas unless a very close look is taken at the necessity of equality in the places which are importing this grain.
I also see difficulty in the proposal to set up regulations to protect the storage of grain. How is this going to affect the farmer himself? If the small farmer has to compete with a feed lot and the government in any shape or form is paying for the storage, this is a subsidy. I think we should take a look at the idea that perhaps up to a certain quota the farmer should be given some protection or be paid for storing his own grain on his own farm. I do not know the answer to this problem, but in some way he has to be protected against these large groups, whatever the cost in dollars and cents, because in the long haul it will be in the best interest of Canada.
In my opinion any agricultural policy in Canada must be directed at the family farm. When farms are big enough that they are no
October 7, 1966

longer considered to be family farms, I for one am not worried about them. They are big business, and big business always has been able to look after itself. If you are feeding 10,000 head of cattle you can buy in carload lots and you can distribute your labour force much more efficiently. A policy which I think will keep us out of trouble is one which will make sure that we do not subsidize large interests without taking a look at the effect it will have on the small people who have settled on the land.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words also on behalf of the farmers in my riding and support wholeheartedly this government measure, this legislation which has been expected for a few years by those who are the basis of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the creation of that livestock feed board will help keep our farmers on the farms, particularly on economic farms.
At the present time, in my riding, most people are becoming industrial workers but we still have dynamic, hard working, conscientious and progressive farmers who, in the last few years, have done everything to improve their production. They have followed in general the advice given to them by competent people in the agricultural field to improve their land. They have invested money in fertilizers, lime, machinery and everything needed to get a better production, but you no doubt understand that during all that time they always had to bear with the markets which in general were not to then-advantage.
The setting up of the livestock feed board will undoubtedly be a definite improvement but it will be mostly an encouragement for sill farmers; it is truly positive action on the part of the present government to solve their problems.
What does that livestock feed board really mean? It is in fact an equalization formula directly aimed at farmers. Until now we have talked of equalization from one province to another to distribute more fairly the country's income and wealth but now we are approaching equalization with regard to a group of individuals who, as I said before, are the basis of our economy and who have been neglected for many years. Therefore, we 23033-535
Canadian Livestock Feed Board must congratulate the government and particularly the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) because we know that since he came to the house he never stopped fighting to improve the well-being of our eastern farmers and to increase their income.
That decision will surely have an influence on the prices of feed grain since steps will be taken to subsidize transportation, to buy stocks of feed grain and also to store them. But I feel that the most important thing in that legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the power given to the board to make the necessary studies to forecast the availability of feed grain in the areas designated in the act and also the power to investigate prices constantly. That will be to the benefit of the farming community and we can only congratulate the minister on the drafting of the bill.
We find the demands of agricultural organizations hard on the government, but we must understand that those people have good reason to be impatient; it is precisely through this and other present and future government measures that we will succeed in keeping our farmers relatively rich and in maintaining them as the basis of our economy.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few brief comments let me first of all state that I do not believe there is any one problem which personifies the diversity and competitive but conflicting nature of this industry in Canada than the so-called feed grain dilemma. I congratulate the minister for finally bringing forward this bill which has been awaited anxiously by farmers across Canada, particularly those in the east. In the area from which I come there is a very real and particular interest in this feed grain proposal.
The feed grain assistance program which has grown up since the last war and has continued on a transitional basis because of the lack of government policy, has not assisted in the growth of this industry in eastern Canada but has created uncertainties. Because of the loss of the traditional export markets in Britain many apple farmers in our area have turned to raising livestock and poultry. These industries have developed more rapidly.
I think the feature of the bill relating to the establishment of a co-ordinating and advisory board will meet with approval on all sides of the house. This is commendable because of the two-price system which exists in
8464	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board the export and import of grain, and it is to be hoped that this advisory body will be able to create an atmosphere in which one price for feed grain in Canada will prevail.
We must always remember that on occasion subsidies are harmful to those areas they are intended to assist. So far as feed grain crops in Nova Scotia are concerned, there has been an increasing tendency on the part of farmers to rely on the importation of western feed grain. I think there is a controversial question involved in that suggestions have been made that Nova Scotia farmers are beginning to develop their own feed grain crops to meet their own needs. Feed grain crops there often yield from 60 to 70 bushels per acre compared with 17 to 20 bushels to the acre in the west.
We welcome the establishment of this board but we do not want it to discriminate by its policies against the continuing development of feed grain farming in Nova Scotia. The western wheat growers and livestock raisers have expressed the fear that increased feed growing in the east coupled with subsidies will affect their industries adversely. It is interesting to note that, during the period from 1941 to 1961, in spite of feed grain assistance the number of cattle raised in Nova Scotia decreased from over 200,000 to 160,000. In 1964 the number decreased again. So it can be seen that a tremendously thriving livestock industry has not been developed in this area. The number of cattle raised in Nova Scotia in 1961 was 100,000 less than in 1921. While I appreciate the fears of the western wheat growers and livestock producers, with their wide open spaces, there has not been developed in the east, certainly in the maritimes and particularly in Nova Scotia, a cattle industry which could in any way compete. We are still importing cattle and we can hardly even suggest that we are self-sufficient so far as dairy products are concerned.
Perhaps the implementation of this new government policy will provide some stability in the livestock industry so that there will be an increase in production in the east. Government assistance is helpful, of course, to other types of producers. In our area an increasingly important poultry industry, has been developing, but this too has been in a transitional period, particularly in the Annapolis Valley. Farmers have lost some traditional markets. A pork industry has also been developed and the number of turkeys being

DEBATES	October 7, 1966
raised is on the increase. The assistance provided to these areas has had positive and productive results.
Subsidies at times have an adverse effect because farmers may become inclined to rely on them. Some Nova Scotia farmers have without doubt relied too heavily in the past on this type of help. With the stimulus from the Nova Scotia department of agriculture and the different workshops, the Nova Scotia farmer now appreciates that he can himself produce good feed grain, and the adverse, negative effect of the policy may be reduced. But the over-all effect has undoubtedly been positive. Anyone driving through western Nova Scotia and the valley can see that farms that were somewhat down and out 10 or 15 years ago are, because of the transition to poultry and hog raising, now contributing very substantially to the growth and development of the province and this country in an agricultural sense.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
I would hope that in the future the minister, or this board when constituted, would look into the problem of paying subsidies in a sense but perhaps developing a grants system whereby those people in Nova Scotia who want to grow feed grains and have properly drained and fertilized land could be given a grant which over three or four years would help to meet the capital outlay involved in obtaining equipment to dry their own feed. If this were done farmers who have suitable land could be self-sufficient feed grain producers. There are quite a few farmers in the area I come from who have properly drained and fertilized land and could produce feed grains sufficient for their own use and for sale in the Nova Scotian market. I believe the projections show that over 15 million bushels are expected to be required in the future, although at the moment we use only some 9 million bushels. Therefore there is a market and a need for this product.
In this connection the feed grain board could undoubtedly perform a useful function, but in order to encourage growth in this area and not rely completely on western feed grains there should be established a policy for the people who have not the land to continue to obtain feed grain imports, and for those who have the acreage to develop their own feed grains there should be a policy of encouragement which would be beneficial to eastern Canada and all segments of the country.
October 7. 1966

Apart from the question of having something more than a subsidy, which policy has a tendency to be negative, although overall in Nova Scotia there has been a definite positive effect, there should be an incentive for farmers to develop land that is fallow. There should be a sort of hybrid policy whereby the farmer could obtain a grant and invest in feed-drying kilns and equipment in order to process his own feed grain. This type of policy should be developed because the land is there and at the present time much of it could be developed in this way.
The question of storage facilities in the east is a very real problem. For instance, Saint John has not the proper facilities for loading grain and perhaps has not the positive qualities that are needed for a feed grain port. Neither Saint John nor Halifax has the storage facilities for feed grain which we in Nova Scotia need.
I would hope that the feed grain board would look at this problem in an advisory capacity and not concentrate solely on the buying and selling of feed grain. I would hope it would help in the development of storage facilities in the east, which are woefully inadequate at the moment for the ever-increasing market for feed grain. If the feed grain agency is only to buy and sell I think we have to watch, as previous speakers have mentioned, that it does not develop into just another agency that is concerned with costs and charges which are perhaps discriminatory in respect of local feed grain producers. There is room for improvement in this regard. A farmer can not buy directly from the Canadian Wheat Board, which has created many problems for him. Hopefully, the feed grain board will co-ordinate policy and eliminate some of the problems that exist at the present time. It is our hope that the board will be a watchdog over what happens from the time of the sale to the broker in Winnipeg to the time the feed grain ends up in the farmer's hands, because there is a very substantial difference in price between these two points.
However, Mr. Speaker, as a province which is concerned with feed grain more than any other Atlantic province we welcome the setting up of this board. We hope that the people appointed to the board will be truly representative of our area and will work to remove discrimination, keep costs down and co-ordinate policies rather than becoming involved in direct competition with the Canadian Wheat Board in the west. We do
Canadian Livestock Feed Board not want the anomaly of two boards in competition with one another.
In view of our past history and development we believe that the policy of paying subsidies should be directed more to providing grants to help the farmer develop his own feed grain resources. If we were also to develop our storage facilities in the east there would be a real improvement in our agricultural potential. I believe this is a matter the feed grain board should look into. In order that the debate may move on and the minister may close the debate on second reading, I do not intend to speak any longer. In general we in the east, and certainly those of us from the province of Nova Scotia, are in favour of the establishment of this feed grain board for which we have waited many, many years.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house but briefly. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has said that the establishment of this board is very encouraging to the farmers of Nova Scotia, and he certainly speaks accurately. There is no doubt that many of our farmers in particular lines of production simply could not have continued without the kind of assistance that has been afforded them over the last 25 or 26 years by the subsidy on the transportation of feed-stuffs. They are pleased to see that this subsidy is to be given a more permanent aspect by being put on a statutory basis.
I believe they are also pleased by the fact that the board will be given adequate powers to protect their interests as against anyone who might wish to intervene and make an unconscionable profit between the point where the grain leaves the producer in the western provinces and the point where it reaches the eastern feeder.
What I have to say, Mr. Speaker, goes beyond that question. The assistance that is provided is definitely of importance to agriculture as it now exists in our eastern provinces. Moreover, I think we would all agree that there is likely to be an increasing need for agricultural products as the population of this continent increases, and that it is a wise move to anticipate that demand for agricultural products.
Various speakers have mentioned some of the problems that the program, as it has been carried out has raised. For example, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) mentioned the general exclusion of Ontario grown
8466	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board corn, and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned that there may have been times when the assistance on western grown feed grains has acted to some extent to discourage the growing of feed grains in the Atlantic provinces. He proposed certain very interesting approaches to the solution of that problem.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I want to suggest to you, sir, that perhaps we should look further. I am wondering whether it would not be worth while to see if this money might not be more efficiently and perhaps more fairly expended by moving the point of assistance from the transportation link to that point at which the eastern producer brings his product, whether it be hogs, chickens or the like, to the market. If this were done he could find his feed wherever it is most economical to him, whether it be western feed grains, Ontario corn of his own produce. He could make that choice by his own lights and yet he would be encouraged and assisted in the production of the agricultural products that we need.
This would be a difficult approach to work out. I do not think there is any point in denying that the details would have to be examined meticulously, but I do want to suggest that it is an approach which, along with those mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), might well be explored to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is getting full value for the money that is being put into this kind of assistance and also to ensure that eastern agriculture moves ahead to provide Canada, this continent, and even the world with that increasing supply of agricultural products for which there will be an increasing demand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I must remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, before closing the debate on second reading of Bill No. C-128, I am pleased to point out that all those who took part in the debate up to now have understood very well the complexity of the problem and have raised several interesting points.
I do not intend to reply at length to every suggestion made. At the committee stage, it will be possible to go over every question in detail. Suffice it to say that I generally agree

DEBATES	October 7, 1966
with the members about the nature of the problem. Apart from certain partisan remarks made now and then, the debate actually dealt with the essential problem.

Yesterday a member of parliament-I think it was the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson)-spoke about the feed grain dilemma. It is a dilemma and has been one for many years, and until we have a national agricultural policy arrived at by agreement between the provinces and the federal government we will find ourselves in a difficult situation when we consider only one aspect of the problem, namely, the feed grain transportation subsidy to farmers in eastern Canada and in British Columbia.
Certainly the bill that we are now discussing has been in the minds of people for many years. As I said last night, in 1963, following the defeat of the then Conservative administration, there was a government notice of motion on routine proceedings and orders of the day in the name of the Minister of Agriculture proposing the creation of such an agency. A House of Commons committee then studied the problem and presented a report on March 22, 1965 proposing this legislation. The farm organizations of the country, as will be remembered by many hon. members, approved the principle of the legislation, and after first reading on June 30 the bill was widely distributed all across the country, so that everyone is familiar with its contents.
(Translation)
The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of this Canadian livestock feed board is a step forward in the development of a more rational agricultural policy for the country as a whole.
Nobody will dare claim that the passage or enactment of this bill will solve all problems. I believe we will a have a working instrument which will enable us, in the end, to make a more comprehensive study of several of the proposals advanced yesterday by hon. members.
Will there be any possibility of allowing Ontario corn growers and eastern feed growers to participate more efficiently in the program?
Must we promote a policy allowing eastern growers to grow their own grain? Must we try to change the feed transportation cost payment system, as suggested by two or three hon. members? All this remains a possibility. And I am pleased to note that members ask
October 7, 196G	COMMONS
themselves the same questions as the officers responsible for the administration of this act have asked themselves for the last three or four years. The reports prepared and the studies made raise the same type of problems that hon. members raised here, today and yesterday.
I am pleased to find also that we all have about the same line of thought. The principle of the bill has been endorsed by all hon. members, at least by all those who spoke; of course, there have been some genuine reservations here and there, and I hope I will have the pleasure of overcoming them when in committee.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
On the whole, there is no disagreement between the position of the government and that of all parties of the opposition on that bill. However, I feel bound to lay emphasis on two or three interventions, not only on the principle or the subject matter of the bill, but two or three interventions on particular problems which we may not have the opportunity to discuss in committee.
Two or three members have mentioned recent announcements by the feed grain agency or administration about the abolition of assistance to storage program in eastern Canada. We have paid in the past three years, one million two hundred thousand dollars for storage costs during a certain part of the year in warehouses of eastern Canada.
We have realized after perusing statistics that the payment of storage costs did not have the anticipated effect, namely it did not help to reduce cost fluctuations during wintertime and stocks accumulated in warehouses during autumn and winter were not so much different than those of previous years.
In our opinion, the special policy of subsidies involving $1.2 million intended for the payment of storage announced by the government has not had the effect that was expected. And we do not see why we should continue to ask parliament to vote such a large amount without being able to determine clearly who benefited.
On the other hand, since March, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway are offering the brokers in the Atlantic provinces some arrangements for the transportation, over twelve months per annum, of such quantities of grain required by the farmers in three of the four maritime provinces. If we had maintained the payment of the storage costs in
DEBATES	8467
Canadian Livestock Feed Board winter, we would have discriminated against railway transportation in favour of water transportation. And as the whole brokers in the maritime provinces have signed agreements with the railways, we are sure that winter storage will decrease, that the quantities of goods stored in Halifax, N.S., and Saint John, N.B., will diminish, and so that there is no more need to pay in winter the sum of $1.2 million.
There has also been a certain reduction in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, in the payment of transportation costs. This is due to the fact that allowances granted previously for transportation costs were greater than actual transportation costs. This problem is not new, but it has become more obvious since we allowed truck transportation, and since competition between railway and maritime transportation has increased.
I have here complete information on the new rates and, in all cases, do we not pay practically all of the transportation costs? That is, the new rates absorb what we consider as transportation costs, absorb the whole cost of transportation. Certain areas in the maritimes were granted two dollars, which is one dollar and fifty cents more than the actual transportation costs.
It is obvious that this will contribute to a higher price for feed grain, since we had been granting indirect subsidies to certain areas in the maritime provinces, until now.
Members will understand that we decided to apply the same standards in eastern Canada and British Columbia with great regret-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the minister permit a question at this point, since he has responded to some of my comments and those of some other members on two important points? With regard to what the minister has said about overpayments, does he realize that his figures or those produced by his economists are somewhat in conflict with the figures produced by the farm organizations dealing with feed costs? I have been in communication with them this morning and they assure me there is a real conflict.
While I am on my feet may I ask the minister if he can tell us why such a recommendation for this change was made at this time rather than six months from now when, hopefully, the new board will be in operation and we can adopt a comprehensive policy in relation to these many problems?
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: The people who were interested in this problem were informed and, in fact, we met with them in Ottawa.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When was that?


