1968-12-05

Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. When the integrity of a member of this house is impugned it is a matter of the greatest seriousness for all hon. members of the house. It is something that one would not expect an hon. member to do lightly and without concrete evidence to prove his statement.
Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) made a series of vague and rambling statements purporting to show that civil servants were being placed under undue pressure because of my actions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the television transcript that was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. As recorded on page 15 of the transcript, supplied by the C.B.C., I said:
The backbencher has the most wonderful safety valve for getting things done and I discovered this accidentally, and that is, every week, every Wednesday morning, there's a government caucus and all you have to do is discuss it in that caucus and refer to a particular minister who hasn't acted the way you think he should act in getting a job done for one of your constituents. If a constituent has a problem, and you haven't satisfaction, you take it to the caucus.
That is the end of that quote, but after an interruption by one of the other panellists I said:
I have the opportunity as a government member to put the minister on the spot in front of the Prime Minister who is sitting there-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: After a couple of additional interruptions I said:
The merest threat of doing this is enough to get civil servants all down the line making sure that they get that job done that needs being done because they know that if the minister is on the spot, then they're going to be on the spot.


Mr. Baldwin:: You haven't got enough spots left.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Now, Mr. Speaker, it must be very obvious to any fair minded person that having made three references to the "minister" that this was the area of pressure I was talking about and the reference to "civil servants all down the line" was a corollary statement. For the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to take that reference out of context amounted to a deliberate distortion of the intent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I
believe it is very important that I state some views on the civil service. Since coming to Ottawa I have been most impressed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should state his question of privilege. I suggest to him that this is not the occasion for him to state his views about the public service.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I will delete any reference to my feelings for the civil service, but I would go on to say that when such instances affect my constituents I will make the facts known to the minister concerned. I make no apology to anyone for this action. Frequently we see in this house the use or abuse of the rule of privilege for narrow, frivolous and partisan purposes. Such abuse reduces the effectiveness of the house and abrogates the privileges of all its members. Our responsibility is to govern the country and to do so we must first govern our tongues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: My
constituents sent me here to work for them with vigour, and to speak fairly and honestly in the House of Commons and outside. I am proud that my constituents in Okanagan Boundary expect high standards of performance from me. I deem it a privilege to follow this standard, and I recommend it to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 5, 1968

Television Statement by Member


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose yesterday to put the question I did to the Prime Minister I had one thought in mind; that was the code of ethics introduced in this house by the previous prime minister. Under that code of ethics no minister of the crown should be in a position where he may be threatened. Granted, we have had evidence in past parliaments and we have had evidence in this parliament where ministers of the crown in respect of furniture deals or videotape incidents have placed themselves in a position whereby external pressure might be exerted in order to bring about the result desired by anyone who is in on the know, and who is aware that what is being done should not be done; but when a member in this house says he is impugned, he is placing himself in a precarious position when he can be impugned by his own statements made during a broadcast, if anyone should want to refer to this broadcast and go through it.
Is it any wonder the image of this parliament is what it is when members continue to make reference to the wasted time of parliament? We see in the same transcript where another Liberal member referred to it as a very healthy parliament, and then said it should be abolished if it did not become efficient. Why don't they make up their own minds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: One minute they say it is a healthy parliament; the next minute they say it should be more efficient. The efficiency of parliament is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. He does not contribute anything to this responsibility when he gets up and runs from the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether hon. members would not agree that we should not pursue this matter further. Certainly I do not wish to suggest that the debate should be interrupted in any way, but the hon. member did not follow up his question of privilege-and perhaps it is a good thing he did not-by a motion. Normally, there being no motion there can be no question of privilege; but in view of the fact that there was reference in his statement to the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond I thought he should be permitted to say a few words, but I hoped he would not say anything that would cause the debate to continue too long.


Donald MacInnis: Mr Speaker, may I clarify one point. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary charged deliberate distortion of his remarks. I should like to read from page 16 of the transcript provided through the C.B.C. If Liberal members are interested in this document I shall be happy to table it. I am quoting from page 16 to prove that there is no distortion of his words:
Howard: -You certainly have an opportunity to bring anything up in the house, but I have the opportunity as a government member, to put that minister on the spot in front of the Prime Minister who is sitting there saying-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: -who is sitting there saying "halt..."
Mr. Howard goes on to say:
Not as effectively ... not as often as I can do it. I can do it every week. And the merest threat of doing it-
Then Mr. Howard goes on to say:
This doesn't matter. The merest threat of doing this is enough to get civil servants all down the line making sure that they get that job done that needs being done-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: It's too bad the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary did not finish the statement, because from the applause which took place it takes a government member to threaten the civil servants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that for the consideration of the Chair yesterday he read long excerpts from a statement made by the hon. member. The hon. member has again quoted from what was said on Tuesday in this exchange on television. The hon. member is now giving us a third edition of the same thing. I am wondering whether by this time we do not know enough about what was said on that program.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will complete the quotation and throw his own words back to the hon. member. He said:
-because they know that if the minister is on the spot then they are going to be on the spot. And I have used this and it has worked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: From the applause of Liberal members it appears that their idea of democracy is to threaten civil servants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
December 5, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I said a moment ago, and I trust the member will not go further, when the hon. member raised the matter yesterday I made the decision which I still believe is right, that notice should have been given. Notice was given today by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and that is why the matter was allowed to go on. May I conclude in this way, by saying if there was any member who was entitled to raise a question of privilege it was the Prime Minister, and he did not raise one. I understand we have another question of privilege.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves this particular issue I should like to state I agree that the exchange between the two hon. members has been adequate, except in one respect. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary today used the words "deliberate distortion". I submit to Your Honour that these words, without qualification, constitute an infringement of the privileges of any hon. member. Sometimes, the word "distortion", or other similar words, are used in the heat of debate and upon reflection, hon. members probably wish they had not used them. These words "deliberate distortion" were not used in the heat of debate or as a result of a situation generated in the house but read from a statement, and I suggest these are words the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary should withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows much better than I, there are a number of precedents and a number of authors who list long series of words considered to be unparliamentary. Basically I would think the suggestion by a member that there has been a deliberate intention to mislead the house is normally not acceptable according to the practices of this house. Although the hon. member may have wanted to say there had been a distortion, I am quite sure he did not want to impute to an hon. member an intention to deliberately distort something. I should like that hon. member to confirm my understanding of this situation.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my words have caused so much pain to hon. members in the opposition.


Mr. Bell:: Not members of the opposition, to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Unsatisfactory Reply to Question


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I suggest that perhaps I could have worded my remarks more carefully. Out of respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw those remarks.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: On this happy note we will go on to the next question of privilege.



MR. FORTIN-UNSATISFACTORY REPLY TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On that happy note, I should like to rise on a less happy one concerning the Department of Justice.
A few months ago, I put the following question on the order paper:
What works have been declared to be to the general advantage of Canada in the sense of the B.N.A. Act (section 92) since 1867?
The question is most important because it enables us to define the extent to which the B.N.A. Act was applied. Now, some civil servants in the department concerned called me later on to say that it might take a while to prepare a reply and asked me to kindly be patient.
Wanting to prove my good will, I accepted that reply. However, on October 21, 1968, as reported in Hansard on page 1577, I was told, and I quote:
No list of such works has been maintained.
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is based on the type of reply the members, the representatives of the people, are given. The members endeavour to discharge, as best they can, their duties as legislators and controllers of the government and the administration; in order to do this, they want to be as well informed as possible. The government, on the other hand, tries to thwart their good intentions by refusing to give them the necessary information.
Mr. Speaker, as a true democracy cannot exist unless the members and the voters are fully informed, I complete my question of privilege by asking the Department of Justice to revise its position and give us this information.
Moreover, I propose that the house adjourn its business to force the government to tell the house what works have been declared to be to the general advantage of Canada. I make
December 5, 1968

Unsatisfactory Reply to Question this a matter of principle, because the government refuses deliberately to answer the questions we put to it.


Mr. Speaker:: The member, in conformity with standing orders, gave me written notice of the question of privilege he intended to bring up.
He claims that a minister did not give him the information requested through a question on the order paper, and he made a motion to adjourn the house.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere quoted the provisions of paragraph 3 of citation 181 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary rules and forms, and I quote:
A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
If, according to standing orders, a member cannot insist, by way of a question of privilege, upon an answer, it is obvious that a question of privilege cannot be raised when an answer has been given, even if the hon. member is not satisfied with it. Therefore, I must conclude that the question of privilege is not in order.
As concerns the adjournment of the house for the purpose suggested by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I suppose his motion is based on standing order 26. If so, the subject of the motion does not meet the conditions for urgency listed in citation 100 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary rules and forms. Anyhow, whether it is a pure and simple question of privilege or a motion under standing order 26, the rules do not authorize me to present the hon. member's motion to the house.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on agriculture-Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on national resources and public works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-140, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (labelling).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that pharmaceutical firms must state clearly on the package the side-effects of the drug. At the present time, no legislation requires, for example, the manufacturer of an antihistamic drug to indicate that his products might slow down reflexes or induce sleepiness.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister because the Minister of Fisheries is not in the house. In view of the really shocking telegram from the Minister of Fisheries to the Newfoundland Fishing Trade Association this morning, in which the government appears to wash its hands of any responsibility to help prevent the imminent closure of a number of fish plants in Newfoundland affecting some 6,000 plant workers and over 10,000 fishermen, leading to a crisis of catastrophic proportions if it takes place, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he is prepared to request the Minister of Fisheries to attend the house today to answer questions? Will he also indicate to the house whether the information conveyed by the Minister of Fisheries to the Newfoundland Fishing Trade Association is a final decision of the government in this regard?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Fisheries might be asked to answer the first part of the question tomorrow. I believe that yesterday he had already dealt with the question of existing and future programs, on which he will be making announcements at a future date. Obviously we cannot speculate
December 5, 1968

on whether future programs on which announcements have not yet been made will be government policy.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the Minister of Fisheries in his telegram announced that the new government policy would not take effect before the end of the current fiscal year, that is before next March, will the Prime Minister take steps to see to it that the Canadian government policy in respect of assistance to the Atlantic groundfish industry is announced immediately in order to avert a crisis whereby, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, thousands of Canadians would lose their jobs due to lack of action on the part of the government?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Fisheries has said in this house repeatedly.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St.
Barbe): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia can expect some immediate assistance now, before the government brings forward a policy in a few months' time as has been promised?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is the same, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister at least undertake to set aside a day, either Friday or Monday, in order that this very serious situation can be dealt with by means of a general discussion in the house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ditto, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder if the Prime
Minister realizes the urgency of the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister is very actively working on this problem in his office.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, prior to the little flurry, I did indicate that I was going to rise on a question of privilege to bring this matter to the attention of the house in such a way
Inquiries of the Ministry that we could obtain a statement from the minister today. Unfortunately I was not able to do so. All I am asking is, I wonder is there any way the house can obtain from the Prime Minister the sort of sensitive kind of understanding which would indicate to the people of Canada that the Prime Minister does not consider this to be a frivolous matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that the point he is raising now is not a question of privilege. It may be a grievance. There is a distinction between a grievance and a question of privilege. I doubt very much if the point he is making now qualifies under the rules of the house as a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: What I want to know is this. Could we get from the Prime Minister an answer to questions which have been posed to him in mannerly fashion, so we may get the sympathy of the federal government on this matter?