Maurice Sauvé: It must have been about a month ago. There is a difference of opinion about what constitutes the cost of transportation. According to our definition, ever since 1941 the cost of transportation has only covered transportation by rail, by truck or by water, without any handling charges. Some people in the maritimes argue that we should also cover the handling charges at one end or the other because these are included in their own definition of the cost of transportation. I have no disagreement with this definition, but I say this is not the definition that has been accepted by the feed grain administration since 1941. We have paid only the cost of transportation without handling charges.
The second difference of opinion we have with some people in the maritimes is about the total transportation costs as related to the subsidies to specific provinces. Originally we had planned to reduce the payments on mill feeds but because the flour mill established somewhere around Halifax will not be completed before next summer we have not implemented that part of our proposal. This is specifically for Nova Scotia; it is special treatment for Nova Scotia. According to our own calculations and our own definition, the reduction in subsidy would be about $87,000 for the province of Nova Scotia. We agree that this is a reduction, but it complies with our definition and with the fact that we cannot favour one region as against another. Everybody is now at the same level in all the provinces of Canada which benefit from this subsidy.
Why have we done this now? We had been discussing with the maritime provinces for three years the problem of reducing the transportation subsidy. Every time there was an argument that this was not proper or that we should wait. We felt that before creating an agency we should make sure that the agency started with a clean bill and not have to implement policies based on inequalities in existence before the agency was created. We have based this on the fact that the agency will very probably revise the outlook on the transportation subsidy on western grain. If the agency wants to be free to re-examine the policy, it should be free of all the barriers that we find in terms of transportation costs which are higher than the real transportation


costs. Politically it would have been much easier not to have moved in any direction. We felt that since the agency was being created it should have a free hand to do what it wanted, having received from us a situation in which there was no discrimination. These are the reasons for correcting these inequalities, which I think my friend will agree were inequalities.
Evidently, because we are not overpaying transportation costs, some farmers will be affected and their costs will go up because they were receiving an additional subsidy from us, contrary to the thinking behind this subsidy policy.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I make a request of the minister, Mr. Speaker? For the information of members, could the minister have appended to today's Hansard a list of the rates to which he has referred? I am sure it would be very useful.


Maurice Sauvé: If the house is in agreement, I will do so with pleasure.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: I take it it is agreed that this is to be added as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to above see appendix.]


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further question to the minister. There is one thing I am not clear about. There has been considerable disagreement about the revising of these rates. It is said that they have been in effect since 1941, under these criteria. I submit that somewhere along the line the criteria must have been altered or else the program has been inadequately administered. I do not think that is what the minister meant to imply. Is the minister suggesting to the house that a new set of criteria has recently been established?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker. There have always been the same criteria with respect to the transportation cost and with respect to feed grain administration. The transportation cost and the administration cost are not the same. The transportation cost has been defined by some of the maritime unions, co-operatives or farm producers. There is disagreement about the definition, but the policy has always been the same since 1941.
October 7, 1966	COMMONS

Mr. Speaker, to answer a definite point raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), I should like to correct a mistake in his interpretation. I do not want to labour the point, but when the Association des meuniers de la province de Quebec called a special meeting about ten days ago in Drummondville, it did so on its own and, as far as I know, no members or politicians were invited to the meeting, which was in no way partisan.
This, Mr. Speaker, I think ends more or less the general comments I wished to make before we begin to discuss in committee each clause of this bill.
I will avail myself of the discussion on each clause to answer more specifically any questions the members may have asked during the debate on the motion for second reading.
I should like to thank all the members of the house for the interest they have shown in this bill and for the useful comments they made during the debate.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, before the minister sits down would he answer a question? I could have made a speech, but perhaps it is easier to obtain the information I want if I pose a question. There is some concern about the adequacy of storage facilities in parts of the maritimes. As an example I mention Halifax. Have the minister and his officials consulted the National Harbours Board in the case of Halifax, or other agencies with respect to those places outside Halifax, to see if there are enough facilities to make the act work in practice?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have regular meetings with the agencies concerned. This year, because of agreements between the railways, brokers and feeders, there will be less need for large storage space because feed will be carried from Fort William by rail. The pressure has been diminishing very substantially for this coming winter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to pass the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
DEBATES	8469
Canadian Livestock Feed Board [English]
On clause 2-Definitions.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 2 carry?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 of Bill No. C-218 deals with definitions. One definition of primary interest to farmers in the areas affected by this legislation is in paragraph (i) which reads:
"livestock feeder" means a person who raises livestock in eastern Canada or British Columbia;
There are differences of opinion so far as those engaged in agriculture are concerned about the term "livestock feeder". May I inquire of the minister at this time if his interpretation of that definition is that "livestock feeder" includes those commercial establishments or feed lots the sole purpose of which is to buy cattle in large quantities and feed them on a commercial basis, as opposed to those enterprises which primarily are and can be classified as farm enterprises?


Maurice Sauvé: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. The definition covers all groups of people.


John Angus MacLean: I have one brief question with regard to this clause. Subclause 2 of clause 2 reads:
Unless otherwise provided, words and expressions used in this Act have the same meaning as in the Canada Grain Act.
I presume that this means, among other things, that the crop year referred to later in the bill will be the same as the crop year in other legislation.


Maurice Sauvé: That is exactly correct.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (e) of subclause 1 states:
"designated area" means that area comprised of-
And a number of areas are given. I note that the Peace river district and another district are included. Does this mean that these particular areas are to receive the same treatment because the major part of their agriculture has to do with the production of feed grains as in the prairie provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Board established.
Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a few questions to the hon. minister.
October 7, 19G6

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Auguste Choquette: There will be some French Canadians-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere has come to the stage where he can read somebody else's thoughts; I think he has enough trouble reading his own written ideas without venturing as far as that.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to ask the minister whether he has already chosen the members of the livestock feed board and whether, in making that choice, he examined the good advice given by organizations representing the working class.


Maurice Sauvé: You mean the agricultural class. No, Mr. Chairman, nobody has been chosen; I have nobody in mind for the time being, but as soon as the act is proclaimed, I will start consulting with farming organizations, milling associations and everyone else concerned with the problem.
The house knows that we lost the services of the director of the feed grain administration, Mr. Lavigne, who went back to Quebec where he accepted an important position in the Quebec department of agriculture. He is a remarkable and extremely able official. But the provincial government's luck is the federal government's misfortune. He is largely responsible for the new spirit in the administration of feed grain. He is a very able farm economist, accepted by everyone and we will have great difficulty in replacing him in the federal administration.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, as the minister showed his intention of taking advantage of good advice which might be given to him, would he assure the opposition that they will have the opportunity to submit names?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, if members have suggestions, I will accept them with pleasure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a question on Clause 3 because the board which is to be appointed will be an important one with exceptional responsibilities in the early days of the administration of this act. We do not expect the minister to be choosing people to serve on the board at this time, but could he tell the committee what kind of professional qualifications and experience he will be looking for when considering appointments? Can he give us an outline of the type of person he is looking for?


Maurice Sauvé: We would certainly look for a person who is familiar with farm problems and farm organizations. We would be looking for one who understands the trade problems and for one who understands agriculture economics. A minimum of three qualified persons would, I imagine, be essential for the administration of this law. I do not think that from the beginning there will be three fulltime members. The chairman will perhaps be appointed full time and the others might become full-time members after first being appointed part-time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My question is similar to that asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I should like to find out where this board fits into the bureaucratic and hierarchical scheme of things in Ottawa. Where does it fit into the pecking order of government operations? What is the pay scale projected for the members of the feed board and how does it rank compared with that applied to other organizations such as the Board of Broadcast Governors?


Maurice Sauvé: I do not understand the question. Could the hon. member clarify it? Is he asking whether this is to be a government appointment or whether it would go through the Civil Service Commission?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No. I was interested in the salary scales for the proposed full-time chairman and the other members of the board.


Maurice Sauvé: I have no idea.


Harold Warren Danforth: I wish to be painfully blunt because this is a question of major importance and because I am concerned about the way in which this administrative board will commence operating. I want to be absolutely sure that the members of this board will be chosen on the basis of their excellent knowledge of agricultural conditions, not because of political affiliation. This is something which concerns me just as it concerns the farmers. We should like to know whether these men will come from the civil service or whether straight government appointments will be made. It is my feeling that upon the selection of these men will depend the success or failure of the entire scheme. If the agricultural industry has no confidence in them, this measure cannot work. I should like some assurance from the minister as to the manner in which they will be selected.
October 7, 1966	COMMONS


Maurice Sauvé: I think the way in which the members of the Council on Rural Development were selected is a precedent for the attitude I take in appointing people to boards or to advisory committees. The main preoccupation is with competence, ability. I hope the hon. member does not feel there is no ability among people who support the Liberal party. This has nothing to do with partisanship. We try to get the best people we can.


Michael Starr: From among the Liberals.


Maurice Sauvé: I am interested in seeing this board functioning as a result of the help of all interested organizations-farm groups, growers, millers, co-operative groups and so on. Generally speaking I will seek their advice. I am sure the names which will come forward through them or through members of this house will be those of people who have the ability to do the job and who also have the respect of the farming community.


John B. Stewart: My question is related to the one raised by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.). I am not especially concerned about the matter of political affiliation because I think the minister has shown that he is able to detect ability regardless of political colouration. My point is this. The minister has mentioned the milling interests and the trade. He has told us that initially at least the board will not consist of three full-time members. I should like some assurance that the chairman, or those members of the board who are full time from the beginning, will not represent primarily the milling interests.
I say this not because I have any extraordinary hostility toward the milling interests or the trade. But the purpose of this legislation is to help feeders in eastern Canada and in British Columbia. I should like an assurance that the man selected initially on the full-time board will be one whose experience and training has made him fully aware of the problems and the interests of British Columbia and eastern feeders.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Generally speaking I would be inclined to recommend to the government the appointment of people who represent the farm interests, not the interests of brokers and so on. I have not yet made up my mind as to what would be the best combination. I will await advice from the various groups I have mentioned and I hope the recommendations I shall make to the government will be acceptable by all interested parties.
DEBATES	8471
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
It may surprise members of this committee that I have not been interested in this measure in terms of who should take these jobs but rather in terms of the principle and of the working arrangements. Once these are settled I shall, with the advice of others, try to find the best people for the job.
Hon. members will appreciate that the natural chairman of the board would have been Dr. Lavigne who was the administrator of the feed grain program until he left about two weeks ago to accept the position I mentioned in Quebec. So I was never preoccupied about who would be the members of this board, because he seemed to be the man who would naturally assume the biggest share of the responsibility and the team would have been built around him. Now that he has left we shall have to shop around for the best qualified people.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


John Angus MacLean: If I understood the minister correctly, he said that at the beginning it was not anticipated that there would be three full-time members. That means there will be some who will be part-time. Does the minister have in mind members of the board who would have some interest in private business or in farm organizations, or does he have senior civil servants in mind as members of the board?


Maurice Sauvé: No, they would not be civil servants. They would be persons from the farm organizations.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, a simple remark. I do not know whether the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) was too timorous, but I will take the risk to express a remark which I thought he would put forward. I would recommend to the minister the appointment of five instead of three members, for the good reason that, evidently, it is always very delicate to raise the language question, but it would be advisable to have French-speaking members on committees like that one.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the linguistic question, of course, always causes sincere concern, but has any thought been given to geographical representation on the board? With respect to what was said by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) about part-time members, it seems to me that in
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board dealing with such a complicated subject they are in the initial stages going to run smack into some of the problems which were discussed in this chamber yesterday and today. I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere is right in saying that the five should be appointed on a full-time basis. However, I am more interested in geographical representation because this problem cuts across the whole fabric of our country.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, we will take into account the geographical representation of members of the board. Hon. members should note that there is also an advisory committee, so that either directly on the board or on the advisory committee there will be enough seats for the appointment of a large number of people representing all regions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am still confused about the mechanics of this thing. The minister said that apart from one full-time member the others would be part-time. What did he mean by that?


Maurice Sauvé: Clause 3 provides for the appointment of not less than three nor more than five members of the board. Our intention was that initially we would appoint three members to the board but the chairman would be full-time. If the work then developed in a way that more than one full-time member was needed, we could appoint one or two other full-time members. Members would be part-time in the sense that they would not be working eight hours a day at the board headquarters. Only the chairman would be doing that.
After examination we may find we shall require three full-time members and possibly five full-time members who will give all their time to the work of the board, but we have been advised that for the time being one full-time member should be enough. I have given a straight answer to the question. I do not yet know how it is going to work in terms of personnel.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do not want to get into a detailed examination of the mechanics, but the appointment of one full-time member and four part-time members gives me cause for concern, for two reasons. If part-time means a day a week or so many days in a month, in the case of many people who might have something to contribute they would have great distances to travel and this arrangement could militate against regional representation.

Second, if four members are appointed on a part-time basis, completing the complement of five, it must be noticed that the next clause says members shall hold office during good behavior. I have not been long enough around here to know what good behavior means, but these persons' appointments could be for a long time. If the minister wanted to appoint two or three more members on a full-time basis and did not want to elevate part-time members to that position, how would he dispense with them?
I am also concerned about the kind of relationship that will exist between a fulltime chairman in day to day contact with a very complex situation and part-time members. In such a situation I can see no difference between being a part-time member and being a member of the advisory committee.


Maurice Sauvé: I personally have no objection to having at least three full-time members appointed, and if this seems to be the wish of the committee I shall take it into account, but our intention was to proceed by experience and see how the thing developed and if there was need for other appointments. However, if this is the wish of the committee I have no hesitation in endorsing it.


Mr. Moore:: Can the minister assure us that a representative of the western feed grain growers will be appointed so that their interests will not be overlooked?


Maurice Sauvé: I cannot give any assurance on who will be appointed because I have to consult the farm organizations and the various bodies which I mentioned previously. It also depends on the ability of the people proposed. It is impossible for me to say at this stage that we will take one from one organization, group or interest. Appointments will be decided on the basis of the ability and competence of people and their connection with the feed grain industry.


Harry Andrew Moore: I was not referring to any organization but merely to the farmers who grow feed grain in the west.