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the large number of people on the Atlantic coast who will be out of work within the next ten days, numbering in the thousands, has either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration formulated any plans to take care of these people and provide them with some means of earning a livelihood?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Fisheries was in the house yesterday and he will be here tomorrow. I would not claim, nor would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration claim, to know as much about fisheries as does the Minister of Fisheries. The minister is not here precisely because we have devised a system to permit ministers to devote more time to trying to solve problems that arise within their areas of jurisdiction, and this is exactly what the minister is doing now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will you permit one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the house leader? Would the house leader give consideration, in view of the urgency of this matter, to changing the order of business and bringing forward the estimates of the Department of Fisheries tomorrow?
Kon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council): I have had conversations with hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, and there seems to be some agreement to having

December 5, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry those estimates considered on Monday. I would be prepared to hear again from hon. gentlemen opposite if they desire to change the order.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is an urgent question, and perhaps the government house leader could give the matter careful consideration and consider bringing forward the estimates of the Department of Fisheries tomorrow.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Perhaps the hon. member might like to address himself to his own house leader on this question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the house could at least take time to address itself to this crisis that is developing.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that at 5.30 this afternoon he is to meet a delegation of 50 or so men and women from Manitoba who are here with regard to the retention of the Air Canada maintenance base at Winnipeg, may I ask the Prime Minister a question on this subject? My question is this. Has a decision on this matter already been taken, or will the Prime Minister and those who are with him give serious and open consideration to the representations that will be made to the government this afternoon?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I believe it has been stated, Mr. Speaker, that any decision on this would be made and announced in the coming days after today's meeting.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that in coming to this very important decision the principle of assistance in regional development will be of paramount importance before any final decision is made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, questions of regional development have paramount importance in any decisions made by this government.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the Prime Minister, with respect to
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
this whole roster system, where the Minister of Transport is today, on a day which is very important to his department? May I also ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Will he give full consideration to the recommendation of the royal commission on this subject during his consideration of it, before a decision is made?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that he is telling us about the significance of area development and transportation, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell this house today, in the absence of the Minister of Transport what are the important investments which have been planned and announced, concerning the Dorval air terminal, in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that the information involved in his question should rather be given in the form of a statement on motions. If the hon. member wishes to follow up his question, he may give me notice for discussion at the time of adjournment.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In reply to a question I asked him on November 7 last, the Secretary of State assured the house that the work on Place Radio-Canada, in Montreal, would start as scheduled on December 1, and that he did not expect any further delay. Since the work has not started yet, would the hon. Secretary of State tell us exactly on what date the
December 5. 1968

work will be started at Place Radio-Canada in Montreal?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in order to know the exact date, I would have to ask the C.B.C. Up to now, I know the contracts have been signed and the work should begin at any time now. I cannot give a specific date as requested by the hon. member, unless the information is given to me by the C.B.C. to which I shall direct the question.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to clear up the matter.
Since the minister replied on November 7 that it would be on December 1, would he be prepared to correct his statement and make another one as soon as possible in order to announce a definite date?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered to that question and said to the hon. member that I was going to ask the C.B.C. about the exact date. If 1 am told by the C.B.C. that a date has been set, I shall give this answer to the hon. member, who knows full well that the Secretary of State does not make such decisions, as the C.B.C. is a crown corporation.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question.
Could the Secretary of State tell us why he undertook during the election campaign to set the date on which the work would begin in November 1968?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the reports in this morning's press regarding the alleged contents of the Woods report, would the minister inform the house whether he has received the report of the task force and whether he will table that report for the information of hon. members?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this task force to investigate industrial relations was set up on December 13, 1966, and it will no doubt table its report to the Privy Council office. I have made an investigation, since I too read that
Inquiries of the Ministry morning report, and find the official report of the Woods task force will not be the hands of the Privy Council office until the last week of December. I presume that the article in question, which was written by one of Canada's foremost labour reporters, is probably based on some working papers that came into his hands by means unknown to the Minister of Labour.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. Will the minister assure the house that the report will be tabled? I understand, of course, that this body is a task force rather than a royal commission. I think this is a matter of great importance and that the report should be tabled in parliament, and I am wondering whether the minister would undertake to do so when the report is filed with the Privy Council office.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I imagine this report is of importance not only to the Department of Labour but also to the departments of manpower and industry. I must remind the hon. gentleman that in the final analysis the decision to table it will be a matter for the Prime Minister himself.


David Lewis: Then may I address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could assure the house that the report of the Woods task force will be tabled. May I also ask him whether he will consider publishing and tabling some of the more important studies that were made for use by the task force.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider both those suggestions, and with the advice of the minister will decide whether the report should be tabled. I think it would be unwise to make a blanket statement of principle, before reading the document, that it is in the interest of Canadians to table it. My hunch is that it will be, but I really cannot answer without knowing what is in it.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the very detailed and lengthy report given on pages 1 and 2 of this morning's Globe and Mail by Wilfred List, which makes it very evident that a great deal of information has been leaked to the press in advance of being given to the members of this house, will the minister make inquiries and find out why this
December 5, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry was done, how it was done and then report back to the house tomorrow?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suggest that the hon. member would probably obtain a great deal more satisfaction if he discussed the matter with Dean Woods, whose responsibility it is to make certain that these valuable documents are not leaked or made available to the press prematurely.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that this report and other reports indicate that certain labour unions had access to the Woods task force report-and I speak specifically of the head of the steelworkers union- would the Minister of Labour inform the house how this leak came to pass?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who has just been alluded to is one of the more responsible labour leaders in this country. When the task force was set up by the previous prime minister, in his wisdom he placed at the disposal of the task force eight individuals, four from labour and four from management, to advise and help the task force to produce a respectable report. This gentleman to whom reference has just been made is, as I say, one of the top labour leaders of this country, and I am sure his advice would have considerable weight and be well appreciated by the task force.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether it was the prerogative of the gentleman about whom we are speaking to publicly divulge decisions taken by the task force, as obviously has been the case.



ABSENCE FROM HOUSE OF INDUSTRY AND FISHERIES MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the whereabouts of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When the minister brought in his estimates on Monday some of us were left with some concern. Yesterday I rose on a question of privilege relating to what he had said, and I have been following the roster and waiting with some anticipation for his appearance. He was scheduled to appear yesterday and again today. I wonder whether he will appear tomorrow.
[Mr. Hees.l
Right Kon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in Victoria, British Columbia, at a water policy seminar where he is replacing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is in hospital.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister say whether he has received any word from the Minister of Fisheries as to whether he is coming back to the house today? I was in conversation with the minister and he told me he would contact the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Compton.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? If the hon. member wants me to rule on this question I would have to rule that it is not usual to ask the Prime Minister where a minister is, or whether he will be in the house. I do not think that is a proper question. The question may be asked, but the hon. member cannot insist upon a reply.


John Howard Lundrigan: Then I should like to apologize, Mr. Speaker, for asking my question in that way. What I really meant to ask was whether the Prime Minister had received any indication from the Minister of Fisheries that he would return to the house, as he indicated to me he would during a telephone call a couple of minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Fisheries is actually prohibited from attending the house this afternoon, and whether the Prime Minister considers it more important for the Minister of Fisheries to be in his office rather than in the house explaining to the house, and accounting to the people of Canada through this house, a telegram on an urgent matter of public importance sent by the minister this morning?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


James Aloysius McGrath: Find your way out of that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That won't be hard. The minister is not prohibited from attending
December 5, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
the house, Mr. Speaker, and he does not occasions that he would like to be in the have to ask permission to be in the house, house on days when he is not listed.
And I doubt whether that is what he has just
said on the phone.	Some lion. Members: Hear hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: A question oi
privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Are hon. members rising on a question of privilege? 1 believe this would be the occasion upon which to remind hon. members that in my view the procedure with regard to questions of privilege is being seriously abused in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not about to suggest that questions of privilege should not be raised, but hon. members know that according to long standing practice and the rules of the house it is only in extreme circumstances that questions of privilege should be raised. Hon. members may argue that the circumstances at this time justify a question of privilege being raised. What I am saying now does not necessarily apply to hon. members who may wish to raise a question at this moment. But I thought this was a good occasion upon which to express in a general way a reminder that hon. members should be mindful of precedents in this regard.
This having been said, I will call upon the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate to proceed with his question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I say I agree entirely with your ruling, though I think the need for it stems from the kind of rules and procedures which are being forced on us by this government. The Prime Minister has accused me of lying.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Howard Lundrigan: He said he seriously doubted whether my report to the house was correct. I will only say I would not doubt the word of the Prime Minister if he made an observation in the house; I would go along with it, although I might be inclined to do otherwise. I was in conversation with the Minister of Fisheries. The minister indicated to me that he intended to contact the Prime Minister but wondered whether, in view of the roster system, he should come into the house this afternoon. I am confident from the remarks of the Minister of Fisheries on other


James Aloysius McGrath: The Prime Minister has doubted the word of another member of this house, and under the rules he must withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not correct in his interpretation of the rules. It is against the rules to say that another member has wilfully misled the house or been untruthful. On the other hand, I will admit to the hon. member who has raised this point of order that all hon. members have to accept the word of other members. This is a basic rule. This cannot even be the subject of discussion. It is a basic principle that every member of the house has to accept the word of another member, and it should not even be the subject of discussion.


Walter C. Carter: The Prime Minister wanted to speak on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for St. John's West would allow me, I have made a ruling and I suggest we go on to another subject.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Would the hon. minister tell the house whether or not he proposes to look into the economic situation of the eastern townships, especially the Sherbrooke area which is in dire straits. Does the minister expect that the area will be included in future among the designated areas?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our intention to study the economy of every region in Canada, including Sherbrooke. However, no decision will be taken as to making Sherbrooke a designated area until the new legislation is passed
December 5. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport who, according to my revised roster, was supposed to be here today. I do not know where he is, but in his absence I will repeat my question of November 21 to the Minister without Portfolio, who at that time said he would take it as notice.
I wonder whether the minister could now give me an answer to the question of what will be done to forestall expiration of the freeze on Atlantic freight rates in March 1969? Does the minister have an answer to that question?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will relay that inquiry to the Minister of Transport.


Charles Humbert Thomas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister catches this elusive minister would he also-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question he should ask it.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio is this. At the same time would he try to get an answer to my question of October 31 regarding what is being done to forestall the planned lay-off of Canadian National security police in the Atlantic region?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on transport that I should like to direct to the attention of the associate minister or the Minister without Portfolio. Having in mind news reports concerning tires that were given safety tests in the United States and that failed such tests, and in view of the fact that some of these tires are imported into Canada, I should like to ask what is the situation in this country. Do we have a testing bureau for tire safety, and are tires that have been proven faulty called back?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.


Barry Mather: Ten o'clock.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Recently I asked him if the report he had promised to table about the use and allocation of time granted by the C.B.C. to political and non political movements and others was ready and he replied that he did not know what I was talking about. Now that he does, I would like to ask him if he still intends to promise such a study of the C.B.C.'s policy in that particular field, before the representatives of the C.B.C. give evidence before the parliamentary committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, as announced?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I think the hon. member is pretending to know that I know, but apparently he does not know that I do not know, because I tried to find in Hansard -and, in that respect, I had some help-a sentence of mine that could have led him to believe that a report would be tabled in the house on that matter, and I have not found anything to that effect.
On the other hand, when the matter was raised I remember having told the hon. member that the facts that gave rise to his question were not clear, that it could not be answered until he had explained those facts, and I find that he did so during the debate on the adjournment motion but, at that time, unfortunately, I was away from the house and Canada. The C.B.C. prefers to give evidence before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, because it is a complex question and the C.B.C. would like to be able to explain and discuss it with hon. members who sit on the committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Secretary of State knows that you do not know that he does not know, but we get nowhere with questions like that.
I should like to ask my question again, since he does not give me any answer, and
December 5, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	3525
I ask him if it would be possible to know the C.B.C. policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member admits he has already asked that question and I wonder if it is appropriate to put it a second time.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like to point out as humbly as 1 can before the Secretary of State that this is an extremely important question, which is highly complex, and that before it is looked into by the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, it would surely be advisable to have the C.B.C. state its policy, if it has a policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. This is a debate between the hon. member and the minister, and I do not believe it would be advisable to go any further.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is prompted by an article which appeared in today's press to the effect that 12 English speaking veterans of the Canadian Corps of Commissionnaires are being displaced from security jobs because they are not bilingual. Is this the new policy of the present government?