Maurice Sauvé: There might be an opening for such an appointment on the advisory committee but I would doubt that this would be possible on the board itself.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to clear up something about the three or five members of the board. Does he intend to have at least five members at all times or to appoint only three?
October 7, 1966


Maurice Sauvé: I think that at first we will appoint three members and later if the work load warrants it, we will be authorized under the legislation to appoint two more. I have just committed myself before the house to appoint three members at the very beginning. I had thought that one might be enough but it seems that some hon. members feel that three are needed; personally I have no objection to appointing three right from the start. I think that we will begin with three and, if need be, we can always appoint another one.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, in case there should be only one member, namely the chairman, appointed full time and the other members on a part time basis, would the minister tell us, unless he feels that it is not the right time, what salary will be paid to the members of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what salary will be paid to them.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Tenure of office.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to inquire of the minister why the government felt it was necessary that these persons should be appointed during good behaviour. This is almost tantamount to a lifetime appointment. In a major piece of legislation like this, which deals with such a large segment of the agricultural industry, I feel that such an undertaking on the part of the government is perhaps unfortunate. Representatives of the industry are very much concerned about the demonstrated ability of such men and whether or not the regulations are effective in curing the particular problem with which this legislation is concerned.
I should like to ask the minister whether he would consider, as in the case of the committee, that members should be appointed for a definite term of years and that a member may be reappointed instead of being appointed in this way. I think there are many men holding appointments in which they have a tremendous amount of responsibility who are appointed for a definite period of years and not at pleasure. Would the minister explain why he feels this is necessary and tell us whether he would consider a definite term of office?
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: I am not sure, but I think the same formula is used in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think there is some parallel between the appointments in respect of members of this board and the Canadian Wheat Board. I know that this formulation corresponds to the usual formulation for the majority of boards of this nature. We had no special reason for using this formulation rather than another. This was established in accordance with the establishment of other boards of the same nature.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have read this clause three or four times to try to get the exact meaning. Is it correct to say that persons who are hired for a number of years actually enter into a contract with the government for that period of years, whereas this clause provides an opportunity for persons to be removed by the Governor in Council for just cause if unable to carry on, and so on? Is this not to the advantage of the government and more flexible?


Maurice Sauvé: It is certainly more flexible. I agree with that.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask for some clarification. This might have been more appropriate on the previous clause but I think it has equal application to this one. In this clause it says that the vice chairman will act as chairman in the absence of the chairman. This brings to my mind the question of a quorum or, if you like, what number of members of the board is required for the board to transact business. I have read the bill through and have found no reference to this. Would it be possible to have a situation where if only a permanent chairman is appointed he could act as the board all by himself? What is the minimum number of members of the board which is required? I notice that in the case of the advisory committee they have the power themselves to determine what their quorum shall be, but I see nothing in this bill to cover this particular point.


Maurice Sauvé: I do not have the answer. I will look at the bill and try to find out.


John Angus MacLean: I am sure I can assume that if the minister finds there is a technical deficiency in the bill he will undertake to correct it before we get out of committee.
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, you will find that in clause 13. It states that a majority of the members constitutes a quorum of the board.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to ask the minister why the age of 70 years is provided for in clause 4. There seems to be some contradiction, because in industry generally, and even in the civil service, there is a tendency to set the retirement age at 65 years. It seems to me, therefore, that for this particular board, it would have been logical to try at least to follow the same policy being tentatively applied in other spheres of society. I feel, therefore, that to mention the fact to the minister is to secure his co-operation so that the retirement age will be lowered from 70 to 65 years, in accordance with the general trend at this time.


Maurice Sauvé: I think it is a compromise between the retirement age established within the public service and the retirement age set for judges appointed by the government. Public servants must retire at 65 and judges at 75 years of age.
I believe there is no other reason for suggesting 70 years as a retirement age.


Mr. Mongrain:: I suppose the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) would not apply that principle to the leadership of political parties.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No, Mr. Chairman, because the member for Trois-Rivieres would come to maturity too fast.


Harry Andrew Moore: Mr. Chairman, I should like a little more assurance from the minister that the passage of this bill will not put western feeders of livestock in a more unfavourable position compared with eastern livestock feeders. I am all in favour of aiding our eastern friends, but I still have not heard this assurance. This is the reason I brought up the subject of representation from the feed growing areas in the west. Would the minister give us that assurance?


Maurice Sauvé: I told the hon. member that on the advisory committee we probably could appoint somebody who would represent the feed areas of the west.


Mr. Clermonl:: Mr. Chairman, the minister just gave the assurance more or less that there would be a member from western

Canada on the advisory committee. Could he also speak to his colleague and make sure that we will have a member representing eastern Canada on the Canadian Wheat Board?


Maurice Sauvé: I will convey that remark to my colleague.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Objects.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, clause 5, outlining the powers and duties, makes mention of the abilitity of the board to operate in eastern Canada. Yet in clause 2(f) I notice that eastern Canada is defined as all that part of Canada lying east of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur, and it is also provided that the board will operate in Manitoba. This has the effect of bypassing my constituency of Kenora-Rainy River.


Harold Warren Danforth: You are a westerner.


John Mercer Reid: Yes, but unfortunately for us the operation of the board stops at the city of Port Arthur. The Canadian Wheat Board stops at the boundary of Manitoba and there is a no man's land there of around 500 miles which is a rather substantial farming area. I should like to see this area included either under the eastern board or the western board. It does not matter to us, but it would be more convenient for us to be under the western board because in an agricultural sense we are attached to Manitoba. I think we should either be included in the eastern section or that the western board should take over.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: If the riding of the hon. gentleman is still in Ontario it is covered by clause 2, paragraph (f) which says:
"Eastern Canada'' means all that part of Canada lying east of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur and such other areas in Ontario as the governor in council may designate:


John Mercer Reid: In that event, will the minister guarantee that this part of Ontario will be brought under the board?


Maurice Sauvé: That all depends on whether or not you decide to form another province.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman,
having regard to clause 5 and the objects of the board as they are listed, it seems to me
October 7, 1966

there is a deficiency in that the board is not required to take any cognizance of the effect of its policies on the growing of feed grain in eastern Canada. At least, I draw that conclusion in reading this clause.
So long as feeders have a guarantee that feed grain will be available, that there is sufficient storage space to meet their needs and that there is a reasonable stability of price in eastern Canada and in British Columbia, with a fair equalization of price in both places, then the responsibilities of the board are satisfied. I can visualize a situation, however, where in that limited sense the board might be functioning efficiently but causing a detrimental effect to agriculture in eastern Canada. Perhaps this clause should be amended or the minister should at least give his assurance that the board will understand that it is to meet these obligations in a way which will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of eastern agriculture in its entirety.


Maurice Sauvé: I think this is clearly implied by the wording of clause 5. The hon. member will notice that we do not qualify the origin of the feed grain. I think the objection he has mentioned, the problem he raised earlier on second reading and the problem raised by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) are generally answered by clause 5 dealing with the objects of the board. Certainly that was the clear understanding and intention we had when this legislation was being drafted.


John Angus MacLean: I thank the minister for that assurance. I mention these facts because to the average Canadian feed grain means western feed grain. The impression has certainly been in the minds of feeders in eastern Canada that western Canada is the only real source of supply. That is not the case.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether we can expect consultations between the livestock feed board and the authorities of the eastern provinces and British Columbia as well as representatives of producers in order to establish the needs of each area concerning feed grain?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, it is the normal responsibility of a feed grain board to cooperate with all concerned to make sure that there will always be enough grain to feed livestock, as defined in the bill.
Canadian Livestock Feed Board [English]


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister agrees that agriculture in the lower St. Lawrence area will become more successful as a result of the studies carried out by the Eastern Quebec Planning Board. In view of that, and in view of the fact that the climate there does present some drastic difficulties to the agricultural industry, can the minister tell us whether there have been any determinations made as to the location of storage facilities? He did say some time ago that agreements were being made at this time to transport feed grain by rail. Does he not think that in respect of some of these areas it would be possible to create a lower price if the grain were shipped by water? Does the government intend to acquire land for storage facilities?


Maurice Sauvé: It is the function of the board to decide what is best under the conditions the hon. member has mentioned. The bill provides for the acquisition of land and for the building of storage facilities, but generally speaking I think we must accept the fact that the building of storage facilities at various locations throughout the countryside would add to the cost of feed grain to the farmer. Negotiations are being conducted now between the millers and the railroad companies which might solve at least in part the storage problems referred to earlier. In any case, the board will have the authority to acquire land and will make decisions in respect of problems such as the hon. member has raised. It will be for the board to examine local and regional situations as they develop.


Mr. Schreyer:: In carrying out its obligations and duties under clause 5 of the bill, will the board be able to purchase feed grain directly from western points or from the Wheat Board? Is it conceivable that the board could engage in direct purchase or acquisition of feed grain-I do not think the minister has elaborated on this point-or is it intended that the board will function by dealing with brokers and distributors in the trade? Perhaps it will operate by doing both.


Maurice Sauvé: If and when the board decides to engage in the buying and selling of grain it will act as a broker and will buy grain on the Winnipeg grain exchange. It can do so only by special order in council which would authorize the board to operate in this way during the remaining part of a season.

October 7, 1966
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps clause 5 relates as much to the powers of the board as to its objects. I think the situation regarding large commercial users of feed grain and integrated operators in eastern Canada is a matter of concern not only to the government but to western producers of livestock. If the object of the board is to assist the filial farms, if I may call them that, or the small producers who depend on the production of livestock for their living that is one thing, but if by setting up these regulations, subsidies and so on the majority of the benefits will go to integrated operations to the detriment of the local livestock producer in Canada I believe that the board will have defeated its own purpose and will do a disservice to Canada rather than a service.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Therefore I wonder whether the minister would consider the institution of a system of quotas for the purchase of feed grain that is subsidized. I am not suggesting that such a system be included in the statute we are now setting up but perhaps it could be included in the regulations. There is certainly plenty of precedent for quotas in the operation of a public board of this nature. Everyone in Canada who is familiar with grain buying and selling knows very well that in the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board very severe quota restrictions are set up so that the total market is evenly distributed among all producers. At the beginning of each season, regardless of the size of the farm, whether it is 100 acres or 5,000 acres, a certain number of units are authorized for delivery. At the present time I believe the quota is something like 400 bushels of wheat or 100 units, each unit being worth 4 bushels and 6 bushels of barley or whatever the product happens to be. This system does in fact distribute the benefits of this public corporation.
I have no objection to integrated, commercial users of feed grain or anyone else setting up business in eastern Canada if they think they can produce economically for a market, but I think it would be unfair if they were to make large profits because under laws passed by this parliament they received subsidies which were intended to help the small producers. After all, Mr. Chairman, it is pretty elementary to realize that we are not making the best use of our manpower and other facilities if we are shipping cattle from western Canada to the east and paying freight on the live animals, on the feed and so on. The
[Mr. Sauve.l
cost involved in this operation is higher than is the case when the cattle are raised and the feed grain is grown in the same area.
I have no objection to some form of subsidy or assistance being paid to the smaller, bona fide livestock producer. However, I would hope that we will not find ourselves facing a real problem, namely, that of large commercial users deriving the greatest benefit from the payment of this subsidy. If this were to be the case, there would be very serious objection from the beef producers of western Canada by reason of their having to compete with a subsidized operation in another part of Canada, particularly when that subsidized operation is not part of the regular farming community.
I say to the minister also that this is not simply a philosophical or academic problem. It is happening. There are large beef producers in western Canada at the present time who have acquired feed lots far enough east so they may buy subsidized feed. Instead of feeding their cattle in western Canada, where it is most economically done, they are taking the cattle that would ordinarily be fed there and shipping them to the feed lots in eastern Canada because they can buy subsidized grain. Because of the proximity to the large markets of Montreal and Toronto it is more profitable for them to do this. The reason it is more profitable is that the public treasury is subsidizing them.
While I do not think this practice is widespread at the moment, I can see that if we do increase subsidies for the purpose of assisting smaller farmers it will become a widespread practice and will defeat the whole purpose of the bill in that this type of competition will be encouraged. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether he is giving consideration to the distribution of a quota book or permit book such as is used under the Canadian Wheat Board, whereby a farmer can buy so many tons of subsidized feed, or will some other method be instituted to ensure that the aim of assisting the smaller livestock producers in eastern Canada will in fact be achieved?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, we are as much concerned about this problem as the hon. member for Medicine Hat. We are concerned about very large feeders using public funds for their benefit. Certainly through the regulations of the board it will be possible to cope with these problems either by establishing quotas or restricting the application of policy in a different way as between the large
October 7, 1966

feeder and the family farmer. I am very preoccupied by the fact that some large operators have been deriving the majority of their profit from the subsidization of transportation costs under the formula that exists at the present time.
I an sure the board will consider this problem and come to the same conclusion as the hon. member, because I have also been concerned with this situation. This problem has been discussed with the administration of the feed grain assistance program, and we feel that when the board is established it will be able to cope with it effectively.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that he is cognizant of this problem and is looking for ways and means of solving it. He also said he is confident that the board will find ways and means of coping with the situation and will perhaps institute a system of quotas or some other method of dealing with the problem. Would the minister care to tell the committee what other methods the government has in mind for solving the problem, after the discussions that have taken place to date?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I cannot elaborate very much more on this point. I have been exploring this problem with the feed grain board administration. I would not want to say any more in this connection because until I have more precise information I can hardly state my views on the method that will be used.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Medicine Hat the minister said it would be possible under this bill and the regulations to come to grips with the problem which has been outlined. But that is rather different from saying that it is the intention or inclination of the government to come to grips with it. I should like to support with all the emphasis I can muster the comments made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. This legislation can be of considerable benefit to the bona fide small farm operators of eastern Canada and British Columbia. But unless the government is prepared to implement some kind of quota system under this legislation or, as an alternative, unless it is prepared to give a more precise definition of the term "livestock feeder" so as to exclude in whole or in part the factory-type feed lot operation, the legislation will lose its benefit in so far as the small, bona fide farmer is concerned.
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
In my opinion it would be unfortunate in the extreme if the legislation were to be adopted and applied in such a way that it allowed the factory-type operation or the vertically integrated type of operation to benefit to the same or a greater degree, because of large volume, as the people this legislation is really intended to benefit most, namely, the small, family-type farming operation. Could the minister be more precise and say that it is not just a case of the government possibly doing something in this respect but that it is their intention to do it? o (3:30 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: It is my intention to examine this situation in the light of the preoccupation of the hon. member for Springfield and the hon. member for Medicine Hat. How we will determine the kind of policy that will be most effective I cannot say at the moment because we have not yet come to any decision on the system that will be used. But I am preoccupied with the problem presented by the large, integrated operator who derives practically all his profit from the subsidy received on the shipment of feed grain. I am, just as you are, trying to find out how we can cope with this for the benefit of the small operator or the farm family operator.
[Translation\


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Chairman, one of the objects of the board is to guarantee the availability of feed grain to meet the needs of livestock breeders and the minister announced recently that the assistance to storage would be discontinued. A few minutes ago, he told us that most millers of the Atlantic provinces had entered into agreements with the railways. I wonder whether the board will be in a poistion to undertake its work in January or February 1967 and whether the Quebec farmers can be assured that feed grain will be available in eastern Canada or in the province of Quebec during the winter of 1967?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have every reason to believe that there will be a sufficient quantity of grain to meet the needs of the province of Quebec during the fall and winter period.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In the event that there should be a lack of feed grain at a particular time, can the minister give us an assurance that those who have to buy feed grain regularly will not be taken unfair advantage of? It is very nice to hear the minister say: "Yes, we
October 7. 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board will do this", but has the minister any specific measures in mind and action to be taken to force speculators who, at all times, want to take advantage of some scarcity to increase prices to farmers, and consequently to consumers?
Each year, in the past, there have been fluctuations in the grain supply, and invariably, it has always been the farmer who has had to suffer. Therefore, I make a particular recommendation to the minister that he give immediate consideration to the adoption of the necessary measures ensuring that farmers will not find themselves at the losing end once again in this matter.
I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the minister to give particular attention to the recommendations which were made a few moments ago by the members for Springfield and Medicine Hat (Messrs. Schreyer and Olson). It is unfortunate that in the past so little attention was given to the family farm. Without a family farm, particularly in eastern Canada, it would be very doubtful that we would be in a position to keep the farming industry operating on a sound basis. Therefore, it is high time for us to see that the large industrialized farming concerns are not the ones who will benefit the most from our feed grain legislation. Special arrangements must be made to ensure that the small family farm is protected at all times. The need is pressing and the minister must give the matter his whole attention. As I said a while ago, I fully agree with the statements made by the hon. members for Springfield and Medicine Hat (Messrs. Schreyer and Olson).


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, the problem of feed supplies is obviously a major problem. I trust the establishment of a Canadian Livestock Feed Board will enable us to meet the situation should there be, by chance, a considerable decrease in supplies next winter, specially in the province of Quebec.
Nothing at the present time leads me to believe that there will be a shortage of feed grain in the province of Quebec in the coming months.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have read the clauses of that bill, especially clause 5 which deals with the powers given to the Canadian livestock feed board and there is one thing I would like to call to the attention of the minister and ask him to elucidate because there does not seem to be a clear answer in the bill.
[Mr. Ricarci.J
The commissioners who will be appointed, the members of the Board, if they are men of vision, will want to provide for the prosperous and the lean years that can be expected. The story of the fat years and the lean years in the Bible has been repeating itself since the beginning of time. So the members will probably concern themselves for instance with experiments made by research boards, public or private, to improve the land and possibly reclaim land which is not very suitable for that kind of farming.
To illustrate clearly what I have in mind, I will give the minister one example. For instance, a company recently discovered that if it is possible to raise poor quality farm land because it lacks enough humidity and to spread under it a layer of asphalt, 3 or 4 feet deep, to retain the humidity, the production, the yield of the acreage can be changed completely. That is an experiment which could be useful and interesting to prevent lean years, if need be. There are others also.
I would like to ask the minister if that board will be empowered to apply on a large scale the results of positive studies or will the board simply have to consult the Department of Agriculture to do such things? Or will the board be able to obtain from the government the authorization to conduct an experiment on a larger scale after the initial research has given positive results?
Again, to prevent lean years, will it be the responsibility of the board to ensure that feed is available to meet the needs of livestock feeders, and not only for the current year? 1 imagine that it will want to provide for the coming years also.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the board must make sure that feed grain is available to meet the needs of livestock feeders, so the board can certainly favour any action of the kind mentioned by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). He has already told me about it and 1 find it very interesting.


Harry Andrew Moore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not only do I share the concern of the hon. members for Medicine Hat and Springfield but I do not feel we should be asked to vote on a bill without any real or concrete assurance that the problems they mentioned will be dealt with.
I have a further concern and that is about the relative positions in which this bill will place the eastern and western feed growers.
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
It must be remembered that the western feed growers are far from markets and this naturally places them in a relatively poor position. Has the minister looked into this problem of what difference this bill might make to the relative positions of the eastern and western livestock feeders?


Maurice Sauvé: Inasmuch as the actual policy is to pay the transportation cost of the feed grain from Port Arthur and Fort William eastward or through British Columbia, the position of the western feeder will not be affected as long as the same policy applies. The problem that you raised is a much larger problem than the one posed by the creation of this feed grain agency. It is a problem of national agricultural policy which I mentioned earlier, but which is not the objective of this special bill on the creation of the feed grain agency.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister two questions. In the first place I should like to ask him whether I am correct in my understanding that the operation of this act is intended to apply only to the movement of feed grain by rail transportation to eastern Canada, or whether the act in its operation will also cover the movement of such grain by water? For example, I am thinking of movements from Fort William and Port Arthur into the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Quebec city and for that matter Montreal.


Maurice Sauvé: It is not restricted to one means of transportation. All means of transportation are open and they all come under the authority of the board.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the minister for that assurance.
My other question, Mr. Chairman, relates to distribution centres. Have the distribution centres for the different areas been already chosen or is this to be decided upon by the board upon its establishment?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: No decision has been taken on this, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: I should like to support the contentions and arguments put forward this morning by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), to the effect that the producer of grain in southwestern Ontario should have his interests adequately protected. Ever since the feed grain freight subsidy was established back in the war years, the
producers of grain in southwestern Ontario, which is an area of very substantial feed grain production, have been operating under a serious handicap.
The feed grain subsidy on grain imported into that area, which competes with the locally grown product, amounts to about $5 per ton and this, in turn, amounts to about a quarter of a cent per pound. Now, a bushel of wheat weighs about 60 pounds, so the decrease in price which the farmers in the area can expect on their feed wheat is about 15 cents per bushel. A bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds, so there will be a reduction in price of 14 cents there. A bushel of oats would be reduced in price by 8.5 cents and a bushel of barley by 14 cents. There is no surplus of oats or barley produced in that area, but there is a substantial surplus of corn and of wheat produced in that area.
Now, I should like to point out to our western colleagues that at least some of the cost of operating the wheat board is carried by the government. The wheat produced in Ontario is a special commodity in that it is soft wheat and not much used for bread purposes but is used in the production of pastry flour. However, only about one third of the wheat produced in Ontario can be used for this purpose and approximately two thirds of the production of Ontario wheat has to go into the feed market. Over the years, this surplus wheat produced in Ontario has had to compete with feed wheat shipped down from the west under approximately free freight. The wheat producers in southwestern Ontario have this 15 cents a bushel handicap.
There is a great deal of corn produced in the area and corn is in direct competition in the feed markets with barley. Therefore every bushel of corn produced in that area also suffers under a handicap of 14 cents per bushel. There has been no great complaint about this handicap on corn and wheat over the years because much of it is fed in the area. However there is a substantial surplus of corn and wheat which must be marketed.
The Wheat Board of Ontario which markets this soft wheat deducts 15 cents per bushel on every bushel of wheat grown in the area which the board markets. The cost of marketing this surplus wheat is paid by the wheat producers themselves. There have been requests made through our standing committee on agriculture for some provision for carrying this surplus corn and wheat further east in Ontario and further east in Canada where it is marketed for feed purposes. I
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board should like to ask the minister, and to have his assurance, if it is intended under this new feed grain board to protect the interests of the producers of feed grain in southwestern Ontario? Have any provisions been made whereby the interests of these producers can be protected?


Maurice Sauvé: The answer is affirmative, Mr. Chairman.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: The minister has replied in the affirmative. May I ask him now how it is proposed to put these producers of feed grain in southwestern Ontario in a more equitable position with the producers of feed grain on the prairies?


Maurice Sauvé: It will be the responsibility of the board to devise methods which will comply with your request.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (c) of section 5 concerns reasonable stability of prices. On what will this stability be based? Will it vary according to seasons, crops or the cost of living?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, stability will of course be dependent upon purchase prices quoted on the Winnipeg stockmarket or upon the cost of feed grain produced in eastern Canada. Market fluctuations will have some bearing on stability. It is not so much a question of the board establishing what prices will be, but of trying to prevent too much fluctuation in prices from one month to the other.
It is a known fact that, in the past, as soon as the navigation season closed, feed grain prices have fluctuated enormously, and it will be the responsibility of the board to try and prevent such fluctuations by taking suitable steps. But I do not think it will be its responsibility to determine either purchase or selling prices.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Powers.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, clauses 6, 7 and 8 deal with the tremendous powers that are going to be vested in this board. I am wondering if the government has had adequate consultation with the provincial governments with regard to some of these powers, which seem to overlap powers given to provincial marketing boards? These powers

deal with responsibilities in both jurisdictions. They deal with the administration of products that could conceivably be under both jurisdictions. I should like to go through this clause rather slowly, because I should like to ask the minister to make explanations, owing to the very important principles involved. I would request at this time an adequate explanation of the feeling that the government has, and the interpretation that the government makes, with respect to the various parts of this clause under discussion.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For example, as the hon. member for Middlesex West pointed out, we are most concerned about the equality of rail transportation with respect to Ontario feed grains. Under clause 6 (a) (ii) we have:
-payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation, to or for the benefit of livestock feeders-
But then there is this inclusion:
-in accordance with the regulations.
I am interested in this, in view of the minister's answer that it would be within the purview of the board to look into and study the feasibility of the equalization that we, in Ontario, are determined to have.
May I ask the minister if, in his considered opinion, the board will have the power to make such equalization, or is it considered that the board will only study this problem, and make such recommendations as it may see fit to the government, with the government then, after giving the matter consideration, making its decision in this regard? If this is the course of action to be followed, a matter like this could take months, or years. We are very much concerned that something be done in the immediate future, because such action would immediately lower the price of feed grain to eastern farmers, particularly where Ontario feed grains are concerned. This is one of the principles I should like to draw attention to. Similar thinking applies to the rest of the bill.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I have said repeatedly that the board will have the same authority to deal with the problems of corn and grain producers in Ontario as it has with those in other provinces. The interpretation we have given to this act deals with these problems. As hon. members are aware, for almost two years there have been meetings between the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the feed board administration with respect to ways and means of subsidizing the
October 7, 1966

transportation cost of corn-and particularly of Ontario corn. Because of technical difficulties any solution has not yet been implemented.
The administrative body concerned, before this bill was introduced, had intended to solve the problem of the inequalities with respect to grain transported from Port Arthur to local feeders in eastern provinces. Transportation costs have been paid on grain from the west to the maritimes, but not on grain produced in Ontario.
I am hopeful that we will be able to cope with this problem, and come up with a solution that will satisfy the hon. gentleman who has spoken, and the hon. member who was just mentioned. I am aware of the difficulties. The problem is a serious one not only for Ontario corn growers, but also for many of the maritime growers.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, may I go further. Am I to understand from the minister's statement that the government in effect is turning over to the board in question the power of forming government policy, to the extent that under clause 6(a) subparagraphs (i) and (ii) this board shall determine (A) whether or not payment of cost to storage in eastern Canada shall be made, and to what extent, and (B) whether or not payment of the subsidy on grains moving out of Ontario may be made, and to what extent such payments may be made? Will this board have the authority to initiate such authority, and will it be able to demand a fee and make payments?


Maurice Sauvé: This is possible, according to this measure. The hon. member must have noticed that it is mentioned in the bill that there has to be concert in order to implement the recommendations of the board.


Harold Warren Danforth: I realize this.


Maurice Sauvé: It is possible. What the hon. member mentioned is possible.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Following the discussion that has taken place under clause 6 (a), with respect to where the board will be authorized, in furtherance of its objectives, to make payments relating to the cost of feed grain storage in eastern Canada, and also payments relating to the cost of feed grain transportation, may I ask the minister if there is any intention on the part of the government, and particularly on the part of the minister, to increase these payments. I think something
Canadian Livestock Feed Board like $1 million a year was paid for storage during the past two seasons. Is it the intention to increase these payments, and will the increase depend on the port the grain is shipped to? In other words, are there any increases with respect to one or other of the two areas contemplated at the moment?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Richard Schreyer: At the risk of imposing on the minister's patience may I ask him to clarify further clause 6 (a)? When the board is given authority to make payments related to the cost of storage, and the cost of transportation, is it intended that these payments will be completely recoverable, or only in part recoverable? Will there be a subsidy, or what will be the situation? Because if it is intended to give the board power to make such payments that will be recoverable only in part, from the selling price, it would amount to the granting of the power to subsidize. I do not think that that is intended.


Maurice Sauvé: We are talking about two different kinds of operation. The policy now is that we are paying for storage and transportation costs. If the agency has to buy and sell, it will have to recover all its expenses. It cannot, under the bill, sell at a lower price than it pays. There is no danger of the situation the hon. member mentioned arising.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Am I to understand from that, Mr. Chairman, that the powers of the board are such that any subsidy, or any difference in such costs, would be authorized by the government? Otherwise it seems to me that the board is under the strict requirement to recover the full price of the grain, when it sells it.


Maurice Sauvé: This is so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question with respect to paragraph (d), which reads:
The Board may, in furtherance of its objects, . . .
(d) conduct negotiations for the obtaining of licences (for the importation of feed grain into Canada for use outside the designated area and, within the provisions of any such licence obtained in its name, contract with feed grain dealers in Canada for the importation of feed grain by them into Canada under the terms of such licence.
Mr. Chairman, anyone reading that will realize that it is an involved clause. I should like the minister, if he will, to explain the mechanics relating to the operation of this clause, because I have read it several times
8482	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board and I find it quite difficult to understand what is intended. I would appreciate some explanation from the minister.


Maurice Sauvé: Up until this moment, the Canadian Wheat Board has granted licences for the importation of wheat into Canada. It is not inconceivable that the Canadian Wheat Board may want to deprive itself of such powers, relegating them to some other agency of the government. The clause is worded this way because we do not know what the Wheat Board will do. Until now the Canadian Wheat Board has had authority to import grain into Canada.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That means negotiations
would, in this case, be carried out with the Wheat Board?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to seek amendments to the Canada Grain Act or to the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that this power can be transferred to the proposed federal grain agency.


Maurice Sauvé: The only thing I can say is this: The information I have is that the Canadian Wheat Board would have no objection to depriving themselves of this authority to control imports to eastern Canada.


Harold Warren Danforth: This brings up an interesting point. Is it not conceivable that in order to obtain the cheapest possible price for feed grain in eastern Ontario the agency might request a licence to import grain offered for sale by a foreign country such as the United States. At the same time a supply might be available through the Canadian Wheat Board at a higher price.
This is why I pointed out this morning that it is of great importance to know where power will be vested in granting importation permits, and what the government's thinking is in this regard. It has a direct bearing on market prices in Chicago and on the availability of feed grain in eastern Canada. How does the government propose to handle this extremely delicate matter?


Maurice Sauvé: It is the Canadian Wheat Board which has the authority to grant these import licences. What will happen I do not know, but we have had an indication that there will be no objection to delegating it in this instance for this particular purpose. Evidently

DEBATES	October 7. 1966
it should not be possible for one government body to have power to deprive another government body of the opportunity of achieving its aims. We cannot think of any policy which would be followed by one organization contrary to the interest of another under the same government.


Harold Warren Danforth: I do not wish to labour this point, but has the minister not now drawn attention to the very situation I had in mind? The exercise by the Wheat Board of its power to control imports might be detrimental to the objects of this new agency, which could find itself unable to import grain at a much cheaper price than the price it would have to pay for grain grown in Canada.


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member should bear in mind that the agency will not normally engage in buying and selling operations. If it were to do so it would do so as a broker and would have to buy through the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which comes under the Canadian Wheat Board which, in turn, controls all grain imports into Canada. The same circumstances arise with respect to corn. Corn enters Canada uncontrolled, because there is a tariff. It is the same situation.


Harold Warren Danforth: I can appreciate the minister's approach to this question. He has told us the agency would be dealing with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. Is it not also a fact that under the terms of this bill a purchasing agency could be designated to buy local supplies of home grown feed grain or to import foreign feed grain without using the services of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange in any way?