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Did the Secretary of State consult with his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs before he extended the thanks of a grateful country and fired the commissionnaires who were serving in the various government buildings coming under his jurisdiction?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS AS OBSERVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. I ask it in the light of information
Inquiries of the Ministry I have received that the government of Ontario will be accompanied by members of opposition parties as observers at the conference. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether this will also be arranged in the case of members of opposition parties in this parliament?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have stated that we planned to reserve places for members of opposition parties and for members of the government caucus during the public debate at the constitutional conference. I have requested this of the provinces as a procedure for the conference. There has been no objection to it so far, and I think this would be agreeable to everyone. Perhaps that is even more certainly the case if the information just conveyed to me is correct.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to have the working papers drawn up by the federal government for the conference released now so that members of the opposition who will be attending the conference as observers and, indeed, the Canadian public generally may have an opportunity to give the fullest consideration to these papers prior to the conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be very anxious that this be done. Discussions to that effect are proceeding now between officials of the federal government and of the provinces who have been meeting for the past three days in preparation for the conference on December 16. There has been no word given to me yet of any decision that might have been reached by the officials at that meeting. I do feel, like the Leader of the Opposition, that it would be to the advantage of the public if all parties at this conference could agree to release their position papers before the conference, but if that is not done I think we will press very strongly to release them afterwards.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is he in a position to tell the house what directives he has issued to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide ETV facilities on an interim basis? I ask
3528	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry this question in the light of the minister's suggestion on October 24 that he would be taking this course, and also in the light of the recent acceptance by the C.R.T.C. of applications for ultra high frequency channels in Toronto and Montreal.


Gérard Pelletier: In reply to the first part of this question dealing with school telecasts and the specific case of Alberta, the matter is at the present time under consideration by the task force on educational television.
Formal instructions have not been given because the study of this particular case has not yet been completed. As to issuing licences for use of decimetric waves, the relevant instructions have already been given to the C.R.T.C. which is to give priority to educational television with regard to the use of decimetric waves.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I take ten seconds to suggest to hon. members that again today we may be running short of time, and I see many members rising who may be anxious to ask questions which I am sure are very urgent and important. I would ask the indulgence of hon. members in connection with supplementary questions.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Since his return from Latin America did he have the opportunity to examine the statement of the Quebec premier, Mr. Bertrand, on educational broadcasting and does the government intend to review its position and issue a licence to the Quebec government?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the speech of the Quebec premier. On the other hand, the government does not intend to review its position concerning the issuance of licences for educational television.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether it is true that, when he last met with Mr. Lucien Saulnier,

DEBATES	December 5, 1968
the executive chairman of the city of Montreal, he showed the latter out of his office?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to confirm what, I imagine, is a press report and the rules of the house do not allow questions of this kind.

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and/or the Minister of Labour. It has come to the attention of members of the house that members of the Company of Young Canadians do not participate in or receive any benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Will either minister re-examine this unjust situation in order that the meaning of the just society may prevail?



ASSISTANCE IN MOVEMENT OF DRYING EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the serious situation now facing western grain farmers in connection with the pile-up of damp and wet grain, have any representations been made by the governments of the western provinces to the federal government for a cost sharing program to cover the cost of moving drying equipment into areas where it is urgently needed? If so, what action is being taken?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the federal Department of Agriculture and the departments of agriculture of all three provinces affected, not specifically on the point that the hon. gentleman raised but indeed including all ways that the two levels of government can be helpful in resolving this problem. There is much more that could be said about this matter, but inasmuch as the estimates of the Department of Agriculture will be under debate fairly soon perhaps we could discuss it then.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenxie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on November 27 Your Honour indicated that the question of damp wheat is one of continuing emergency I wonder whether the right hon. Prime Minister might not prevail upon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce,
December 5. 1968

who answers for the wheat board, to be in the house and available to answer questions on this problem, which obviously is not going to be resolved in one day.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as I explained a moment ago the minister is presently in Victoria discussing the question of pollution in general and of water in particular, and this is also very important. He is replacing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, unfortunately, is still in hospital. The Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan will be replacing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but on questions such as wheat I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would be glad to answer if questions were directed to him.


Stanley James Korchinski: As a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister if he could not possibly have someone available on all occasions to answer questions since this is a very critical problem?


Mr. Benson:: The Minister of Agriculture is here.


Stanley James Korchinski: He is here today but he is gone tomorrow.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did any member of the task force on government information services, set up by the right hon. gentleman, request the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to ask Canadian radio stations to provide tapes of their news broadcasts to the commission?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I will gladly inquire.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the recent report by Secretary General U Thant of the United Nations that Canadian immigration policy is jeopardizing the
Inquiries of the Ministry position of developing countries by draining away their trained and educated citizens, and in view of the statement by the Canadian ambassador to Venezuela, Bruce Rankin, to the United Nations that countries like Canada should agree not to actively seek educated and trained immigrants from under-developed countries, is the minister considering steps that will halt this criticism which is coming from many developing countries throughout the world?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not examined these comments but it is not the policy of the department to recruit actively in areas where the governments concerned wish to retain their skilled people.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or, in his absence, to the Minister without Portfolio associated with that department. Can the minister now answer the question put to him on November 7 relating to a report that Canadian Indians are being taught riot techniques and, if so, can he say who is instigating this?
Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minister without
Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is meeting with several provincial Indian leaders at this time. With regard to the question asked, there is no information available to us in that respect.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: May I have the co-operation of the hon. member also. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.



CONSIDERATION OF BRIEF OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this question should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but owing to his unfortunate absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the government considering the adoption of

December 5. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry the proposals of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada contained in the association's brief which was presented to the cabinet recently?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will have to take notice of this question, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to ask a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has expired. In fact it expired a few moments ago. I have noted with vigilant eye those members who have tried to get the floor, and I shall make it my duty to recognize them at the earliest possible moment tomorrow.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I waited patiently during the question period because I did not want to interrupt the flow of thought that occurred during a portion of the period. I was hoping that before the conclusion of the question period the Minister of Transport or his stand-in, the Minister without Portfolio, would be able to give me the answer the minister said he would give me in respect of the National Harbours Board decentralization study. Perhaps this might simplify matters tomorrow, since the committee is to meet to deal with the report which the Minister of Transport indicated he might very well table in the house today.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I was in Winnipeg yesterday, but from reading Hansard in this regard I believe the Minister of Transport said he would read the report overnight.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where the hell is he?


James Armstrong Richardson: I receive a lot of questions about the Department of Transport, but I do not know what the minister's bedtime reading is.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council if he would give us the business of the house for the remainder of this week and next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, we will be in committee of supply today dealing with the estimates of the
(Mr. Paproski.]
Department of Agriculture. Tomorrow we will return to committee of supply to deal with the estimates of the Department of Transport. On Monday it is proposed that we deal with the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and upon their conclusion the resolution dealing with the fresh water fish marketing corporation. On Tuesday it is proposed that we deal with the motions to concur in the reports of the procedure committee. It is anticipated that this will take several sitting days next week. Therefore it is difficult to predict what will be the order of business for the balance of the week. The business that would follow, however, would be the resolution preceding the anti-dumping legislation after the completion of the consideration of the reports of the committee on procedure and as soon as the report is received from the finance committee.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bechard in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee, contributions to the Commonwealth agricultural bureaux, and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to one half the contributions to the council from other sources during the fiscal year but not exceeding $50,000, $8,520,375.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply. Revised estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 8 of the blue book and the details thereof are listed at page 11.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to express my appreciation to the chairman and members of the standing committee on agriculture for the manner in which they conducted the examination of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture before the standing committee. As hon. members of the committee are aware the examination of these estimates was concluded today. Again, I wish to commend the officers of the committee and the members of the committee for the manner in which they conducted this examination. I might also say at this time that at the beginning of the examination of these estimates before the standing committee I made a statement in general terms relating to the estimates. I am
December 5, 1968

prepared now to perhaps make a supplementary statement relating directly to the estimates, but there is some indication from reading Hansard that there may be some subjects hon. members would like to discuss relating to agriculture that may not be included in my remarks. I, of course, would be happy to do what I can in respect of answering questions in those areas.
The agriculture committee over the past several weeks has given close scrutiny to the 1968-69 estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by my reviewing or recounting the testimony given by myself and by officials of the department. I do think, however, it would be useful if I were to refer to the objectives of the Canada Department of Agriculture and to summarize quickly some of the recent developments in departmental programs.
The Department of Agriculture exists to serve the farmer and in so doing serves all Canadians. We cannot have a healthy Canada without a healthy agriculture. Farm products are very important earners of foreign exchange. About 40 per cent of the work force in Canada is employed in the growing, processing and distribution of agricultural products. A continuous supply of high quality food at reasonable prices is essential to the high standard of living that Canadians expect as a right. That continuous supply will only be there so long as we have people-farmers-willing to produce it. And they will be willing to continue to fill our shopping carts only if they can receive reasonable rewards for their work. Our ultimate objective is that a farmer should be able to make the same return on his capital and labour as if he invested them in the industrial side of our economy. Surely this is not an unreasonable goal.
The 1968-69 main estimates of the Department of Agriculture, exclusing the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Farm Credit Corporation and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, total $255.8 million. This is an increase of approximately $1.7 million over the previous year if you allow for supplementary estimates, contingency allocations and organizational adjustments. If all these other items are included there is an over-all total of some $284 million.
Provision has been made for increased expenditure under the agricultural stabilization program. The spending for crop insurance premiums will continue to rise as more
Supply-Agriculture
provincial plans come into operation and more farmers take advantage of this federal-provincial program. Reductions appear for emergency assistance programs instituted to help farmers who suffered income losses due to adverse wheather conditions. Cheese premiums have been dropped, total cost of hog quality premiums has been reduced, and less has been allocated for capital programs in the research branch and Board of Grain Commissioners.
With the funds voted to it by parliament, the Canada Department of Agriculture administers some 30 statutes. The department, among other things, conducts research, grades and inspects farm products, prevents and controls outbreaks of disease and pests in our crops and livestock, and carries out a great many other activities to help solve the farmer's production and marketing problems. The department employs 9,000 people at some 200 separate establishments from St. John's to Victoria with a total of 1.5 million acres of land and 2,500 laboratory, farm and office buildings.
In the interest of brevity, I will not go into detail on the many continuing programs of the department. I shall be happy to answer questions on these areas later. Rather I would like to say a few words on some of the newer ventures on the agricultural scene in which the department is giving leadership.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
First may I mention the national farm management service. Farm management involves the use of economic and business principles in determining that combinaton of land, labour and capital inputs on the invididual farm that will yield maximum net income. In the development of the national farm management service the main emphasis is on using an ultra-modern, yet simple, record keeping and analysis system through the use of a computer. It is hoped this service will encourage a more sophisticated approach to farm business management, show profitability of enterprise within a farm business and identify, diagnose, and help to solve some management problems for individual farmers. The department expects to spend some $250,000 in the development of the national farm management service this fiscal year and, in collaboration with the provinces, bring the system into operation in 1969 or early 1970. I might say in addition that when I mentioned those dates I did not intend to indicate they were target dates for some of our pilot projects but