Maurice Sauvé: I do not think this has any bearing on the broader problem. In so far as the Canadian Wheat Board decides it no longer wishes to control the import of grain into Canada, it has nothing to do with the larger problem at all.
The brokers who normally deal in this field will act as they normally do. We have nothing to do with that. The problem does not arise with the agency, but with the Wheat Board. It is the Wheat Board which will decide whether or not it wishes to give up this power over the import of grain. We have nothing to do wtih that, so the situation will not be affected at all by the existence of the feed grain agency. This is clearly stated in later clauses.
There is really no problem in terms of conflict between the two bodies. The federal grain agency does not buy from the Wheat
October 7. 1966	COMMONS
Board. When it does, it goes on the marketplace as a broker. There is no source of difficulty with respect to the matter the hon. member raised because it is the Wheat Board which will decide whether they wish to give up their power, or not, or whether they will allow imports to come in or not. The agency will not be buying and selling.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I rise to support paragraph (d). We have heard suggestions that the Wheat Board should divest itself of its power to control the international movement of grain. If this were to happen I believe it would be most unfortunate. In my opinion anything which would fragmentize the control exercised by the board over this kind of grain movement would be unfortunate. I do not know who is asking for it-whether there is any pressure on the government, or on the Wheat Board to divest itself of this power; but I for one certainly hope it will not happen.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to raise one question concerning subclause (c) which reads-
Allocate space reserved for its use in any storage facility among persons requiring feed grain storage facilities in Eastern Canada.
At present, of course, it is the Board of Grain Commissioners who have full authority to allocate space in all the terminal elevators, at least those along the seaway, and perhaps in other elevators or storage places in eastern Canada. I am wondering if this allocation of space will be an authority directly invested in this board over some of that same storage, or whether there will be an allocation of space in so far as the kind of grain and where it came from are concerned, after the Board of Grain Commissioners have designated the space for the export of wheat and for other grains. Will they have the authority directly to order designation of space in some of these terminal elevators?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Once the Board of Grain
Commissioners have determined in a certain year that so much space should be reserved for feed grain for local consumption, then inside this our board could allocate space for various needs, taking into account pressures, prices and so on.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question follows the one asked by the hon. member for Queens earlier, who inquired about an incentive or stimulant for local production so that there may be no discrimination under this bill against people
DEBATES	8483
Canadian Livestock Feed Board who produce their own feed grain. Clause 6 says that payments by the board will only be made for storage and transportation. Is there any clause in the bill to help stimulate the growth of feed grains in eastern Canada and British Columbia? If more feed grains could be produced by the provision of drainage and fertilizer, then the problem which this bill is supposed to meet would be solved.
This business of continuing subsidies can be a drain, can have a negative effect. Over a period of three years, depending on the size of the unit, a producer could pay for his own draining and drying equipment. I cite the case of a grain drying unit costing $16,000 which could handle 1,600 tons of grain. That grain is subsidized at approximately $12 a ton, and the subsidy on 500 tons would cost the government $6,000 a year. Thus over a period of three years, out of the subsidy the farmer could pay outright for his draining and drying facilities and thus need not be a charge to the Canadian taxpayers forever and a day.


Maurice Sauvé: In answer to similar questions, I have already explained that the problem of the production of corn and grain in Ontario and the maritime provinces was under consideration. There is provision in clause 6(a) (i) and (ii) to assist with this.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The only reason I ask is that
it specifically sets out payments for storage and transportation, and adds "in accordance with the regulations." Why could we not set this out specifically in a subclause?


Maurice Sauvé: It is because of the origin of the subsidy. It was originally a transportation subsidy, so that the amount of money parliament grants for it has to be related to transportation now. There are methods that can be used to relate transportation costs to locally produced grain and corn, but the principle has to be the transportation costs.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Transportation could be from your feed grain plot to your drying and cleaning mill, right on your own farm.


Maurice Sauvé: I have answered some previous questions about this. Studies are now being conducted into the matter. I am as occupied as is the hon. member with the problem of the local producers of corn and grain, and we are about to come to grips with it.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister has been patient with me, but I hope he will bear further
8484	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board with me because I have some major questions to ask about clause 6(g) dealing with the authority of the board to require any persons engaged in any segment of the grain business to furnish information on request dealing with the workings of their business, the costs they pay, their selling price and profit, and the charges for the various services they render.
My uneasiness arises because this bill in effect incorporates most or all of the powers that are normally found in provincial marketing schemes. It deals with the power to buy, sell, store and transport grain, and it requires individual segments of the industry on request, "by order served personally or by registered mail" to open all phases of their business transactions for inspection. This is found in provincial schemes as well, and is not strange; but this bill gives power to the board whereby it can designate individuals or companies to act on its behalf as its agent or agents.
In other words, under this provision the board could designate an agent in Ontario who in effect would purchase all the feed grain necessary to meet the lack of supply in eastern Canada, and on the other hand can designate a single agent or agency to sell all that is needed to the trade in eastern Canada. I view these powers with a great deal of uneasiness because we have seen the havoc wrought by such powers given to marketing schemes in Ontario, where they worked to the disadvantage rather than advantage of certain segments of agriculture. But there is a tremendous difference between this and a provincial marketing scheme. In a provincial marketing scheme the particular segment or commodity group involved has the prerogative to request or reject participation in such a scheme.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Here, Mr. Chairman, the significant difference is that if this bill passes, all commodity groups dealing with grain, and all segments of the trade, will have the regulations foisted upon them by the will of parliament without having the opportunity to show by a vote whether or not they feel this is desirable at this time. I am well aware that such agencies as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farm Union, and other segments of the industry across Canada, are very desirous to see legislation passed which will accomplish the ends pointed out in the principle of this bill. I fear however that the trade, when reading the different regulations

DEBATES	October 7. 1966
and realizing the extreme power vested in this board, will be very unhappy over the absolute dictatorship which is possible; it perhaps is not premeditated and perhaps is not contemplated, but I say that under the wording in this bill and under the powers vested in the board such actions are possible and feasible.
I should like the minister to give to me and to the house his interpretation of just exactly the way in which he feels this board will administer. Will it be possible for them to designate an agency to sell; can they confine it to an individual company, a group of companies, or a co-operative; are they in a position to designate to this degree? If not, can the minister point out to me a clause or provision which hinders the board taking such action?-because this could drastically disrupt the entire grain trade. This is one part I am very much concerned about. I would hope the minister would deal with this at length.


Maurice Sauvé: This is just to enable us to act as a broker if need be, and after having been authorized so to do by order in council. But when we act as broker we act as the normal trade acts. We do not sell directly to anybody. We are just one of the brokers among a number of large brokers, and the grain acquired is distributed through the normal channels of the trade. We do not go further than that. There is no provision, other than the authorization we have to act as a broker. If I understand your fear correctly it is that we might, in place of the people who are in the trade, act directly as salesmen to the individual farmer. This is not provided in this bill.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, if I may pursue this further, the minister's interpretation is as he set it out in his initial speech. My point, however, is that although this is the intent of the minister, under the provisions of the bill as it is constituted this board does have the absolute power to designate an agency to act on its behalf and to designate an agency to buy or sell. The minister speaks of a broker on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. I can understand that particular segment of the transaction; but I would hope the minister contemplates that if there should be a scarcity of supplies in the east this board will consider purchasing grain from Ontario or from Quebec as the case may be. Certainly this grain is not offered for sale on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. There may be in the maritimes pockets of excess grain that
October 7. 1966	COMMONS
the board may wish to acquire and move. This cannot be done by a broker on the Winnipeg exchange; but it can be done under the bill, if the board designates an agency to act on its behalf under the power which is given in clause 6(i), where it says the board may-
-authorize any officer or employee of the board or any other person to act on behalf of the board In the conduct of its operations under this act.
So, I maintain-although this is not the interpretation given to it at this time by the minister-that the board under the terms in this bill is given absolute power to designate individuals, companies, or segments of the trade, to act on its behalf. I suggest that this could be to the detriment of the rest of the industry. Can the minister assure me that this is an incorrect interpretation and can he show me where those powers are not contained.


Maurice Sauvé: This deals with the powers of the employees of the board. The board will have authority to hire employees who will have power to act under authority of the board. I think the hon. member is giving to this clause a much broader interpretation than is there. This relates to the duties of the board, and the board undoubtedly will have some employees who will act under the authority of the board. There is no other intention. What the hon. member fears was not the spirit in the drafting of this particular clause.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Minister, the reason 1 am labouring this point is that some marketing schemes are set up in almost identical terms, including such a power; and I fail to see that if, in the wisdom of the board, they felt that such a situation existed, they could be curtailed in any way, with the absolute power given them in these terms, in doing just what I pointed out. So far as the trade or the producers of feed grain in eastern Canada are concerned, I cannot see where their interests are protected. In subsequent clauses we will see some things which amplify the powers given in clause 6(i).


Maurice Sauvé: I do not see the difficulty. I am giving the hon. member assurance that I think this pertains only to the employees of the board in the normal discharge of their responsibilities. The hon. member is giving a much wider interpretation than I do to this particular paragraph.


Harold Warren Danforth: Although I give a much broader interpretation-and I admitted at the first that I would be speaking of extreme
DEBATES	8485
Canadian Livestock Feed Board powers which the board could take to itself under this measure-can the minister assure me that anywhere in this bill there is anything which would prevent such action on behalf of the board, which is in effect a marketing scheme set up under the federal parliament.


Maurice Sauvé: If the hon. member would read clause 8(2) he might have an answer there to his problem.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let me return to the constitutional point raised by the hon. member and say first of all that I appreciate the minister's concern. I do not intend to indulge in a long discussion of this subject, as I realize the minister has put in a long afternoon, but quite frankly I am not satisfied with his answer to my earlier question.
Having had some experience before the bar I have some understanding of statutes and I am afraid that what the minister said regarding a mechanical process to provide some stimulus and incentive to eastern farmers to grow feed grain will not in fact be the case as far as this bill is concerned. Perhaps the minister would consider and accept an amendment to clause 3 along the lines suggested in order that payments could be provided in support of the growing of feed grain in eastern Canada. I believe this to be the way efficiently to stimulate the growth of feed grain. I feel strongly enough in this regard that I am prepared to move an amendment, but I would ask the minister to consider this situation seriously.
Similar anxieties arise in respect of the provisions of clause 6; but in view of the minister's assurance that consideration is being given I do not intend to say a great deal about them. I do hope that, instead of leaving this clause with its present obtuse language, there will be some attempt made to spell out the intended meaning in relation to transportation and storage payments so far as feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia is concerned. Surely that would alleviate some of the fears expressed by individuals in the east and other parts of the country.
We should adopt some measure to provide a clear incentive to the administrators of this measure to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, in order that the production of feed grain will be in closer relation with the raising of beef cattle.
October 7, 1986

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
I appreciate the history behind the introduction of this measure-to get away from the paying of subsidies by stimulating local growth. Over a period of years I am sure this will be the most effective way of providing an answer to our problems.


Maurice Sauvé: I must suggest that the problem the hon. member is raising is only a problem because we are and have been paying subsidies on transportation costs for the movement of western feed grain to the maritimes. If no transportation subsidy was being paid there would be no problem, so far as moving feed grain from Port Arthur and Fort William to eastern Canada is concerned. On the basis of the hon. member's argument, we must assume that local producers of feed grain and corn could compete in all Canadian markets.
I suggest the hon. member's problem is related to the transportation subsidy being paid on feed grain, and that inasmuch as his problem is related to transportation subsidies, we have the authority to solve it without having to amend the act.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Without prolonging this discussion, let me suggest that we should have some clear and obvious indication that some effort is being made to remove this whole problem from the sphere of subsidies, about which many of our members have reservations. Let us put this whole thing on a constructive basis. I appreciate the minister's interpretation and understanding, but unfortunately some of our courts, and others, will take a different reaction to this bill. I am afraid that, so far as the solution to some of these individual problems is concerned, decisions will be made, by unauthorized officials, the result of which will be a lack of stimulus or incentive to the growth of eastern feed grain.


Maurice Sauvé: My suggestion is that this whole problem exists because the federal government has paid this transportation subsidy since 1941 and that, had there been no such subsidy, there would be no such problem. I do not see how we could amend the act in the way the hon. member suggests to meet his purpose. It is my belief that, as a result of the provisions of the clause he has mentioned, we will find other methods of providing the assistance necessary to satisfy his proposition and that posed by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.).
The problems the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings referred to relate directly to the transportation subsidy that has been paid since 1941, and would not exist, I


suggest, had we not paid the subsidy. By accepting an amendment such as he has suggested we would be acting contrary to the intention of the act in terms of its relationship to transportation costs. We are studying this problem and hope to find some solution to the difficulties he has outlined. This problem has been referred to by various corn growers in Ontario.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I should like again to refer the minister to the powers of this board and the implications of clause 8 (2), which deals with the disposal of feed grain. I am concerned because these powers as outlined will allow this government appointed board to do almost anything it wishes regarding the feed grain trade, right from production to disposal.
Let me refer to an extreme situation. By virtue of the powers of this board, as envisaged in the bill, the board could designate a sole purchasing agent, selling agent, storing agent and transportation agent in every eastern province and in British Columbia. This board by virtue of the proposed powers could designate one trucking company as the sole transporter of feed grain. In this regard one need only read clause 9 in conjunction with clause 6 paragraph (k) which states:
The board may, in furtherance of its objects, . . . generally, do and authorize such acts and things as are necessary or incidental to the attainment of the objects and purposes of the board and the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties.
Unless the minister can convince me otherwise, this gives the board in its wisdom the power to control by directive every segment of the industry.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: I do not understand that point, Mr. Chairman. Obviously laws should be as perfect as possible when they are drafted; but I cannot see this extreme case developing, under our system. I do not understand how we could amend the clause in a way that would satisfy the hon. member.


Harold Warren Danforth: I admit that I am quoting extreme cases. I am quoting them for the purpose of illustrating that there is, without doubt, extreme power vested in this particular board. Although these are the most extreme cases that I can think of, will the minister agree with me that under the provisions set out in this clause it is conceivable and possible that the board does in effect have the very power to which I have referred?
October 7. 19G6


Maurice Sauvé: All I can do, Mr. Chairman, is give the assurance that the board will not exercise this kind of power-if this assurance satisfies the hon. member.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, before we leave clause 6 I should like to obtain clarification in respect of paragraph (d), where it says that the board may-
-conduct negotiations for the obtaining of licences for the importation of feed grain into Canada for the importation of feed grain by them within the provisions of any such licence obtained in its name, contract with feed grain dealers in Canada for the importation of feed grain by them into Canada under the terms of such licence.
I am wondering whether the minister has considered the possibility that this clause could mean that there could be the importation of surplus feed grains from the United States, corn and so on, to the detriment of the feed grain growers of all of Canada, in that, being surplus, this grain could be sold more cheaply to the board than the price at which they could purchase, say, Ontario corn or western barley. Can the minister assure us that this provision will not be used to cut feed grain prices to a point where it is not profitable to produce this grain in Canada?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can give this assurance.


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, before clause 6 passes I wonder whether there is not a conflict in paragraph (j) as compared with clause 9. Clause 6 (j) empowers the board to act as agent for or on behalf of any minister of the crown or as agent of Her Majesty, and clause 9 (1) provides that the board is, for the purposes of this act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty. Clause 6 (j) purports to give the board power to act as an agent of the minister, but clause 9 (1) limits the board to acting as an agent of Her Majesty. I suggest that this point is particularly important when one considers clause 9 (4), which provides as follows:
Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the board on behalf of Her Majesty, whether in its name or in the name of Her Majesty, may be brought or taken by or against the board in the name of the board in any court that would have jurisdiction if the board were not an agent of Her Majesty.
So if the board did something on behalf of a minister of the crown, presumably no action could be taken against the board.

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: I think any action taken against the board in respect of this provision would be the same as action taken under any other legislation. This clause is no different from a similar clause in other legislation. This provision is to be found in other legislation pertaining to boards established by parliament. This is the normal type of clause, and we have not made any innovation in this bill.


Melvin James McQuaid: It may be the same type of clause, but that does not mean it is necessarily correct. I suggest that there is a very definite conflict here. Clause 6 (j) empowers the board to act as an agent on behalf of any minister, and clause 9 provides that the board may only exercise its powers as an agent of Her Majesty. How does the minister resolve these two provisions? I do not think any bill should be passed if it contains obvious inconsistencies.


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member is arguing that there is a contradiction between clause 6 (j) and clause 9. Clause 6 (j) states that the board may-
-act as agent for or on behalf of any minister of the crown or as agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in respect of any operations that it may be directed to carry out by the Governor in Council;
Clause 9 (1) says:
The board is, for all purposes of this act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.


Melvin James McQuaid: Yes; and the clause provides that its powers may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty, not as an agent of a minister of the crown.


Maurice Sauvé: I am not quite sure of this, but is not a minister of the crown an agent of Her Majesty? I do not see the contradiction here. If the hon. member sees any contradiction I am quite ready to look into this provision more carefully, but I would repeat that I do not see any contradiction. When I am minister and somebody representing me is acting on my behalf, is this different from acting as an agent of Her Majesty? I think this is a very refined point which is not very fundamental to the purposes of the bill.


Melvin James McQuaid: I agree that it is a rather refined point, and the only reason I raise it is to avoid any trouble arising later. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this clause be allowed to stand until the minister has had an opportunity of referring this question to the legal officers of his department.
8488	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, could I propose something else, namely that we do not stand this clause if we can approve the bill as it stands at the moment. If it is thought necessary to introduce an amendment, we could ask the other place to look into this matter, because they will be considering the bill in the same way as we are and could bring in the necessary amendment.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the minister, I believe that when we are faced with a controversy such as this we should let the clause stand until the legal department of the government has had adequate opportunity to make the necessary correction. I am very much concerned with another problem in this bill, namely the conflict of interest provincially and federally because of the implications of the bill. In the province of Ontario it was contemplated some two years ago to put commercial corn under a marketing scheme. This question was put to the primary producers in the form of a vote. This proposal was defeated; the farmers in no uncertain terms stated that they did not wish this commodity placed under a marketing scheme with all its implications.
In Ontario there are many marketing schemes covering different commodities, and I believe I can say with all modesty, as a leader in this particular field, that in recent months several of the marketing schemes have been held up to very rigid inspection as to whether indeed they were of benefit to the group producing the commodity.
By reason of this problem and the implications of the provisions of this bill, the grain growers of Ontario, including those who grow corn, cannot help but be placed under what is in effect a marketing scheme with all its implications. Would the minister tell us whether he has conferred with the provincial authorities of Quebec and Ontario with regard to the double responsibility contained in a bill of this type? Has the minister conferred with the officials of these two provinces to ascertain whether there is indeed an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Indeed, the granting of such a measure may be an intrusion into provincial authority.
I am perfectly aware that the federal authorities deal with the transport of commodities interprovincially, but this bill acts in effect within the boundaries of a particular province. I am therefore wondering whether the minister has obtained the approval of

DEBATES	October 7. 1966
provincial groups and whether they are satisfied that there is no infringement of their jurisdiction under this bill. Are they content to allow the federal government to move into their field to this degree? This is a problem that has troubled me.
Before the minister replies may I speak of one more matter which has been of some concern to me. If there is a duplication of responsibility, then where does the final authority lie? Suppose a regulation in regard to a feed grain is proposed by the members of a provincial marketing scheme, the implications of which are perhaps not acceptable to this board, does this board overrule any provincial regulations? This is something that I find it hard to concede.


Maurice Sauvé: I think the answer to that question can be found in clause 8 (1) (a). This kind of problem would only arise if the board were to buy and sell grain everywhere in Canada. Clause 8 (a) says that "such purchase by the board shall be made from the Canadian Wheat Board or an agent thereof". It is therefore clear that if the board becomes a buyer and seller it can only buy its grain from an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board, which in this case would buy it through the wheat exchange in Winnipeg. It is clear that this legislation does not authorize us to buy grain which is locally produced. As for the transportation and storage, we can pay transportation costs or find ways and means of helping the local producer to do so, as I mentioned earlier. These are two different operations. When it comes to buying, we must proceed through an agent of the Wheat Board. The problem the hon. member raised regarding the conflicting authorities of the marketing boards does not arise.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, although the minister has partially clarified my problem, he has further complicated another matter. He keeps referring to the purchase of feed grains through a broker on the grain board. It is certainly contemplated under this bill that purchases of surplus feed grains will be made in other provinces and that other grains will be offered for sale.


Maurice Sauvé: That is what I just said. We have to have the authority of an order in council. Otherwise we can only buy grain from the Canadian Wheat Board or its agent. However the board's responsibilities are much broader than this. Buying and selling is just an additional responsibility given to it. The board administers the funds provided by
October 7, 1966

parliament for the transportation and storage costs of the grain.
As I told the hon. member before, the problems which he raised about the Ontario locally produced grain can be dealt with satisfactorily by the regulations contained in clause 6 (a) (ii), as long as the payments are related to the transportation costs. We have to make a distinction there. If the board becomes an agent, it can only buy from the Wheat Board or an agent thereof. We cannot buy grain or corn from any agency of the provinces. This conflict which the hon. member foresees is not possible, inasmuch as the board deals as a buyer, in which case it must in fact buy in Winnipeg.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, if this is the case, as pointed out by the minister, then this indeed does work an extreme hardship on feed grains offered for sale in eastern Canada, because if the board can only purchase western feed grains in its role as a broker on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and if its sole purpose is to purchase as cheaply as possible to provide the lowest possible price for the users of feed grain in the east, then that places the producers of grain in Ontario and Quebec in an untenable position because, under this new legislation, they will now be offering grain to the eastern market controlled by a government agency in direct competition with another government agency whose sole purpose is to obtain the highest possible price for its feed growers. Under this bill the minister has established a situation where one government agency sets out to get the highest possible price for feed grains and another government agency is established to procure feed grains at the lowest possible price. The rest of Canada finds itself in between the two competing agencies. This is an almost impossible situation.


Maurice Sauvé: I must refer the hon. member to clause 6 (a) (i) (ii). The board has two functions. Its first function is to make payments related to the cost of feed grain storage and feed grain transportation. It is only in extreme cases that the board will become a buyer and seller; otherwise the board does not go into the marketing field. In the normal course of events the brokers will be able to buy their grain where they want, as there will be no discrimination against the local producers, as exists under the present policy, which only applies to the transportation cost

Canadian Livestock Feed Board of grains from Port Arthur to eastern Canada. This afternoon I have said repeatedly that we were considering methods of equalization of opportunities for all producers. The situation which the hon. member feared would only occur if the board were to be permanently engaged in the purchase and sale of grain, which it does not. This would be an exceptional occurrence. Otherwise the board will, under the authority granted to it in clause 6 (a) (i) (ii), find ways and means of putting local producers at par with other producers of grain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should express our appreciation of the patience which the minister has shown. I understand he has been here since eleven o'clock and has not as yet had anything to eat today. I would suggest to the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) that if he carries on in this vein he is likely to be prosecuted by the society for the prevention of cruelty to ministers.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


George Robson Muir: I should like to have a clarification of section 8(a), because the minister said that all purchases would be made through the Canadian Wheat Board. I took him to mean that they were buying through the Canadian Wheat Board in a designated area. However, the first part of section 8(a) says that the board may-
-buy or enter into contracts or agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
This means that purchases of feed grain can be made in eastern Canada and that they will not be forced through the Wheat Board, although eastern Canada is not a designated area.


Maurice Sauvé: I think the hon. member has to read the entire clause. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we are dealing with clause 6 and that question should be held until we reach clause 8. While I am on my feet, and since it is now five o'clock, may I ask for the consent of the committee to proceed with this bill rather than go to private members hour?


Harold Warren Danforth: In so far as the minister's request is concerned, Mr. Chairman, we have no quarrel with continuing but I wish to inform him that because of the importance of this bill I doubt very much that we can conclude it this evening.

Ociober 7, 1966
Business of the House


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: It
being five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, may I ask lor unanimous consent of the house to forgo private members hour, so that we can revert to the committee stage of this bill? I have some indication it may be possible to conclude it before six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is
agreed that private members hour be suspended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
house will now revert to government business.



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. Richard in the Chair.
On clause 6-Powers.
Melvin James McQuaid: I do not like to be stubborn about this question of paragraph (j) of section 6, but it is of considerable importance. I suggest the minister either consent to allowing clause 6 to stand until he has secured advice from his legal counsel, or perhaps the situation could be corrected if the minister would agree, when we come to consider clause 9 (1), to inserting the words, "or as an agent or on behalf of any minister of the crown". Clause 9 would then read:
The board is, for all purposes of this act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty or as an agent for or on behalf of any minister of the crown.


Maurice Sauvé: I would be ready to accept such an amendment when we come to clause 9.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 7-Duties.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a very interesting clause, Mr. Chairman, particularly paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). These paragraphs read in part as follows:
(a)	to make a continuing study of feed grain requirements in eastern Canada and British Columbia-
(b)	to make recommendations to the minister with respect to requirements for additional feed grain storage-
(c)	generally, to advise the government on all matters pertaining to the stabilization-
(d)	to the greatest possible extent consistent with its objectives, to consult and co-operate with all departments, branches-
And so on. Would the minister mind telling the house the procedures which he contemplates would be used under these four paragraphs (a) to (d)? Could he give us some idea of the mechanics contemplated in the operation of this clause?


Maurice Sauvé: Under the existing regulations we are already doing much of this work. There is always research being conducted to examine the need for feed grain. In so far as storage is concerned, we have continuous discussions with the Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners, the Department of Transport and the National Harbours Board concerning storage facilities. With regard to paragraph (c), we have done so many studies we are about in a position to announce some interesting proposals. The administrator of feed grains has always had excellent relations with all provincial departments, so there is nothing new here. We are putting it in the law because there was no law governing the feed grain administration. This only clarifies what we were doing under the existing system.


Mr. Pugh:: There is a reference to the equalization of feed grain prices to livestock feeders. Could the minister explain how far that goes? Does it apply, for instance, to feed lots within British Columbia only, or is there to be equalization of feed lot purchases in Alberta with those in British Columbia?


Maurice Sauvé: No, the bill applies to a certain part of British Columbia, Ontario and other provinces. The reference is to equalization in terms of the situation in the province or in each of the provinces. So far, the policy has been to try to pay the transportation costs of grain from Port Arthur to eastern Canada,
October 7, 1966
leaving no balance of cost for the producer. This is what we have called equalization. It is an equalization or elimination of transportation costs so that the normal cost of feed would be the same as if the feed had been purchased at Port Arthur. The location of the buyer had no relation to the cost because transportation costs were eliminated.


David Vaughan Pugh: If you eliminated transportation costs, and I take it that means handling costs and storage costs, the grain sold to feeders in British Columbia could be purchased at exactly the same price as if it had been purchased on the prairies at Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina or any other city. Is that the intention? I want to know whether that is the intention of the government when they speak of equalization.


Maurice Sauvé: No, because there was an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that allows provincial trading in grain; so that the cost of feed in the western provinces is much lower than the cost of feed outside the three prairie provinces. I cannot hope to equalize the cost of feed in eastern Canada or British Columbia with the cost of feed inside the three prairie provinces. There is no possibility of that at all.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister says that there is no possibility of arriving at such a solution? I am only thinking of the spirit of competition, and the plight of the poultry producers in British Columbia who are at a decided disadvantage, when one considers those on the prairies.
As I read the act, the board may, in furtherance of its objects, (a) make-
- (1) payments related to the cost of feed grain storage in Eastern Canada, and
(ii) payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation.
Thus, the payments made would not be the full cost of transportation or the full cost of storage. This would be so within the province of British Columbia, and would apply to the moving of grain to British Columbia, I take it.


Maurice Sauvé: Under this act we should not do anything different from what we are now doing, because we are paying the cost of transportation, as defined by the administrative regulations concerned. There is some definition of what transportation costs mean, and we are limited to that. We cannot do
Canadian Livestock Feed Board more than that, and we cannot give an additional subsidy to equalize the cost of feed in all provinces of Canada. For example, a British Columbia feeder has the advantage of being nearer the large centres in British Columbia than would be a feeder in Alberta or Saskatchewan. That accounts for the better competitive position in which the British Columbia feeder finds himself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am apprehensive about clause 7 (2) (c). I refer to the words, at the top of page 5, reading:
-and for the purposes of any such Inquiry or investigation, empower the board or any of the members thereof to exercise the powers of a person appointed as a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act.
If this is to be a permanent authority, granted to each of the board members, it seems to me that we are giving them authority to conduct an investigation. I believe that almost always in the past

and I am not sure that I am entirely correct in this-whenever an investigation has been ordered under the Inquiries Act, the matter has been of a specific nature, and has been of such magnitude that it has gained the attention of parliament, which has ordered such an inquiry.
I am apprehensive about this much authority being permitted, on a permanent basis, to every member of the board. I wonder if the minister would explain why this wording is included in the clause?


Maurice Sauvé: I think the hon. member will find similar wording in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The wording is related to part 1 of the Inquiries Act, and it is very limited in scope. I do not have part 1 of the Inquiries Act with me, but there are some limitations in it. This power was included in the bill, because it is given to some other boards. As I say, I do not have the Inquiries Act with me, and I do not know whether this will create any major difficulties. At the moment I am unable to stress the differences between this bill, and acts relating to similar boards.


Harold Warren Danforth: I, too, am concerned about clause 7 (2) (c). Does not this wording, in effect, under part 1 of the Inquiries Act, empower anyone designated by this board, or any one of its members, to regulate any company or individual engaged in this particular segment of the grain trade, or to order such individual or company to make available all records and books pertaining to the business that such individual or company is engaged in?

October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, this can be done, with the authorization of the governor in council. This is not a power that can be exercised by any member of the board. If one reads clause 7(2) he sees that-
-the Governor in Council may, from time to ime, empower the Board to make inquiries-
And so on.
The board has to ask for authority from the governor in council to proceed in the way described. Therefore, there is the safeguard that this can only be done through action of the cabinet.


George Robson Muir: Referring to clause 7(l)(d), does the minister anticipate that the government will be building additional storage facilities in eastern Canada, under recommendations of the board?


Maurice Sauvé: I mentioned earlier that I do not think the board will do so, because there has been this agreement between the railways and millers with respect to buying grain on a year round basis. There will be less need for storage facilities in eastern Canada. The board will judge according to needs. But it will have the authority to build such storage facilities as there is need for.