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
that there will be a gradual build-up of this service as the system and expertise to administrate it are developed.
The task force on agriculture is making good progress toward the delivery of a preliminary report to serve as the basis of documentation for the Canadian congress on agriculture which the government is convening in Ottawa from March 24 to 27, 1969. The congress will provide all groups in agriculture an opportunity to discuss the work of the task force and to give their views on the problems facing the agricultural industry and on the development of national goals and long range programs and policies to deal with these problems.
Action has already been taken on the government's decision to work toward the establishment of a national grains council which would embrace all aspects of the grain industry. I am convinced that this proposed council can play a very important role in co-ordinating program planning, promoting research, establishing effective liaison between industry and government, and assisting in developing export possibilities.
These are only a few illustrations of the department's recognition of the forces that constantly change the face of Canadian agriculture and necessitate continual review of policies and programs in response to the current needs of a dynamic industry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the Minister of Agriculture on his return to the house and on this first opportunity he has had for some time to make a statement of any consequence with regard to agriculture would give us something concrete as to the plans of his department to attack the very serious problems facing the agricultural industry in Canada. I hope he will excuse me if I cannot discuss this subject this afternoon in the same bland manner he has followed in introducing his estimates. I feel it is necessary to speak rather bluntly about some aspects of agriculture.
No responsible Canadian can help but be concerned about the conditions and prospects of agriculture as we are about to enter a new year. In the east there is a steady and continuing decline apparently unchallenged and unrecognized, at least by any sign of useful action by the minister. It is worsened by such developments as the flood of cheap United States corn into Canada. This has been brought to the attention of the minister time and time again, yet he failed to act until it

was too late. Indeed, he has dawdled, and the result is that now it is estimated that imports of com are up 20 per cent this year in Quebec and the maritimes and amount to over 40 per cent of the market.
Throughout the agricultural sector of the economy there is a more pessimistic and uncertain climate than we have seen for some time. Farm receipts are down from last year and it is expected they will be slightly up next year, to about the 1967 level. Is this real progress under the circumstances? Farmers are worried about markets and about the future, and they are holding oft borrowing and investing. One can see this in the reports from farm machinery companies. Sales of farm implements were down in 1967 and in the first six months of 1968 by 20 per cent and there is no sign of any upturn.
While income remains static, what is happening to expenses? It is fair to say that farmers have taken an especially brutal beating from inflation. The composite index for goods and services used by farmers rose by 6.4 per cent last year. According to information produced at the federal-provincial conference on agriculture last week, this year's increase will be about the same. This represents an increase in farmer's costs. Machinery prices were up by 3.1 per cent last year and a larger increase will be realized this year when the final figures are in. Prices of important building materials will be up by over 7 per cent when the final figures are in for this year. One could go right through this list. The squeeze gets tighter; yet the government continues to hang loose.
During the past crop year exports of our main grains, with the exception of barley, all declined. Wheat and flour exports fell to 336 million bushels compared with 515 million bushels the previous year, and 31 per cent below the average for the previous five years. Canada's percentage of the world wheat trade is estimated to have fallen from 29 per cent in 1966-67 to 23 per cent in 1967-68, while that of the United States rose from 37 per cent to 39 per cent.
What is the contribution of the Minister of Agriculture to all this? As far as I have heard he has simply criticized farmers for halflearning the lessons of economics and halflearning lessons of business reasoning. He said this to the farmers:
Some farmers have convinced themselves that their economic situation is worse than it may be in fact and the government is under pressure resulting, in part at least, from the farmers' misunderstanding of economic principles.
December 5, 1968

When the minister spoke of the Ontario corn growers he said:
I suspect that many farmers who protested to Ottawa that they were losing money on corn production did only half the calculation. They charged up their land at appreciated values when calculating their costs but did not record the appreciation as income.
This is but one example of the fuzzy economic reasoning which often confronts and plagues farm policy makers. It is a luxury we can scarcely afford if we are to put the Canadian agricultural industry on a sound business footing, which must be the eventual aim of long term farm policy.
The corn market is inundated by cheap United States corn and the farmers have protested to Ottawa. Yet the minister, in effect, accuses them of cooking their books.
The president of Federal Grain Limited of Winnipeg estimates that 800 million bushels, or 72 per cent of the grain crop, are either tough or damp. He is quoted in Monday's Globe and Mail as saying the situation in western Canada is even more critical than we first thought. He has suggested there are 458 million bushels of tough or damp grain, 25 million of which are still standing in the field; 181 million bushels of barley, 176 million bushels of oats and 11 million bushels of oilseeds. I understand that the optimum capacity of all farm dryers is about 300 million bushels between now and spring, and that the total of commercial capacity and on the farm capacity is only half the total of damp grain predicted by the Federal Grain Limited survey to which I have just referred.
When the hon. members for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and Lisgar sought an emergency debate the other day the minister was not able to be in the house and the government was, in the words of one western newspaper, "tongue-tied". I suggest that the persistence of the Prime Minister in treating the ministers as schoolboys, forcing them to stay out of the house on certain days, has caused real frustration not only among opposition members in this house but in the country generally.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has caused real frustration in particular to members who are trying to do their job for the people they represent. In no case is this more true than of the members who represent the prairie provinces of Canada. On Monday and Tuesday all ministers with any responsibility touching agriculture are under strict orders from the Prime
Supply-Agriculture
Minister not to apear in the house-the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, the Minister of Transport and his assistant, the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba.
The hon. member for Huron has asked whether the government will assist in the transportation of grain drying equipment now available in eastern Canada, to help alleviate the problem. What is the decision? Nobody knows. I hope the minister will give it to us today. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has raised the possibility of acreage payments to assist in covering the cost of drying the crop. There has been no answer. I hope we will receive an answer today. The hon. member for Crowfoot has asked about placing additional equipment at the inland terminals. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says he will take it under consideration.
The damp grain problem was brought to the attention of the government in early November. Action has been delayed; it has been reluctant. The minister need not shake his head. I have been sitting in the house and have watched the complacent reaction of ministers week after week as this crisis developed until it finally came to a head last week. As I say, Mr. Chairman, action has been delayed; it has been reluctant, it has been half-hearted. They have finally got the Lakehead facilities operating 24 hours a day, six days a week. But when the hon. member for Mackenzie inquired yesterday the Minister without Portfolio had to admit that they are not ready to operate seven days a week because negotiations are still under way with the unions. This could have been done and ought to have been done weeks ago.
The hon. member for Mackenzie asked last week whether arrangements could be made to have the commercial dryers come to the elevators dry the grain already purchased and transfer it to the annexes to relieve some of the congestion. Again, he was told the matter would be taken under consideration. The government has had to be prodded, pushed and hounded to accept even an awareness of the problem and then to take some reluctant action. This is made all the more difficult and frustrating by the irresponsible practice of ministers working a three-day week as far as the House of Commons is concerned.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We work seven days a week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are here to work, to account to the people of Canada only three days a week, and sometimes not even that. With regard to the markets for grain there have been some very disturbing developments. I have already pointed out the fact that our share of world markets has been going down. Second, and potentially of very grave importance, is the fact that countries which might be counted as new markets for Canadian production have revolutionized their own production. That is the striking case in Asia. This year there has been a record production of wheat and rice throughout Asia.
Let us consider India as an example. The total food grain crop in India is officially estimated at 100 million tons this year. This is 32 per cent above the level of last year and is a very fortunate development for that great country. But the startling statistic in India is that this year total food grain crop production is fully 12 per cent above the previous record. This may be in part due to the weather, but Canada and Canadians will be hiding in a fool's paradise if they fail to recognize the tremendous impact of technology upon the capacity of Asia to produce cereals. Farm practices there have improved. This is a great thing. There have been great improvements in the effectiveness and availability of fertilizer, and new high-yielding cereals like the new varieties of wheat from Mexico have changed the future of agriculture in Asia. Therefore they have a profound effect on our future. We are in danger of losing some of our traditional markets and face the prospect of new markets becoming more difficult.
The government has revealed no plan to meet this serious, long term market problem. It is not even showing any awareness that it exists. The minister this morning, and again this afternoon, stated that there would be a Canadian conference on agriculture in March. When I had a previous responsibility a former minister of agriculture told me two or three years ago there would be a Canadian conference on agriculture. Some two years later the minister says it will be held in March.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You now have the date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, we have the date after two years of talking about it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have not been minister that long.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have a few details, but it appears that the conference will be little
[Mr. Olson.l
more than an expansion of the ministerial conference on agriculture which has been held every year. Of course, it will be larger. I think there are one or two every serious weaknesses about this conference. In the first place, agricultural producers themselves may be forced to take a back seat at the conference. About one-third of the 400 or so people who will attend will represent producer groups, but the minister has said there will not be a single representative of the producer groups on the steering committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad to be corrected.


Mr. Horner:: There is not a representative of the producer groups.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister can correct me after I have finished if what I say is wrong. I hope I am wrong in this regard. The minister says he has invited the National Farmers' Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to designate one delegate between them. But he knew full well when he made that request that it would be difficult and unlikely that these two producer groups would agree on a nominee. They have nominated one each, and as I understand it the minister decided to accept neither. Again, I hope I am wrong.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You are right now. You cannot accept two nominees for one position.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why don't you make another position?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If this is the minister's approach to the problems of agriculture, that he cannot accept two delegates from producer groups because he has established only one position, God help the farmers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am afraid that unfortunately this is typical of the government's habit of ignoring the producer groups on agricultural matters. There are other weaknesses in a conference of this kind. Certainly it is just not enough. We have serious problems in Canada, of course, and we also have great and grave problems outside Canada concerning markets. I believe the situation is serious enough to warrant Canada taking the lead in initiating a world wide investigation of crop and market prospects in the next decade, an investigation, perhaps a conference, which will involve all the countries of the world including, of course,
December 5, 1968

mainland China, with the purpose of letting Canada and other producer countries know what is ahead for them in terms of markets. This investigation or conference should tell us what crops will be in greatest demand, what we can best produce and what new marketing arrangements might need to be considered.
These are only a few of the questions which must be answered if we are to plan our own production effectively. We need to know what will be developing in other countries, what they will require and what they will produce. There is a new ball game in world agriculture. We cannot continue to act as though nothing had changed. The present failure to keep markets is bad enough, but the prospect of having potential new markets cut off is very serious indeed.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What disturbs me particularly is the extraordinary casualness and complacency of the government toward agricultural problems. I recognize that these problems are not easy, that in fact they are extremely difficult. The farmers are confronted with the need for a very rapid adjustment to changing conditions. Of course you can only operate effectively in terms of effective long term government policy and not piecemeal policies, certainly not conflicting policies, of governments. Farmers are compelled to make growing investments in their farms to be effective and competitive. They must make increasingly long term heavy commitments. Of course, we had some government policies which enabled the farmers to make these commitments and indeed encouraged them to do so.
If the minister talks about his task force and his conference in March and if, for example, he asks me to be patient and to wait for the outcome of the work of the task force or the outcome of the conference, I want to ask him why he could not persuade his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to wait before he adopted policies which will be very detrimental to agriculture in this country. The changes in estate and gift taxes which the Minister of Finance announced are bound to have a very serious and detrimental effect on the family farm in Canada, and I would like to see the Minister of Agriculture dispute this. The Minister of Finance lowered very substantially the exemptions on estate and gift taxes thereby catching farmers with moderate sized farms and vastly increasing their difficulties, not in making transfers to their wives but in effecting any continuous operation of the farm by the family.
Supply-Agriculture
What is the main problem of the family farm? Surely it is to acquire enough capital to be competitive with the big operator, to carry the heavy debt and to pay it off. Obviously this is a growing load on the family farmer in view of the increasing capital that the farmer needs to be competitive today. Obviously the difficulty in securing capital and accepting heavy debt restricts the development of the family farm. The farmer spends all or most of his life trying to get out of debt. In view of the vast increase in the amount of capital that a farmer needs today, it is becoming increasingly difficult for a young man to get started on a farm that is really competitive. Some young men of exceptional ability can do so, of course, but fewer and fewer are in fact able to do it because of the increasing amount of capital that is needed, the increasing load they must assume to do so, and the increasing difficulty they encounter in obtaining the amount of capital necessary to do so.
I say that the government must decide whether it wants the family farm in Canada to be an institution or whether it is content to let things go to the large corporate organizations. I suggest that one serious effect of the proposals of the Minister of Finance will be to destroy the family farm through the years as a continuing institution which is able to hold its own in competitive agriculture in Canada. They will make it more difficult for the family farm to continue and to have under its control adequate capital through the years. Fewer and fewer farms will survive if the Minister of Finance goes ahead with his present proposals.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture through you, Mr. Chairman, whether he accepts this prospect and whether he accepts the proposal of the Minister of Finance to make these tax changes which bear so heavily on the family farmer in Canada. We know that this government has two policies in foreign affairs, one sponsored by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence and another sponsored by the Postmaster General, with the Prime Minister trying to sit in between and enjoy the best of both worlds. This may make the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs look a little uneasy, but at least the Secretary of State for External Affairs has invited the public to write in and tell him what the foreign policy of Canada ought to be. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture would dare do that, but at least he is calling a conference.

December 5, 1968
Supp ly-A griculture
When I speak about the burden that the Minister of Finance is placing upon the family farm I am not speaking about the very wealthy people of Canada or the very wealthy farmers. The Prime Minister has expressed concern about the problems of the very wealthy, and while he has done that the Minister of Finance has socked it to them. In other words, here again the government seems to have two policies. We have a two-China policy and it seems that the government is developing two policies in virtually every area. I think the Minister of Agriculture is in favour of family farms while the Minister of Finance is doing his best to destroy them. The Minister of Agriculture increases the assistance given to the small farmers, but a few weeks later the Minister of Finance announces measures levying an increased toll on family farms. There is no use mincing words. This is clearly an instance of the government working at cross-purposes. It is impossible to justify, and all that can be said for it is that it will have disastrous effects on agriculture in Canada.
I repeat that I am not speaking of the relatively few large, wealthy farmers in Canada who operate either directly or through corporations. I am speaking about the family farmers about whom the Minister of Agriculture has expressed great concern over the years. I ask him to give some real leadership, not only in this house but also in the government, by standing up for the farmers and telling the Minister of Finance quite frankly what the effect of his measures is. If the Minister of Agriculture is not able to present to this house or to the country constructive measures to help the family farmers in Canada, at least the government can hold its hand and resist the temptation to strike the family farmer over the head the way the Minister of Finance has.
So I say, let us not hear from the Minister of Agriculture nice platitudes and general statements of goals but a willingness and preparedness to fight within the government for agriculture in Canada and to fight the Minister of Finance on the vicious policy that he has adopted. It is all very well to have think tanks, computers, task forces and conferences, but let us have a little common sense and a little consistency.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the remarks of the minister as we commenced our discussion of the estimates. I appreciated his statement that quality food at reasonable

prices is a right of all Canadians. It is certainly a right of Canadians to have food and it is probably their right in a society such as ours to have that food at reasonable prices, whatever that may be. Along with that right of the Canadian consumer must go the right of the farmer to have a reasonable return for an hour's work, the right to have a reasonable return on the capital he must invest in his enterprise if it is to be an efficient agricultural enterprise, the right to have a return equal to that of his urban cousin who eats well because the farmer produces well. This is really the crux of the situation with regard to agriculture today, whether or not the farmer is going to receive an adequate return on his labour and capital, and whether his rights are going to be given equal consideration with the rights of the Canadian consumer.
e (4:20 p.m.)
There is no question but that the consumer has been well served. About a month ago I referred in this house to information from the Department of Agriculture which indicated that the consumer could buy more butter, more eggs, more milk, more meat, more of all these products for an hour's work based on wages in the manufacturing industry than he could some years ago. I wonder whether the farmer can buy more of urban production for an hour's work than he could that many years ago?
Today we find that farmers are still working a 12 or 14 hour day, although working days of this length are a thing of the past in industry. I have observed this year after year on prairie farms. After I was here a short time I drove out to see a friend of mine in the Ottawa valley. I arrived there about sundown on a Saturday, and it seemed to me that I might have been back on the prairies. This was a modern farm, but I had to go out into the fields to look for the farmer. There was a field of corn over half a mile long which looked like a wheat field on the prairies. The corn stood taller than I am, but of course I am not a very tall man. The lights were on in the milking barn which was modern and up to date. Where was the farmer? He was out in the field at sundown harvesting the corn and his wife was driving the truck. This is the kind of working day the farmers still have, even though some of them have well organized, well financed farms such as there are in Ontario or in some areas of Saskatchewan. These are the only two areas about which I have any personal knowledge. I have
December 5, 1968



been in the province of the Leader of the Opposition, but I would not presume to make a judgment on agriculture in that area. These are the things about which we have to be concerned in connection with agriculture if the farmers are to continue to provide food for Canadians at reasonable prices, or indeed in some respects to provide food at all.
Someone mentioned the corn growers and stated that if pressure is kept on them they may not continue in that business. In some sectors of agriculture we may very well reach the ridiculous position of importing food which we could very well produce ourselves because of our resources in land and people. A report appeared in the Globe and Mail to the effect that W. A. Stewart stated farm income results may be hard to swallow. This is the minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario speaking. The article goes on to quote the minister as saying that he hopes the report of the committee which they set up will bring new vitality to the industry and a new appreciation of the place of agriculture in the total economy of Ontario. This minister believes there must be a thorough review and that we must rectify the serious problems that now exist in agriculture.
One can look at the report of the recent outlook conference held here in Ottawa and find that a decline is forecast in the income of farmers. The farmer's income is down already but there is going to be more of the same. The forecast if for a 6.4 per cent increase in the price index of the goods and services used by farmers. A similar increase occurred in this index last year, but the farmers are supposed to be content with static prices for their produce.
According to the Globe and Mail of November 19 the federal Minister of Agriculture criticized the farmers on several counts. It is the privilege of the minister to say what he thinks, I suppose. I hope this newspaper did not misquote him because if he was misquoted it would certainly be unfortunate. The Globe and Mail is read by many city people and they would believe these comments made by the minister. The minister accused the farmers of basing their case on half-learned lessons in economics and of ignoring social and economic realities. He said also that the farmers had bought tractors that were too large and paid high prices for land.
Let me say to this house that over a long period of years the farmer has merely been reacting to the economic circumstances in which he has found himself. The farmer does
Supply-Agriculture
not make the economic laws or the economic circumstances in which he has to operate. He reacts to the industrial society in which we live and to the economic laws of that society. Over the years I have listened to economists, some of them employed by government and some of them in universities. They have said that the answer to the problem of the farmers is one of scale, that what we need in this industry, as in all other industries, is to get bigger and then we would be over the hump. Is this not what the farmer is doing when he acquires land and buys the equipment with which to operate a farm? If there is going to be a change in the economic laws under which the farmer operates, well and good. Let us define those laws and let us know where we are going.
I believe we will have to reorient ourselves to some extent in agriculture. Reorientation may be the key to our success in that on the North American continent and in the other advanced countries in the world farmers have proven they have the ability to produce farm products. But given this ability to produce food, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we find market prices depressed.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I should like to say something about the present situation in western Canada, which is now widely reported in the eastern press. It usually requires a fair-sized boom or a fairsized disaster on the prairies to attract the attention of the press in eastern Canada. But the disaster in the west has now reached such proportions that it is receiving a great deal of attention. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have been slow to react to it. It is only in the last week or so that we have seen the Canadian Wheat Board and others meeting together to discuss what can be done in terms of handling, drying and transporting grain.
I should like to refer to a few of the headlines that have appeared in the Western Producer, a western farm paper. According to the edition for October 10, only 56 per cent of the crop had been combined. According to one of the main news stories in the October 17 edition, proper drying temperatures are important. In that issue there is an article dealing with drying grain and how it should be done. According to the October 24 issue, little dry grain is to be seen. As far back as October 24, well over one month ago, the forecast was made that in Saskatchewan and Alberta there would be very little dry grain as a result of weather conditions.
3536

view such assistance is justified; farmers are justified in seeking financial assistance for the drying of grain on their farms. He told the union's annual meeting that the Canadian Wheat Board had indicated that such assistance would be justified by admitting that terminal drying facilities and sales commitments were not adequate to handle an estimated 350 million bushels which needed drying this year. He went on to say that wheat exports are a major source of national revenue and that financial assistance is therefore warranted. It was, he said, a national problem and a national emergency.
I want to say something now about the marketing outlook for wheat and other grains. According to a statement by the responsible minister, possibly 1,300 million bushels will be marketed over the next three years. At the present time we have about 1,200 million in sight with this year's crop. I think it is encouraging that some of the press in eastern Canada is taking note of the fact that grain is piling up and that we may well need new devices for moving it. The Financial Post says:
Signs of a shift come from Jean Luc Pepin, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When addressing the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool recently, he said current practice was being examined "in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise to review credit facilities available to improve the competitive position of Canadian wheat."
What this portends remains, of course, to be seen. Can we move more grain if more credit is provided? I think we can. We have lagged behind in doing some of the things we ought to have done. We should, by now, have recognized the Republic of China and expanded our sales in that market. It is there and in similar countries that our expansion must take place. We should extend credit, we should aid the developing countries and we should make an all-out effort to sell other grains such as rapeseed. We should set a full-scale selling and promotion program going in countries overseas.
I regret that the United States achieved a tariff advantage over Canada with regard to soybeans over Canadian rapeseed during the Kennedy negotiations. We should move to correct this state of affairs because rapeseed and feed grain such as barley would, if moved in volume, take some of the pressure away from the wheat marketing situation.
It has been suggested that the farmers should move into livestock. This takes money. It takes credit, and credit has become expensive. A farmer needs a great deal of courage 29180-224J
Supply-Agriculture
to borrow large amounts at the present time to diversify his operation.
The minister mentioned the establishment of a national grains council some time in the future. I do not know how far in the future this will be. It is now six months since the Prime Minister said in Winnipeg we were to have a grains council. It is already December. For my part I shall be frank and say I do not see why we need one. It will probably be the fifth wheel on the wagon. We already have the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners. We have the research agencies of the National Research Council and the Department of Agriculture. Could the work of these various bodies not be coordinated so that we might achieve what we want to achieve in the way of selling grain and doing the necessary research? Is the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Trade and Commerce for that matter, so lacking in competence that they need to call together people from their offices in Winnipeg to tell them what to do?
We have able men in the Canadian Wheat Board. One of them even felt it necessary to draw attention, at one of the farm meetings, to the job the Canadian Wheat Board was doing. Surely he must have felt himself under some kind of pressure when he did that. Here are some of the things he had to say with regard to wheat marketing, and I quote from the speech he made to grain growers at Regina:
I refer to demands that broad selling policies should be more aggressive. Aggressiveness carries a great many connotations, many of which are desirable and necessary. For example, we must constantly seek out and develop markets: we must give a customer the service he demands; we must maintain the standard of quality he requires, and we must try to meet competition from other suppliers.
Later he says:
I can say this: there is not a buyer of Canadian wheat in any market of the world who has not been personally contacted and who is not personally known by members or senior officials of the board. This is a very big plus in our marketing operations. I don't think any other exporter could make that claim.
Mr. Treleaven went on to say:
Let us look briefly now at the second demand for flexibility. In the sense used by the critics it is easy to define. It means, simply, lower prices.
I have been reading from a statement made by one of the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners to a meeting in western Canada. These men have done a good job in marketing wheat. Just what is the national grains

December 5, 1968
Supp ly-A griculture
council going to do? I put a question on the order paper asking for the terms of reference. I was told they had not yet been decided. The reply came from the Department of Trade and Commerce which is not represented here today. I asked how the board would be financed. The answer was: nobody knows, yet. If the wheat board needs more staff and more money, why not say so? If we think more needs to be done in the field of research, why do we hesitate to beef up the amount we are putting into the laboratory services of the Board of Grain Commissioners? After all, this is their job. They already have the power under the act. They have the know-how and their staff includes some excellent men. But, as I have said on earlier occasions, the amount of money they have been allowed to spend has remained static while the industry which they serve is growing. We should have increased the amount of money in their hands if what they had was not adequate to meet the need.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Albert Béchard: Has the hon. member leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I shall take only a few minutes and I thank the committee and yourself-


Albert Béchard: I regret that I heard some noes.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Chairman, I do hope it is not because of me that my honourable friend was kept from continuing his remarks, but in any event, I thank you sincerely for giving me the opportunity to express a few opinions on the important matter now under study.
I shall deal with the matter rather briefly, because the estimates of the department were studied in committee fairly seriously, I would even say very seriously. I merely wish to point out to the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that we attach great importance to the development of Canadian agriculture so that our country can, as much as possible, feed our own people as well as those of countries less fortunate than ours.