George Robson Muir: I understood the minister to say that there was some disagreement, because the railways wished to work on a year round operation. The grain comes down from Fort William to the eastern ports at lower rates by ship. That can be done during the shipping season.


Maurice Sauvé: That was true until the new rates were proposed by the railways. A contract agreement was signed between the mill operators in the maritimes and the railways, as a result of which the cost of transportation by rail is about equal to the cost of transportation by water. There would be less necessity to establish storage facilities for grain transported by water because of the new agreement with the railways.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister for further clarification on the question of the equalization, the fair equalization, of feed grain prices to livestock feeders as it applies to British Columbia? Is any part of the transportation cost for livestock feeders in British Columbia paid under the feed grain administration?
[Mr. Danforth.l


Maurice Sauvé: Yes. I am afraid I gave my copy of the order in council to the reporters, but in British Columbia there is a balance of cost of about $4.60 a ton. We pay all the difference in the transportation cost.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask, on what basis is that? For the eastern livestock feeder the price is based on Port Arthur. What is the base for British Columbia?


Maurice Sauvé: I do not know what the base is. I do know that all transportation has to be by rail. I do not know what the point is in the prairies from where we calculate the transportation cost. I do know, too, that the remaining amount is about $4.60. I can provide the hon. member with the detailed information later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not need the details. I take it that there is a point fixed on the prairies, beyond which the Livestock Feed Board will pay the actual transportation cost, by the common definition which the minister has given?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Purchase, etc. of feed grain.
George Robson Muir: On clause 8, may I again pose a question to the minister? I understood him to say that the board can only purchase through the Canadian Wheat Board. I take it that this is true so far as the western prairies are concerned, or for those places called the designated area. But, clause 8(1) (a) says:
The Board may, in furtherance of its objects, at any time when it is so authorized by regulation
(a) buy or enter into contracts or agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: I am not sure that the
Canadian Wheat Board has no jurisdiction over eastern Canada. I remember we had an argument about this in the House of Commons. I do not have the act here but I think the board has authority.


An hon. Member:: On import licensing only.


George Robson Muir: The minister will recall that an eastern grain board was set up to purchase Ontario wheat. The Wheat Board has nothing to do with the purchase of this wheat at all.
October 7. 1966	COMMONS


Maurice Sauvé: The board cannot purchase Ontario wheat. That is what I said earlier: It cannot be done under this bill.


George Robson Muir: If the minister will read the first two lines of clause 8(a) he will find that it says that the board may-
-buy or enter into contracts or agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia and in the designated area-
So there is authority to buy feed grain.


Maurice Sauvé: But only from the Canadian Wheat Board. I am looking at the French text now-


Edward Richard Schreyer: While the minister is looking at his material I would offer the suggestion that grain produced in the east does not come under the aegis of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, it could be meant that it is western grain located at eastern terminals which could be bought from the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal purchasing agency.


Maurice Sauvé: I am sorry, I did not understand the question. Certainly eastern produced grain does not come under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. But we can buy only through an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is what I implied.


George Robson Muir: Then this means that the only feed grain which could be bought in eastern Canada is grain held in an eastern position by the Canadian Wheat Board.


Maurice Sauvé: That is the meaning.


George Robson Muir: It is not spelled out that way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Another question with respect to clause 8, which has a relationship to what appears in clause 16. Forgive me for quoting from clause 16, Mr. Chairman, but this involves the financial authority of the board and is, as I say, related to clause 8. Clause 16(2) states:
Subject to subsection (4) all amounts required by the board to defray any costs incurred by it pursuant to subsection (1) of section 8 shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
I presume clause 17 speaks of an advance which has to be paid back. What is meant by the words in clause 16 (4) which indicate that no payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under subsection (2) shall exceed "the amount by which $10 million exceeds the balance of the Canadian Livestock Feed
DEBATES	8493
Canadian Livestock Feed Board Board account"? Where will this account originate? Does it mean that this bill authorizes the government to transfer an amount up to $10 million, in addition to whatever this account will be? I am not clear.


Maurice Sauvé: That is the amount which will be provided by the treasury and placed at the disposal of the board. If the board needs a larger sum, it can borrow from the treasury. But it is expected that this $10 million will be enough for the operation in the circumstances envisaged, which will be limited. The board can only buy and sell in certain situations as laid down in the bill.


Harold Warren Danforth: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to clause 8(a). As I interpret it this provision allays at least one of the major fears I expressed earlier this afternoon. If he would peruse this paragraph he would see that some of the things he said earlier, were, inadvertently, not in accord with what we find in these provisions. I think the minister will agree with me that eastern feed grain does not come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Clause 8(1) says the board may "buy or enter into contracts or agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia and in the designated area."
In an earlier reply the minister led me to believe that this was to the exclusion of all purchases of locally grown feed grain. But under 9(a), as I read it, the board does have power to purchase local grain in this area. Clause 8(1) continues, however with these words:
-but where any purchase is made by the board within the designated area of grain then being purchased in that area by the Canadian Wheat Board, such purchase by the board shall be made from the Canadian Wheat Board or an agent thereof.
This seems clear to me. First, the board does have power to enter into agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia, but where such purchases are made from within the designated area they must be made through the Wheat Board. I think this clarifies itself. It alleviates one of the fears I had that this agency would not be able to purchase local grain. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the substance of the paragraph as I understand it.


Maurice Sauvé: I now have the benefit of assistance from people knowledgeable in the drafting of this bill. I refer hon. members to clause 2 (g) where it says that-
"feed grain" means wheat other than grades of wheat grown in the designated area.
October 7, 1966

Canadian Livestock Feed Board
Then we turn to the definition of "designated area" and we find it means the area comprised of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and certain parts of British Columbia. That is the basis of the interpretation I gave.


Harold Warren Danforth: But surely paragraph (g) does not confine it to the designated area. It says "and such other grains and grain products as may be designated by regulation". The definition given in clause 2 of "feed grain" includes "such other grains and grain products as may be designated." Surely they are going to designate feed grains in other parts of Canada other than in the designated area?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: I know pretty well what the intention of the bill is. There might be some confusion and we might have to redraft this, but when we discussed the bill it was clear to me that we could only buy grain through an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member now claims that under clause 8(a) grain can be bought from Ontario or any other province.


Harold Warren Danforth: Or from outside the country.


Maurice Sauvé: Then I have no objection, if this is possible; but that was not my interpretation. If it is possible then it is better for everybody.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is my whole contention.
I am in agreement with clause 8(l)(a) if the interpretation is such that the board may buy grain other than from the designated area, and other than from a broker on a grain exchange. If this were not a fact, then any surplus grain produced in the east could not be purchased by the board, and that would not be equitable or fair.


Maurice Sauvé: I shall repeat that the board has two responsibilities. The first is to administer the transportation subsidy which normally amounts to about $20 million. The second responsibility of the board is that, where there is not enough feed grain in eastern Canada or B.C., it may become a broker and buy grain from an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board. Does this preclude any surplus corn or grain produced in Ontario and other provinces? I have repeatedly said this afternoon that clause 6(a)(i) and (ii)-


Harold Warren Danforth: -deals with storage and transportation.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, and under this assistance can be provided respecting surplus grain produced locally. But when the board transforms itself into a buyer it would have to buy through an agent of the wheat board. The hon. member has given a wider interpretation to the bill than I have given. If his interpretation is correct, then I have no objection; but that would be not my interpretation and I would have to consult the law officers to see which interpretation is the right one. It is unfortunate that we have lost our director, who had been dealing with all these details in great depth. I shall now have to find out which interpretation is right.


Harold Warren Danforth: I can understand the minister's dilemma in this particular case. The principle of the bill is to obtain the cheapest possible grain for the feeders in eastern Canada, and I would think that those who drafted the bill would have considered that when a shortage existed in feed grains, which might cause upward price fluctuations, it would be the duty of the board to procure as swiftly and economically as possible an additional supply of feed grains to alleviate the situation.
My interpretation of the clause is that they should purchase the grain, in plain vernacular, wherever they can get the best buy and the fastest buy. I cannot see why the minister would interpret this as meaning that the board would have to leap over agencies in Ontario and Saskatchewan and go to buy in a designated area. The clause says that-
-the board may .... enter into contracts or agreements for the purchase of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia.
That is clearly stated and I cannot understand the minister's interpretation.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 8 carry?


Harold Warren Danforth: No, this is too important to the grain producers in central Canada. This must be clarified, because if the minister's interpretation is correct it precludes growers and dealers in central Canada from offering their produce for sale, unless through private enterprise. If my interpretation is correct the board can buy wherever supplies are available. It can buy from the United States if it can get an import permit. It can buy from B.C. and from the maritimes, in effect from
October 7, 1966
anywhere where there is surplus grain. I cannot see why the minister should insist on curtailing this to a very narrow concept, which will work hardship on the area I have the honour to represent.


Maurice Sauvé: I do not want to restrict the broad interpretation of clause 8(a). The intention under clause 6(a) was to assist in the transportation of feed grain and corn, but if the board were to become a broker my interpretation was that it would deal through an agent of the Wheat Board. The way clause 8 is drafted can well give rise to the hon. member's interpretation. It gives more scope to the board, but I shall have to review the matter carefully. I have no other explanation other than the one which I have given, honestly. Maybe the text justifies what the hon. member is saying. If that is so I have no objection to his interpretation, but I do not think that was the original intention.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Harold Warren Danforth: May I offer a solution to the minister. I appreciate he is in some difficulty on this point and I too am much concerned about it. May I suggest that he might have an opportunity to discuss this with his legal officers and give consideration to my representations in respect of the interpretation. I am not leading up to a request that this clause stand, as some hon. members may think. I am hopeful that before third reading of the bill the minister and I may have an opportunity to confer on this. In this way perhaps the difficulty may be resolved. In respect of an equalized subsidy on Ontario corn, I may say that if we cannot sell it, it does not mean a thing.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that perhaps this item might stand and that we go on to clauses 9, 10 and following. There is only 15 minutes left.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to agree to that suggestion, primarily because of what the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) has just said. We have a unique situation here of an opposition member being in complete accord with what is in the bill, and having talked the ministre into believing that his interpretation of is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
8495
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
On clause 10-Bylaws.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand the interpretation of clause 10 to be that the board, once it is duly constituted, will establish a set of bylaws for the legal and constitutional conduct of its business, but that before such bylaws are put into effect they must be submitted.' to the cabinet through the governor in council, and be accepted before they are acted upon.


Maurice Sauvé: That is correct.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, I assume that we have passed clause 9 subject to the amendment we had discussed in respect of clause 6(j).


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member should stipulate the amendment. I have no objection to the amendment suggested.


Melvin James McQuaid: Then, Mr. Chairman, may we revert to clause 9.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it
agreed that we revert to clause 9?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 10 stands.
On clause 9-Board agent of Her Majesty.


Melvin James McQuaid: My amendment is in respect of subclause (2) of clause 9. After the words "The Board may, on behalf of Her Majesty," insert the words "or on behalf of any minister of the crown" and, after the words "enter into contracts" delete the words "in the name of Her Majesty" and insert the words "in their names".


Maurice Sauvé: The amendment as drafted originally was better.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Will the hon. member please submit his amendment in writing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, could we stand clause 9 until we have dealt with the other clauses.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes. Would the hon. member prepare his amendment. I agree with the substance of it; it is just a matter of the drafting.
Clause 9 stands.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

8496	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board
On clause 12-Salaries and expenses.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, through this legislation parliament is giving the government authority to designate whatever salaries they may deem to be necessary. I should like to know whether or not the men who will be appointed to this board will be considered as senior members of the civil service, also, will the minister give us some indication of the minimum-maximum area in which the salary of such members would fall. The board members are to be given a salary, travelling expenses and living expenses. This is normal in respect of such appointments. I am wondering however whether the minister can give us some indication of the salary range.


Maurice Sauvé: The members of the board will not be members of the civil service. I suppose the salary range would be similar to that of members of similar boards which exist. I really am at a loss to give the hon. member any amount, because I do not have any guide lines on this, except the normal guide lines of Treasury Board, and what is happening in other similar boards.


Harold Warren Danforth: The reason I bring this to the attention of the minister is that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that normally the qualifications of such persons would be in direct ratio to the amount of money the government is going to pay for such purposes. This is not strictly an economy matter that I am bringing up. I am more concerned that the men who will make up this board will be the best qualified we can find in Canada for this particular function.
Contrary to the argument put forward earlier this afternoon that there be five members on the board, in order that bilingualism may become a factor, I do not think those engaged in agriculture are in the least concerned about the bilingual aspect. As one who represents farmers who are mostly Anglo-Saxon I have no interest in whether or not all the members of the board are French speaking. I am concerned solely with the ability of these men to administer this measure. It is for this reason I ask what salary range is contemplated. My fear is that if we have economy in mind we will not attract the right men for this difficult and important task. This is what I am concerned about.


Maurice Sauvé: I would think that the salary range would be the same as that which is applicable to the Ontario Dairy Commission.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

DEBATES	October 7, 1966
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Canadian Livestock Feed Board Advisory Committee.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important committee related to the functions of the board. Could the minister inform the house how he intends to appoint members to the advisory committee; will they be representatives of farmers organizations or of the grain trade, or will they be other persons? Could he give us an idea of how he intends to appoint the members of this committee?


Maurice Sauvé: They will be appointed on a regional basis and will represent farm organizations. We have not made up our minds whether or not they should represent only farmers, but the majority will represent farmers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to return again to this clause, and I mention just in passing that I referred to this situation when we were at the second reading stage. I think hon. members could be very helpful to the operation of this program by simply preventing a waste of time and, to a certain degree, a waste of money. I am somewhat disturbed about some elements of the way the proposed advisory committee is to be devised because it has inherited, at least for the moment, some seeds which will result in an ineffective growth. Let me refer to these briefly.
I am not entirely happy with the fact that the appointment of these members is to be made by the governor in council, because this tends to leave the responsibilities of the individual members outside the areas and organizations they represent, and more or less with themselves. From previous experience this has shown to be a disadvantaged function of advisory committees. I am also concerned that the advisory committee is to be almost entirely dependent upon the board. There seems to be nothing in clause 15 which provides for a staff or for the obtaining of independent advice. There seems to be no authorization given to the committee to carry out independent examinations or investigations on its own, and there seems to be no indication that there can be publication or communication of information to producers.
We are creating a committee that is something other than strong, and I must admit
October 7, 1966	COMMONS
that I am disappointed in this regard, particularly because this bill was introduced by a minister responsible for rural development as well as forestry. He has not in this case provided for the same kind of powers and responsibilities.
If we are not willing to entrust this advisory committee with the same responsibilities invested in the rural development council, if we are not going to allow them to exercise the same independent judgment, then I fail to see why there should be an advisory committee at all, because it will not be able to contribute much to this segment of our industry.


Maurice Sauvé: Would the hon. member be satisfied if this advisory committee was given the same powers as the Canadian Council on Rural Development?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes.


Maurice Sauvé: That can be done, and I will undertake to see that the same kind of powers are vested in this committee.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of that commitment, let me suggest that we should spell out that this committee will be given an opportunity to take advantage of independent information supplied by research facilities, even at a minimal level. Clause 15(6)(a) states that this committee shall have the power-
-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.
In view of the limitations on this sphere of the board's actions it would seem to me to be valuable to add words to the effect that it can do so in respect of anything it believes to come within the responsibilities of the board.