We agree that the years we are now going through are very difficult, and that the government has very complicated problems to solve. That is why we do not want to be harsh with the government; we merely want to work with it in an attempt to find together the most advantageous solutions, not only for the farmer, but also for all the people concerned who live on the progress of agriculture, when there is progress.
Some industries can provide employment to the extent where agriculture can order from them the goods that are necessary to agricultural production.
Mr. Chairman, the agricultural economy has grown difficult, I would even say cruel, at times. In addition, there are the serious effects which stem from a regrettable confusion between political and economic functions and I should like to make a distinction.
We invite the people to reflect on the various fields of responsibilities. Farmers themselves have their very own responsibilities, which they must accept by doing their utmost to lower the cost of their production in order to market top quality products at a price commensurate with the purchasing power of the majority of the people and also to compete, if needs be, with the goods from abroad.
Until a few years ago, family farms met the needs of the times fairly well, but because of the rapid industrialization of our country, agriculture must go through a complete transformation which, even though we accept it, must nevertheless meet the requirements of the commonweal and social justice. Because of its unreliable nature, agriculture demands from all those who are engaged therein the most absorbing activity, whether it is the farmers themselves who are concerned, or the governments, at all levels. As things are progressing in our country, a greater number of means are available to us to carry out more efficient operations on the farm; in a way, we are becoming the victims of this progress.
I listened, since I came into this chamber, to speeches of members representing various areas of the country and everywhere, when we speak of agriculture, we realize that we are caught in a squeeze where we can hardly breathe.
We often hear about the problems of the western grain producers, and I am happy about that, because that gives me an opportunity to become acquainted with the problems facing us across the nation.
December 5, 1968

Progress is also a factor which forces us to increase production costs. In fact, quite recently-I would not like to criticize the legislation passed by the house-we saw an increase in the interest rate on credit made available to farmers, which is another thing that might increase production costs.
Because of the competition from products coming from countries which produce at a lower cost, it becomes more and more difficult for the farmers to hold on without the help of the governments. That is why I think it is urgent for the state to assume fully its responsibilities and to reform our system so that it will take into account the needs of the farmers who will just have to give up their farms to allow for the changeover from family farming to commercial farming.
Let us take, for instance, the large number of dairy producers who had to give up their production last year and this year. An even larger number might have to do the same thing next year. What will happen to them? Do we really have the right to forget about them without giving any thought to their fate and that of their dependants?
I know that the main task of the Canadian Dairy Commission is not to find jobs for all the farmers who have to give up their farms for one reason or another, but it is a fact just the same that, because of the too severe regulations of that commission, which are necessary, I agree, to try to keep the dairy industry alive in Canada, the producers are faced with very serious problems. That is why I think it is urgent to reform our economic system as soon as possible in order to develop to a greater extent industries in rural centres, to absorb that manpower that will help to create goods of all kinds to meet the needs of the people in Canada and also those of people in underdeveloped countries.
Increasing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture would surely be a very good investment, because that would strengthen that sector of the economy and automatically create more jobs, because when agriculture is doing well, when agriculture can survive in a normal way, the farmers are better able to absorb the manpower available on the spot.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I have on hand some statistics, which seem to be accurate enough, to the effect that in the city of Montreal there are 105,800 families, that is 55.6 per cent of the total number, that are destitute. Now, if those figures are accurate, they represent 1,062,000 persons.
Supply-Agriculture
In my opinion, it is in the interest of the whole nation to take all the necessary and conceivable means in order to try to solve the agricultural problem, whether in western or eastern Canada, so as to prevent the Canadian people, those who have to give up farming for want of income, from going to our cities and increasing the number of the poor who thus become a burden of the state.
When all the efforts have actually been concentrated, in the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Farm Loan Board or the Board of Grain Commissioners and in all other government services, when we have succeeded in taking our bearings, we will have to make sure that the settlement of a problem in a certain area will not create others in other areas. This is why I think that we will have to work increasingly together, in order to avoid, when some action is taken, creating a problem elsewhere. This is what is going on at the present time unfortunately and I do not want to blame the minister nor the government agencies.
The Canadian Dairy Commission, for example, must assume its responsibilities. I understand the problem quite well and I congratulate the commissioners for discharging their responsibilities so well. However, I would like to call the attention of the minister to a matter which does not come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Dairy Commission, that is the estimates available to them. Among other responsibilities, the commission must forecast the requirements of the Canadian market and make the distribution while considering the estimates made available by the minister. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced of one thing: if we really want to make an effective contribution to solve the problems of our agriculture, it will be necessary, when preparing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for 1969-70, to consider seriously giving it a bigger share of the public monies of Canada, so that farmers will get better prices and the agricultural industry will remain efficient and will help solve other problems in other sectors, by providing employment opportunities and thus fighting unemployment.
I know that the government is now making efforts to help those who are forced to leave the agricultural field by making available to them retraining courses which will facilitate their readjustment to other areas of the economy. However, this is not enough. We should do a lot more in that direction.

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
I have on hand many letters from farmers telling me about their problems. I do not want to mention specific cases and names, but should the minister wish to read those letters, I would willingly make them available to him, at his convenience. For instance, one farmer wrote me that he had made an application to attend a retraining course, in order to further his knowledge in agriculture, but that it had been rejected. As he does not want to live on social welfare, he writes: "I do not want to live on public assistance. I do not want unemployment insurance. What I want is to earn a living by my own work. I want to be useful to my family and to society." And he adds: "If I am not alowed to take courses by which I could try and earn some money this winter, I shall have to sell some of my milch-cows and, in the spring, my situation will be worse than in the fall."
Mr. Chairman, I am mentioning this case to prove how painful is the plight of some farmers, who are doing their best to be efficient and play their part in our Canadian society.
This leads me to say that we need reforms, because our present economic system is in a bad shape. It must be reformed by orderly men, by people willing to work seriously with a view to establishing order and social justice, so as to make it possible, for those who have enough courage, to work and earn their living, thereby contributing to the development of their own country. Otherwise, the present economic system will, in my opinion, be transformed and destroyed by agitators like those we hear about every day. In fact, we are witnessing protests, rebellion against authority. There is a feeling of unrest and we should not take advantage of that to stir up passions. On the contrary, this should arouse due reflexion on our part, so as to make us assume seriously our responsibilities in order to bring about necessary reforms before it is too late.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my observations, I express the hope that my remarks will help to solve those serious problems.


Mr. Pringle:: I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman, in my short dissertation. As a new member I should like to say that I have listened with a great deal of interest to the more experienced farmer members. While I have been here I have learned a great deal about the problems of farming and of the farmers. This is most interesting to me because I have

spent my entire life engaged in farming or the industries related to farming. I am concerned about all the statements that have been made concerning the family farm. It has been suggested that the family farm is disappearing, that it is going down the drain. It has also been suggested that by some magic formula the reason for this is government action or inaction. I have been working with family farms for a good many years and I submit that the family farms are not going down the drain.
There are many family farms across Canada. In my constituency in British Columbia I would say that 90 per cent of the farms are family farms. What has disappeared is the old concept of the chicken on the manure pile type of farm where there were a few chickens, a pig or two, a cow in the barn and a horse to pull the plow. This is disappearing and will continue to disappear because the farmers of Canada are not the discredited people that some of the farmer members here suggest they are when they tell us of the terrible plight they are in. Their plight is not all that bad. If the farmers whom I know were sitting in the gallery today, I do not think they would approve of everybody standing up and saying that we must give them this and that because they just have to have it. We are pressuring the farmers. We are telling them how to farm and how to run their businesses.
The point I should like to make, is this: I wish people would forget about this business of the government should do this and the government should do that. No matter what the government has done, is doing or will do at some other time, I should like someone to state what the reasons for the problems of the farmers are and enumerate them, because there are reasons. I cannot remember doing business in Canada when there was not a surplus of every kind of farm product. We have been promoting and encouraging farmers to produce in surplus. This is a way of life. They have been producing to the benefit of the secondary industries. Do not blame the secondary industries for that. From childhood on we are told to buy as low as we cai according to the market and to sell for a: much as we can according to the market. This is the way business is done. If we overproduce we are in trouble. I thank the divine person who put the bug in somebody's ear that there should be a marketing board for grain because I would hate to think what would have happened over the years if the
December 5, 1968

surplus of grain produced in western Canada had been dumped on the market like it was a few years ago and the price established according to the amount of grain offered on the world markets of that day. Some order has now come out of chaos, and grain farmers by and large can look back over the last few years without being too unhappy about the situation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I notice that members have a great deal to say in this house about grain farming and wheat. I lived in Alberta for a good many years. I was not engaged in grain farming specifically but in an allied industry. As a matter of fact, I sold them the products to which they fed the grain. The industry in which I was engaged assisted in using up a lot of grain. All across the dominion of Canada there are industries allied with farming, and many of these are not exactly dependent on the grain business. The poultry industry, the hog industry and the turkey industry are quite large. The beef industry is, of course, dependent on and supplementary to the grain industry on the prairies. Various other industries from Vancouver to Halifax are associated with the grain industry.
It seems to me there is a quiet revolution taking place in the agricultural industry. I am wondering whether we really understand want to do about it. People want to produce their products at the lowest possible cost. They are gathering together at seminars in university rooms, in lodges and in church basements for one purpose, to figure out how they can keep the cost of production down. It was not too many years ago when it took 16 weeks and four pounds of feed to produce each pound of flesh on a broiler chicken. Today we can do this in eight weeks with two pounds of feed or less. What has happened to this saving in the cost of production? It has gone to the consumer and the consumer is paying less and less for products. Neither I nor any member of this house can blame the government because we are living in a private enterprise economy. Thank God that is the situation in this country.
There is a quiet revolution taking place. There are places right across Canada where people are doing something about the situation. They are gathering together and forming economic units, although not in the manner described so often and so eloquently by the hon. member for Crowfoot. These people are getting together and deciding how to take
Supply-Agriculture
advantage of provincial legislation by forming into what they refer to as marketing boards which in fact are procurement commissions. They plan production in relation to the market and they produce what housewives want to buy. They sell this produce to secondary industries at their prices and then forget about it. They leave the marketing to the secondary industry.
We have heard all kinds of rumours about marketing boards, but I think we should be very careful we do not adopt the concept that we as producers should suddenly blossom out as people who understand marketing and distribution. We should remain with product planning and be satisfied to be paid in relation to production costs and forget about subsidies. We do not want handouts all the time, and I could get plenty of testimonials as far as this is concerned.


Mr. Bigg:: That's a good trick if you can do it.


M. Ervin Pringle: Let me try to answer the hon. member by referring him to the British Columbia broiler marketing board. This body came into existence about eight or nine years ago. Before that a farmer might have received 20 cents a pound, and in those days if you sold by live weight you barely received a subsistence price. A farmer might have found himself with many chickens and receiving only 15 cents, 16 cents or 17 cents a pound. The marketing board established planned production and today these farmers are receiving prices based on the cost of production and they use secondary industry. They do not need farm improvement loans because they are able to go to the banks to borrow money. There are chicken men in British Columbia, chicken men in Alberta and, in fact, chicken men in Ontario.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would the hon. member permit a question?


M. Ervin Pringle: Yes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would the hon. member tell me who owns the broiler industry in Ontario? Is it owned by the farmers?


M. Ervin Pringle: I assume the hon. member is referring to the integrated broiler industry in Ontario. I am not able to give the hon. member the facts and figures, but I know there are several of these businesses here. I am not suggesting this is correct or that it is wrong, but I am suggesting that had the farmers of

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Ontario looked at what was being done seven or eight years ago in British Columbia, and listened to several suggestions to the effect that they get off their behinds and into the marketing end they would not have experienced this takeover by integrated industry. This did not take place in British Columbia, and these people have just begun in Alberta. I think there is a time problem in this regard.
There is another point I should like to make in respect of family farms and I am glad the hon. member referred to the integrated or corporate farm. I have seen corporate farms and family farms operate and I submit that in the long run there is no way a corporate farm can compete with the efforts and the profitability of family farms. The family farmer works on labour profit just as do many businessmen such as small storekeepers, laundrymen and service people. A corporate farmer must make a profit because all his labour represents an expense. Labourers on corporate farms will not work the hours worked by a family farmer. I do not wish to take up any more time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Good.


M. Ervin Pringle: Now that we have heard the crow from the hon. member for "member-foot"-I mean the hon. member for Crowfoot-I will conclude my remarks with the hope that members of this house will give a little more consideration to family farmers. I hope they will realize that the farmer is a businessman and does not require handouts every day of the week.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks during this debate on item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to say at this time, after listening to the very interesting remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East who has just resumed his seat, that I am afraid, if I interpret his remarks correctly, he is falling into the same trap the former minister of agriculture fell into when he said that farmers never had it so good. I warn the hon. member against this attitude because it is political dynamite.
I am pleased to see the minister back from his trip to Europe and I hope he is prepared to face up to facts and announce positive policies to help our agricultural industry extricate itself from the many economic difficulties it now faces. The leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition presented a very complete and comprehensive review this afternoon of these

difficulties. He pointed out that the government has been continually pounded, prodded, pushed and even hounded to take action, yet little action has been forthcoming. My leader in his remarks referred to the very serious and near catastrophic situation in western Canada because of the huge pile-up of wet and damp grain. He did not exaggerate this very serious situation. In all the years I have lived in western Canada, and I was bom there, I have never seen the farmers face such a serious situation as exists today.
This fact was borne out by Mr. W. C. Mac-Namara, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, a week ago last Tuesday when, in addressing a meeting of the grain transportation committee, he not only alerted that committee but farmers, the government and all Canadians to the very serious situation existing in western Canada. It was on the basis of this report that I moved a week ago yesterday to adjourn the regular business of this house to debate an urgent matter of public importance. As an alternative I suggested that the agricultural estimates be brought into the house in order that we might have an emergency debate. I am glad the government acceded to this suggestion.
What is the existing picture today in the west? Let us look at a few of the headlines which have appeared in daily and weekly newspapers, because they emphasize the situation as well as anything. The Regina Leader-Post on its editorial page carries the headline, "Farmers See Need For Action." The Globe and Mail of November 30 has the headline, "Grain-drying Problem Worsening -And Action May Come Too Late." Another headline is, "Prairie Grain-dryer Shortage One Of Factors In Crop Spoilage." The Western Producer, which circulates throughout the whole of western Canada, has this headline, "Farmers Must Dry Grain At Home. Terminals At Full Blast Can't Take All Damp Grain." I have here the article to which I referred a week ago last Wednesday when I moved the motion to adjourn the house. The headline in the Globe and Mail is, "Head Of Wheat Board Warns Drying Must Be Done On Farms." The article goes on to elaborate in great detail some of the problems. The Manitoba Co-operator in its issue of November 28 carries the headline, "Decline Forecast In Farm Incomes." Another headline in the Globe and Mail is, "Stiff Competition For Wheat Sales Likely To Continue." I also have here a report of the Saskatchewan Wheat
December 5, 1968

Pool under date of December 3, wherein the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan points out the serious situation that now exists. I mention these news comments in passing to emphasize that there really is a serious situation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I would like to list a few of the factors involved in this problem. I think the basic problem is that we have such an enormous pile-up of grain. We have a backlog of grain which has accumulated from past years. The pile-up of grain has resulted from the lack of sales caused by the lapsing of the international wheat agreement. This has brought about a serious condition in regard to the economic welfare of western Canada, as the minister knows. The figures for the last crop year indicate that as of July 31 we had sold only 30 per cent of the grain sold the previous year. This indicates that inland terminals, facilities on the farms and all other storage space available was filled. This creates a problem in the handling of wet grain at this time because there is not the space available in which to carry out the drying.
The second problem is the transportation of grain. This was emphasized by the hon. member for Mackenzie and others. We must facilitate the movement of grain. The availability of dryers is another serious matter. It was very interesting to note Mr. McNamara's warning last week to the transport committee when in Winnipeg. He said that the total drying capacity of the facilities at the terminals at the head of the lakes, at Vancouver and also at the inland terminals, was only 12 million to 13 million bushels a month. If you take the figure that Mr. McNamara quoted, 380 million bushels of wet grain, include the drying capacity at inland terminals and elsewhere, and exaggerate the figure a little and say that the capacity is 15 million bushels, you can readily understand the problem facing our farmers. Even with these terminal drying facilities operating at full capacity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with approximately only four months to perform this operation they will not get 100 million bushels dried, which is the figure some people have optimistically quoted.
The grain is very wet and is in a serious condition. It is relatively preserved now because of freezing conditions but as soon as the warmer weather of spring, which is four months hence, arrives, the grain will spoil beyond recovery. Therefore, the capacity of 29180-225
Supply-Agriculture
grain drying terminals is a very serious matter. I do not know how we can alleviate the situation at the terminals because we must be realistic and recognize that the terminal elevators require a certain amount of space in which to keep dry grain available for future sales or overseas markets. The problem comes right back to Mr. Farmer on the farm. We must do what we can to assist him to carry out an emergency drying operation during the next three or four months.
The fourth problem is the capacity of dryers related to the dampness of the grain. When you have damp or wet grain the normal capacity of a grain dryer is cut down to possibly one-third. This varies, of course, according to the moisture content of the grain. With a moisture content of 14.5 to 16 per cent the dryers can handle it easily. But when it reaches the 20 or 30 level of moisture we really have a problem. It takes two, three, and sometimes four times as long to dry grain with this moisture content.
In addition, in the winter, which is quite different from summer as far as grain drying is concerned, the farmer has to use drying machines in confined or enclosed buildings such as a machine shed or large granary. The moment you extract moisture from the grain you saturate the air in the building and the maximum drying capacity of the machine is reduced in proportion to the dampness in the air. This is another situation that aggravates the problem. I am very much concerned that even considering the number of dryers available in the most optimistic way, in view of the figures we have, which are for normal conditions and not to meet abnormal conditions, we shall not be able to dry all the damp grain on the farms.
Therefore the government should take steps under an incentive program to induce Canadian manufacturers to manufacture dryers, or obtain them from the United States. The government should also seriously consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Huron the other day, that if dryers are available in eastern Canada they should be sent where they can be used to the maximum in the next four months.
The fifth problem is the unavailability of cash with which to purchase these machines even on a co-operative or collective basis. In addition, cash is needed to cover the operation of dryers. As hon. members know, the fuel used in these machines is basically propane gas. This is a very expensive gas and it is used in great quantities in dryers. When

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
you have large quantities of grain to dry, the cost is very high indeed. It runs anywhere from 10 cents to 20 cents a bushel. One can imagine the exorbitant cost involved in this operation. The farmers are short of cash at the present time because they have vast amounts of unsold grain on their farms owing to the lack of markets. There is no ready cash coming into their hands.
We in the opposition pressed the government to double the amount of cash advances on farm stored grain, and the government acceded to our request. But the $3,000 to $6,000 involved was used up immediately in the normal operations of the farm, to pay fuel bills, tax bills, repairs and in the general upkeep of the family farm. This money was used, as I say, to cover the cost of current operations. So the farmer has now spent that money and is not able to sell his grain until it is dried. In addition he is caught in a cost-price squeeze the like of which he has never experienced. I suggested through questions to the minister that we should consider the matter of acreage payments. This was done in past years to meet similar emergencies. I therefore believed mine was a practical suggestion.
Another factor in connection with this problem is providing information on how to operate a dryer. Interestingly enough, this is a matter of great concern because many farmers have never had experience in operating these machines. As I understand it, before he can market grain that has been dried at the farm, the farmer has to give an affidavit to the grain elevator company where he is going to dispose of his grain, setting out all particulars with regard to his drying operation. A sample of the farmer's grain is sent to the Board of Grain Commissioners' offices in Winnipeg. They test it, and if it does not meet the required standard it is rejected and will be accepted only as feed. The reason is that apparently in the drying process, if the temperature is not properly regulated the gluten content of the grain is impaired and as a result the flour is not of the right quality for baking. This is another serious situation with which our farmers are faced, and something has to be done about it.
It is my right to complain about the ineptitude of the government and its lack of policy in meeting this emergency. I believe it is my duty to make some constructive suggestions. What are those suggestions? First, I suggest that the government accelerate markets wherever possible to relieve the congestion of

grain. I mentioned the fact that this congestion developed over the last year or two owing to the lapsing of the wheat agreement. This is something of which we have to take very serious cognizance in consultation with the other countries of the world which are also involved with the wheat agreement to ensure that the agreement works effectively and in the interest not only of the exporting but of the importing nations.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Second, we have to provide cash assistance to farmers through acreage payments or other emergency subsidies such as P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. This has been done previously. I can cite the instance back in 1959 when farmers' crops were under the snow. The government of that time, headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, came up with policies which provided acreage payments and special assistance to farmers in order to tide them over the difficult situation. Now we are faced with an even more serious situation because of the vast amounts of wet grain now piled up in western Canada. When I refer to wet grain I think something has been overlooked and should be emphasized again, although I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar referred to it. We have been talking about wheat, but there is also a multi-million bushel pile-up of other grains such as feed grains, oats, barley, flax and so on. References have been made to the 380 million bushels of wet wheat. If we considered all grains I think the total figure would be closer to one billion bushels. This indicates the immensity of the problem and one cannot overemphasize what the farmer is up against.
I hope that as this debate proceeds and the press covers it as well as the further statements made by Mr. McNamara and the minister himself, our farmers will realize they will have to get to work immediately and not leave it for another ten days or two weeks but avail themselves of every opportunity to start drying their grain or we will be faced with a loss of multi-millions of bushels of grain through rot, mould, etc. In terms of dollars and cents, the loss figure would be enormous.
Besides this assistance I think that emergency freight assistance to move dryers into position should be reinstated similar to the action that was taken not only back in the hungry 30's but in 1961 at the time of the great drought in western Canada. At that time legislation was brought in by a special
December 5, 1968

measure under estimate 604 in September of 1961 in co-operation with the provincial governments. That is why I asked the minister this afternoon whether he had already received applications from provincial governments for co-operative freight assistance on a 50-50 basis so as to provide certain moneys to pay for the freight in moving grain dryers and other farm equipment in order to cope with this emergency.
My fourth suggestion is the immediate distribution of emergency instructions on how to handle these dryers properly and on the drying of grain. This will have to be done through the public relations branches of the departments of agriculture, both federal and provincial, and passed on to the farmers so they will be more certain that they are doing a good job of grain drying and so the grain will be saleable and ready when there is a market for it.
My fifth suggestion is that we consider declaring a moratorium for one year where needed on loans due under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, and Farm Credit Act. If we could do this in the face of this emergency, farmers would feel they could use some of the money that would normally be used to meet these obligations and could band together co-operatively to provide themselves with the equipment needed to do this drying operation and thus overcome the problem from this angle.
I could go on at some length but I am sure other hon. members want to take part in this debate. However, I suggest the matter is very urgent and I am sure that after the minister has had a chance to listen to various hon. members this afternoon and after what went on in our committee this morning, he will be impressed with the urgency of the matter. I strongly urge that the actions which I have suggested and the suggestions which will be made by other hon. members be considered by the minister at once to meet this very serious problem that we are now facing in western Canada.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Chairman, what I have to say may not seem so important to hon. members if one considers that I am no expert in agricultural matters. However, I conscientiously believe that I have to say these things, because they are important, vital and crucial for the people I represent in a special way 29180-225*
Supply-Agriculture
in the house. Furthermore, being a professional newspaperman, I am not used to taking part in parliamentary debates.
As a newspaperman, I have always been concerned about what was happening at home in the field of agriculture. That is why I will say, as simply as I can, what I want to bring to the attention of the minister and hon. members.
However, with your permission, I shall make a general comment by saying that I see the problem of the potato farmer- and, at this point, I take a chance of being told that I am all wet-in the context of farming in general and in the context of national and international economy. If we take any farm problem out of this overall context, we may follow a course which could lead us into error.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Evidently, this problem must be considered analytically, positively and with an open mind. It is easy to condemn the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the federal and provincial governments for not carrying out their responsibilities with regard to agriculture. I have yet to hear members of this house say that the farmers themselves should be blamed for not considering their problems seriously and for neglecting to maintain the quality of their products. In this connection, I want to show one example, although it is related to the potato growers in my own region.
The other day, in the course of a friendly reunion, I met here in Ottawa some people who had left New Brunswick some ten years ago. I was told that they insist on buying New Brunswick potatoes. Unfortunately, after buying bags of potatoes grown in my region, they were disappointed to find that the quality of the potatoes was definitely inferior to that normally expected.
I was told also that the Prince Edward Island potatoes are quite satisfactory to them from a quality standpoint. I am not trying to advertise for Prince Edward Island, but this is a fact. Once again, this illustrates that farmers are not always conscientious in marketing satisfactory products. Those are things that must be said even at the risk of not being appreciated on the political plane. As far as I am concerned, I take my responsibilities, and I believe that all farmers should take theirs. Particularly, they should not try to evade the regulations to put on the market products that are not suitable.