Maurice Sauvé: I think the hon. member has answered his first problem as indicated by clause 15(5), which states:
The advisory committee may make such rules as it deems necessary for the regulation of its proceedings, for the fixing of a quorum for any of its meetings and generally for the conduct of its activities.
I believe we have the same wording in the ARDA measure. Perhaps that measure is even less precise than this. Under that measure we have been able to establish the Canadian Council on Rural Development. Let me also state that the advisory committee will be able to make a report to the minister 23033-5371
DEBATES	8497
Canadian Livestock Feed Board on any recommendation it thinks desirable. This provision comes within clause 7(b). It is not restricted in this regard.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We are aware of the fact that the committee can make reports, but we have not been told clearly what matters it can study and report on. Even clause 15(5), which makes reference to rules and regulations, does not seem to spell out clearly the committee's ability to set its own agenda and make use of independent information in a manner that might be helpful.


Maurice Sauvé: I have indicated that I am willing and ready to establish the same kind of committee with the same rules and regulations as apply to the Canadian Council on Northern Development in order that, mutatis mutandis, it could operate in the same way.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to one other matter, but I am not sure that I should do so during our consideration of clause 15. Perhaps the minister will bear with me in this regard. The suggestion is that there shall be not less than five nor more than seven members on this advisory committee. Perhaps in this way we will provide some liaison between the segments of the trade and the administrators of government policy. This is normal in such cases; what concerns me however is that while this is to be a marketing scheme, nowhere do I see any appeal or recourse provision. For this reason no segment of the trade would have recourse to some regulation felt to be unjust. There seems to be no avenue of appeal against regulations instituted by this board. Perhaps the minister could give us some information in this regard.
In the normal course of the administration of a matter as complex as this there will be opinions that extreme hardships are being imposed which, if left unchanged for any length of time, could amount to great financial losses. Perhaps the minister will indicate that some avenue of direct appeal will be provided the trade.


Maurice Sauvé: This is not to be a marketing board, and I have repeatedly stated that. Whenever anything is done by the adminis-tation which does not please the farmers or the traders there will be the same recourse. At this time we receive telegrams and complaints, particularly on the part of members of parliament who are very quick to take up the interests of these people, and I do not see how-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is our function.

October 7, 1966
Business of the House


Maurice Sauvé: I am not complaining about that, but I do not see how we could provide a regulation allowing an appeal from a decision of an administrative board. I think the general situation will apply to this board and I do not see why we should include a specific recourse in this case.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I was merely seeking information in this regard. Nothing has been spelled out and I wanted some clarification. If any course of action adopted by the board did work a hardship on any segment of the industry, there should be some recourse. I do not wish to quarrel with the minister this afternoon in this regard, but I wish to know whether or not there will be any course of redress or appeal to the board, the committee or the minister. I was merely seeking information, not asking for a specific indication in the bill.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to belabour this point but I feel we are at the crucial point in this legislation, because unless the advisory committee has the kind of power I would expect it to have, the kind of thing we were talking about earlier in the day really will not become a fact of life with respect to the functioning of the board.
We have to be realistic with regard to the people who will make up the membership of the board. Whether the membership be one, three or five they will be closely related to, shall I call it, the civil service aspect of the administration, or they will at least be people who will be looking at this problem almost exclusively from the standpoint of economists or experts. On the advisory committee we expect people who will have a specific understanding of the problems that relate to different parts of the country, if we intend to administer this kind of program effectively. That is why I am extremely anxious to see that the advisory committee has the power necessary to do its job effectively.
For this reason I am sure that two or three things need to be added to this clause in order to make it specific enough that the advisory committee, the board and the minister will be fully cognizant of the role of each.
I should like to think, again, that we could add something to this clause which would suggest that the committee could examine those responsibilities which come within the purview of the board. In clause 15 (6) (a) we could perhaps delete the word "and" and include a provision to cover the committee dealing with matters of this sort. Then in respect of subparagraph (b) we could add, after the word "it", something to the effect that the board should publish from time to time such information as may seem useful to the general work of the board.
These two things would perhaps add something specific with regard to the functions of the board, because I think its staff and research facilities are crucial to the effectiveness of this program. The program will not be an easy one to carry out, as has been emphasized time and time again, without an advisory committee that really means something. I think we will be very much shortchanged on the effectiveness of this board if we do not make this kind of provision.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, if it will take another hour or two to finish consideration of this bill, why not call it six o'clock and we will continue our discussion of the bill next Tuesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader what the business will be for next Tuesday.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, if there is an assumption of some reluctance to rise on my part, that assumption is correct. To the best of my knowledge, it is proposed to deal with the bill now before the house, namely Bill No. C-218. If this bill is disposed of, it might be a fair assumption that Bill No. C-227 would be called.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
October 7, 1966


[Stage Direction]
NOTICE TO THE TRADE:
Re: Order in Council P.C. 1966-1835 Effective October 1, 1966
Attached is a copy of the Feed Grain Assistance Regulations and new Schedule of Transportation Assistance Rates, as amended by the above Order-in-Council.
For your convenience, we wish to point out the following changes:
Transportation
Changes in the rates of assistance should be noted in shipments to destinations as follows:
Ontario-Changes to all destinations in the counties of Cochrane, Timiskaming, Nipissing, Algoma, Manitoulin, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Carleton, Dundas, Glengarry, Lanark, Prescott, Renfrew, Russell, Stormont, Durham, Haliburton, Muskoka, Northumberland, Ontario, Parry Sound, Peterborough and Victoria.
Quebec-Changes to all destinations in the counties of Abitibi, Bonaventure, Saguenay, Compton, Labelle, Gatineau, Matane, Ma-tapedia, Drummond, Chicoutimi, Lac St. Jean East, Lac St. Jean West, Rimouski, Riviere du Loup, Stanstead, Temiscouata, Brome, Frontenac, Kamouraska, L'lslet, Richmond, Sherbrooke, Wolfe, Arthabaska, Nicolet, Charlevoix, Gaspe East, Gaspe West, Te-miscamingue, Magdalen Islands, Hull, Papi-neau and Pontiac.
New Brunswick-Changes to all destinations except those in the county of York.
Nova Scotia-Changes to all destinations except those in the county of Cumberland.
Prince Edward Island-Changes to all destinations.
Newfoundland-Changes to all destinations and the establishment of two zones within the province.
British Columbia-A change in the method of determining assistance rates by specific tariffs, thus allowing the use of any agreed charge or competitive rates without penalty in the rate of assistance applicable.
J. M. McDonough,
Supervisor,
Feed Grain Assistance Programs Ottawa
September 27, 1966.
Regulations Respecting Assistance on Western Feed Grains Shipped Into Eastern Canada And British Columbia
1.	These Regulations may be cited as the Feed Grain Assistance Regulations.
2.	In these Regulations:
(a)	"British Columbia" means that portion of British Columbia other than the part known as the Peace River District;
(b)	"Director" means the Director of Feed Grain Assistance Programmes, Department of Forestry;
(c)	"Eastern Canada" means all that portion of Canada lying east of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the City of Port Arthur;
(d)	"livestock" means horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, foxes, mink, rabbits and poultry;
(e)	"Minister" means the Minister of Forestry;
(f)	"No. 1 Feed Screenings" and "Sample Feed Grain" have the same meaning as in the Canada Grain Regulations-,
(g)	"Prairie Region" means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and that portion of British Columbia known as the Peace River District;
(h)	"Western Canada" means all that portion of Canada lying west of the meridian passing through the eastern boundary of the city of Port Arthur; and
(i)	"Wholesaler" means a person who, in selling a product, reduces the price of the product by the amount of transportation assistance that may be paid under these Regulations prior to obtaining the assistance.
3.	The Minister may pay assistance in the appropriate amount set out in the Schedule in respect of transportation expenses incurred on:
(a)	wheat, oats, barley and rye grown in Western Canada and shipped to a destination in Eastern Canada;
(b)	No. 1 Feed Screenings and Sample Feed Grain produced in Western Canada and shipped to a destination in Eastern Canada;
(c)	wheat bran, wheat shorts and wheat middlings produced in Western Canada and shipped to a destination in Eastern Canada or produced in Eastern Canada from wheat grown in Western Canada;
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1966
(d)	wheat, oats, barley, rye and corn grown in the Prairie Region and shipped to a destination in British Columbia;
(e)	No. 1 Feed Screenings and Sample Feed Grain produced in the Prairie Region and shipped to a destination in British Columbia; and
(f)	wheat bran, wheat shorts and wheat middlings produced in the Prairie Region and shipped to a destination in British Columbia or produced in British Columbia from wheat grown in the Prairie Region.
4.	(1) The Minister shall not pay assistance in respect of transportation:
(a)	where the grain, screening or wheat product is transported by truck from Western Canada into Eastern Canada, from Western Canada into British Columbia or from any place of shipment in British Columbia to a destination in that province; or
(b)	where the grain, screenings or wheat product is transported by truck from a place of shipment in Eastern Canada to a destination in Eastern Canada that has a higher rate of assistance than that of the place of shipment unless the owner of the truck is the wholesaler of the shipment, or
(1)	is licensed as a common carrier;
(ii)	has furnished the Minister with an undertaking in accordance with Section 5; and
(iii)	has complied with that undertaking.
(2)	The Minister shall not pay assistance in respect of transportation where:
(a)	he is satisfied that the produce shipped was not for feed for livestock in Canada; or
(b)	he is not satisfied that the sale price to the buyers of the product has been reduced by the amount of the assistance that may be paid under these Regulations.
5.	The undertaking of a trucker shall be in a form satisfactory to the Minister and shall include an undertaking by the trucker to:
(a)	provide the Director with all tariffs set out by his firm on grain, screenings and wheat products;
(b)	issue bills of lading on all shipments eligible for assistance under these Regulations setting out the actual destination or destinations of all of the shipment;
(c)	charge a rate on the movement of grain, screenings and wheat products in accordance with the current tariff he has provided to the Director; and
(d)	in any case where his truck licence permits the transport between any two points of a product for more than one shipper, make
available to all shippers and consignees at those points the lowest rate he charges between those points for grain, screenings or wheat products shipped in the same quantity per individual shipment.
6.	In determining the amount of assistance payable on a shipment made by railway car to a destination:
(a)	the rail point nearest the actual destination is deemed to be the destination; and
(b)	that rail point is deemed to be situate in the county or locality in which it is shown as being situate in
(i)	the Gazeteer of Canada, in the case of a destination in the Province of Ontario, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia; or
(ii)	the Canadian Guide, published by the International Railway Publishing Company Limited, in the case of a destination in the Province of Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
Transportation Assistance
1.	Shipments to Ontario:
(a)	to destinations in the Counties of Cochrane and Timiskaming, per ton, $12.60.
(b)	to destinations in the Counties of Nip-issing, Algoma and Manitoulin, per ton $10.00.
(c)	to destinations in the Counties of Sudbury and Thunder Bay, per ton, $8.00.
(d)	to	destinations	in	the	Counties	of
Carleton, Dundas, Glengarry, Lanark, Prescott, Renfrew, Russell and Stormont, per ton, $6.60.
(e)	to	destinations	in	the	Counties	of
Durham, Frontenac, Grenville, Haliburton, Hastings, Leeds, Lennox and Addington, Muskoka, Northumberland, Ontario, Parry Sound, Peterborough, Prince Edward and Victoria, per ton, $5.40.
(f)	to other destinations, per ton, $4.80.
2.	Shipments to Quebec:
(a)	to destinations in the Magdalen Islands, per ton, $18.00.
(b)	to destinations in the Counties of Gaspe East, Gaspe West and Temiscamingue, per ton, $13.60.
(c)	to destinations	in	the	Counties	of
Abitibi, Bonaventure and Saguenay, per ton, $12.60.
(d)	to destinations	in	the	Counties	of
Compton, Gatineau, Labelle, Matane and Matapedia, per ton, $10.60.
October 7, 1968
[Stage Direction]
(e)	to	destinations	in	the	Counties	of
Chicoutimi, Lae St. Jean East, Lac St. Jean West, Rimouski, Riviere du Loup, Stanstead, Temiscouata, per ton, $9.40.
[Stage Direction]
(f)
[Stage Direction]
to
[Stage Direction]
destinations
[Stage Direction]
in
[Stage Direction]
the
[Stage Direction]
Counties
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Brome,
[Stage Direction]
Frontenac
[Stage Direction]
Kamouraska, L'Islet,
[Stage Direction]
Richmond, Sherbrooke, Wolfe, per ton, $8.40.
(g)	to other destinations, per ton, $7.40.
3.	Shipments to New Brunswick:
(a)	to	destinations	in	the	Counties	of
Carleton, Charlotte, Gloucester, Kent, Northumberland, Queens and Sunbury, per ton, $17.00.
(b)	to destinations in the County of York, per ton, $14.60.
(c)	to destinations in the Counties of Kings, Restigouche and St. John, per ton, $13.40.
(d)	to other destinations, per ton, $12.20.
4.	Shipments to Nova Scotia:
(1)	Except as provided in sub-item (2) Shipments to Nova Scotia
(a)	to destinations in the Counties of Cape Breton and Victoria, per ton, $17.20.
(b)	to destinations in the Counties of Inverness, Richmond and Yarmouth, per ton, $16.20.
(c)	to destinations in the Counties of Digby, Guysboro and Shelburne, per ton, $15.00.
(d)	to destinations in the Counties of Cumberland and Queens, per ton, $13.60.
(e)	to destinations in the County of Anti-gonish, per ton, $12.00.
(f)	to destinations in the Counties of Annapolis, Lunenburg and Pictou, per ton, $10.80.
(g)	to other destinations, per ton, $9.60.
(2)	Shipments of wheat bran, wheat shorts, wheat middlings to Nova Scotia from Ontario or Quebec
(a)	to destinations taking a carlot freight rate from Fort William of $1.07 per hundredweight, per ton,$15.20.
(b)	to destinations taking a carlot freight rate from Fort William of $1.07 per hundredweight, per ton, $16.20.
5.	Shipments to Prince Edward Island, per ton, $14.80.
6.	Shipments to Newfoundland:
(a)	to destinations in the Avalon Peninsula, being all that portion of the Province of Newfoundland contained within the following boundaries: Commencing at the mouth of Pipers Hole River in Placentia Bay; thence up said river to the Terrenceville Highway Road; thence in a general easterly direction along the centre of said road to the Newfoundland Railway, (excluding the village of Goobies); thence southerly along said Railway to a point due west of the northern extremity of Bull Arm; thence due east to Bull Arm; thence southeasterly along Bull Arm to Trinity Bay; thence northeasterly along Trinity Bay to the Ocean; thence southerly and westerly in the Ocean to Placentia Bay; thence northerly along said bay to the point of commencement, (excluding Red Island, Long Island and Sound Island), per ton, $17.40.
(b)	to all other destinations in Newfoundland and Labrador, per ton, $23.40.
7.	Shipments to British Columbia:
(a)	to destinations served by rail, $4.40 per ton less than the lowest carload freight rate through Canada from Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge or point of origin as determined from the following Tariffs, supplements thereto and successive issues thereof or combinations thereof: C.P.R. Tariffs W.849-B and 5-B; C.N.R. Tariffs W.184-D and W.230-B; G.N. Railway Tariffs 625-i and 771-H; P.G.E. Railway Tariff 207-A (Domestic section).
(b)	to destinations served only by water carrier, the amount payable to the nearest mainland rail point, as determined in accordance with paragraph (a) plus the difference in amount between the assistance payable to Courtenay and the assistance payable to Vancouver.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 11, 1966