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
I fully agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) in the views he expressed so eloquently. I recognize also that the family farm unit is not on the way out. As a matter of fact, to support this view, I could give some examples taken within my own family.
If farmers in ever increasing numbers have left the land and if this situation still persists-I do not know if it started before or after the great depression, because all that happened before I was born-it is because these people were attracted by the easy gain they could find in the cities and because they were not prepared, as their predecessors were, to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. And that is why, not all, but a good number of farmers quit the farm to go into exile in the city or, as it turned out in my area, in the United States. But, if the cause of that exodus is sought, we find that hundreds of those unproductive lands should never have been settled. That explains why the people who took them over never managed to make a living there. At times, they could barely support their families. Those lands should never have been settled; a mistake was made at the outset, the effects of which persist even today.
With regard to potato growers, they are now going through a critical period, a very critical seasonal period which recurs every year when the crop is brought in. The market is then at its lowest level. But what concerns me more is that the potato market, this year just like last year and the year before, will not improve enough to enable the farmer to get a decent price for his produce.
I said I was no expert in this regard, but I see farmers wondering how they will solve their problems, of which the marketing problem.
Some claim that they are being exploited by people commonly known as "brokers". I do not know whether they are right, but what I would like to know is why the governments do not look into the problem of the potato marketing.
New Brunswick has lost its traditional markets since the farmers in Quebec and in Ontario have decided to grow potatoes on a very large scale. The export market is also slipping through our fingers. The government cannot be blamed for other countries wanting to grow potatoes. But, indirectly, our farmers take the rap. Therefore, might the federal government be willing to create a commission

to set the prices and quotas for potatoes? Would the Minister of Agriculture agree to establish standards which would enable the producer to get a just price?
I know that a task force is making investigations in all areas related to agriculture, but I would like that task force to try to find a solution to the potato problem, as it did for other problems.
I read recently, in the weekly papers of my region, that a company in good repute intends to establish an industry to process potatoes. As you know, there is already, in my region, the McCains Foods Company, known all over the world. And now, the F. W. Piric Company is thinking of embarking upon the same kind of business.
This might help solve the problem of marketing, since the consumer these days prefers finished goods. I hope that the Department of Agriculture and the Departments of Industry and Trade and Commerce, by means of financial assistance whenever a request is made, may help people willing to help themselves and to set agriculture in their area on the road to prosperity.
It must have been evident, Mr. Chairman, that I am not an expert in farming. I simply wished to point out, with all due humility, the problems which the farmers in my area have to face, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will give the matter some thought.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to say a word or two before six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, on the urgent problem facing western Canada at this time and perhaps later this evening deal generally with the other problems facing agriculture. It is a fact well known to the Minister of Agriculture and to the house that there is an unusually large amount of damp grain in western Canada. Mr. McNamara has estimated the amount at 380 million bushels of wheat and the head of the federated elevator companies has estimated the amount as high as 800 million bushels of grain, including wheat, oats, barley and flax. Every farm newspaper one picks up, such as the Co-Operator, The Western Producer and Farm and Country is filled with comments on problems concerning the drying of grain. It is an obvious situation, but the government has moved reluctantly in the solving of it.
It is all very well for the hon. member for Fraser Valley to suggest that he would like somebody in this house to stand up and list the problems rather than ask for handouts.
December 5, 1968

Well, basically, the problem is weather. The second problem is the fact that it is the government's duty to market grain. It is all well and good for somebody to say it is the duty of the wheat board to sell grain. The wheat board serves the Canadian farmers with government assistance, it is a government board set up to market the grain for western farmers. I have long argued that the wheat board should be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. I cannot for the life of me see why he should have to sit in the House of Commons and defend the wheat board while the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has that responsibility, is absent. In fact, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not even suited to this task. I hold nothing against him, however.
I recall that during the election campaign the Prime Minister said he would appoint cabinet ministers without regard for region but with regard for their knowledge and capabilities. This is an obvious situation in which the Prime Minister made an appointment without regard for region or for knowledge. What should the government have done? It should have moved a lot faster. Some time ago the wheat board sent a delegation to China to try to increase our sales by reaching a new agreement. The delegation was successful in selling grain, but under the old agreement.
Recently the Board of Grain Commissioners appeared before the agriculture committee and stated that their basic problem in aiding the marketing of grain was money. The wheat board operates on the farmers' money and the Board of Grain Commissioners operate on government money. The wheat board should be given assistance in marketing grain by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The minister spent a month in South America, and it is a well known fact we do not sell too much wheat in that area. We have been getting along this year on poor wheat sales under the old agreement. Western Canada is concerned about the problem. The outlook for wheat sales is poor. The minister knows that the government has been slow to move the grain out of the terminals after it was dried. If it were moved faster space would be available at the major lakehead terminals and at the Vancouver terminal. However, Mr. Chairman, grain is not moving out. There is a backlog because there are insufficient drying facilities. Only 13.8 million bushels can be dried at the terminals per month.
Supply-Agriculture
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
What should the government do about this situation? First of all, it should institute a major crash program to sell this wheat after it has been dried. This it is not doing. The minister shakes his head. He knows full well that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was in South America for a month and a half and that the farmers themselves, in a way, paid for two men to go to China with the wheat board to work out a wheat agreement. But I suggest our salesmen should have gone to Russia three months ago and also visited Poland and other countries in an effort to work out some agreement.
It was suggested in the agricultural committee that the Board of Grain Commissioners should look into the possibility of building a terminal in Europe to handle our grain so that we would have ready access to the European common market. But that as it may, I suggest that insufficient pressure is put on grain movement. In the agricultural committee the Board of Grain Commissioners was asked how the grains council is fitting into the scheme of things and their representatives said that they did not know. We also asked the representatives from the eastern feed board the same question, and they did not know either. Nobody knows, and as a result the grain sales situation is in a state of flux.
What has been the position in the last few years in regard to Canada's flour sales? The minister is well aware of the flour sales that we used to make. For example, I should like to quote part of an article extracted from the Winnipeg Free Press to illustrate my point:
Canada, which for many years led the world in flour exports, is now running a bad third after the United States and the European common market.
This gives the committee some idea of the extent to which we are falling down, Mr. Chairman. The article goes on:
Extensive gains have been made in the export of flour by other countries. These are chiefly members of the common market (France, Germany and Italy).
Then the article suggests that Great Britain will reduce its imports of flour from 12 million bushels to something like five million bushels.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister can look into this problem and, if necessary, institute a subsidy program for manufactured flour. I understand there was a subsidy in past years, and maybe a subsidy is still paid.

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
But if it is, it is not enough. The basic concept is that grain must be moved. The only flour sales being made today are to Kussia, which in turn passes it on to Cuba-a very shaky commitment indeed, I suggest.
In regard to the provision of grain drying facilities, I suggest that the government appoint a western grain drying committee to co-ordinate use of all available farm dryers-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is already being done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says that this is already being done. I did not hear him say so in the agricultural committee this morning or in his speech this afternoon. As I was saying, the government should appoint a co-ordinator to ensure that all available dryers are put to use.
This morning during the standing committee hearings the minister suggested that the government has already established one drying point at Saskatoon which is being operated on a turn-around basis. In other words, farmers bring their grain to this facility, dry it and then it is taken back to the farm. Generally speaking, about 40 per cent of the grain grown in the Saskatoon neighbourhood is tough and damp. The same can be said of the grain grown in southern Manitoba.
The minister also told the committee this morning that he had had meetings at various places in the west. I suggest that these meetings should have been held two months ago. It was obvious on October 1 that this was going to be a difficult harvesting year. One had only to look at the amount of harvesting that had been done by October 1 to assess the situation.
I would also point out that at one point the government suggested that it would remove the tariff on dryers. The newspapers-and I do not blame them-flooded the country with reports of big reductions in the tariff on grain dryers. It subsequently turned out that there never was a tariff on grain dryers used on farms. My question asked in this house some weeks ago was directed to the removal of the tariff on commercial, stationary grain dryers, and this the government has done. I also suggest that the government should set up temporary stationary grain dryers at various points on the prairies; I suggest several in southern Manitoba, several in northern Saskatchewan and several in northern Alberta.
I now want to look at the feed grain position, Mr. Chairman. I think the government is hoping that the chickens in the constituency

of Fraser Valley East are going to eat all of this feed grain, or that it is going to be shipped somewhere else. We are going to have a surplus of feed grain and unless some action is taken to dispose of it this grain is just going to decay.
I also suggested in the agricultural committee that the duty on steel, glass-lined silos imported from the United States be removed. In the United States these silos were used to store high moisture corn and they could be similarly used in Canada to store high moisture barley and other feed grains. These silos are not manufactured in Canada, so I see no reason why this duty should not be removed. Knowing the tariff structure in Canada as it relates to agricultural implements it may well be that the machinery used to empty and load these silos is duty free, but the major cost is the building itself, which amounts to between $7,000 and $8,000. If this duty were removed it would help a few farmers, though perhaps not many.
I should also like to draw to the attention of this committee what the Economic Council of Canada had to say regarding research in the plants division. There is lots of evidence to suggest that the United States has made major gains in research into the growing of corn. New varieties of wheat have been developed in Mexico. I suggest that not enough money has been put into plant research in Canada. Private industry has not been enticed to enter into the field of plant research to any great extent. I suggest that instead of giving a grant of $75,000 to Crane to keep people out of bathrooms, the minister would have done better to make larger grants to private industry to encourage broader based research. It is all well and good to conduct this sort of research in universities and at the federal government headquarters at Ottawa, but surely we are lagging behind other countries.
For example, Mr. Chairman, may I refer you to the statistics published on page 2 of the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget. According to the pool, for every one million acres planted in the United States there are three wheat research scientists, but for every one million acres planted in Canada there are only two. Further, a breakdown among the federal and provincial governments and the universities investigated revealed that there are 219 professional researchers working on horticultural crops and 113 on cereal crops. I have nothing against horticultural crops-


The Chairman:: Order, please.
December 5, 1968


John (Jack) Henry Horner: *-but I suggest that more research should be done into cereal crops. May I call it six o'clock?


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. It is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), Housing; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), Rural Development; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), Sports.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the debate and the seriousness of the situation facing the agricultural economy, I wonder whether the minister and the house will give unanimous agreement to suspend private members' hour at this time and continue the debate on the agricultural estimates. We have only one day for this debate and I believe hon. members realize the importance of the subject.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I too recognize the importance, but I do not think it is fair to say that there has only been one day for debate. These estimates have been considered in the standing committee for many days. While I would have no objection, there is one aspect which I would like to draw to the attention of the house. A bad habit could develop of depriving private members of their opportunity to bring motions and bills before this house. When I used to sit on the other side of the chamber I saw one private members' motion after another passed by, and this is not a good practice.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: I believe a glance at the record will show it is this government which has asked that private members' hour be waived whenever it suits its convenience. But when it comes to dealing with the representations of the farmers the minister puts on this pious act and adopts this holier than thou attitude.
Excelsior Life Insurance Co.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As usual, the hon. member is wrong again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion which has been made is that we postpone private members' hour. The question which now arises is whether there is unanimous consent to do this.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is not unanimous agreement, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Speak up, then.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough
West) moved the second reading of Bill No. S-13, respecting The Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to continue as a federal company a company which is an existing Ontario company. The Excelsior Life Insurance Company is one of the leading insurance companies in Canada with over one billion dollars of insurance in force.
This bill is identical to ones sponsored by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) in the last two sessions of the last parliament. As Bill S-26 it received second reading in the house and received approval by the miscellaneous private bills committee in February, 1967, but died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued in April of that year. As Bill S-8 it was presented for second reading in September, 1967, and was further debated in November of that year and in February, 1968, but it died on the order paper when parliament was dissolved in April of this year.
For the benefit of the many new members of the house, and to refresh the memories of hon. members who were sitting in the house during the debates on this bill's predecessors, the facts are basically these. The Excelsior Life Insurance Company was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario by letters patent dated August 7, 1889. It has
December 5. 1968
[Stage Direction]
Excelsior Life Insurance Co. been registered with the federal Department of Insurance since 1897 and has filed returns with the federal Department of Insurance for some 70 years.
As a provincial company registered with the federal Department of Insurance, the Excelsior Life Insurance Company is subject to most of the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, to which it would be subject as a federal company. At the same time, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Corporations Act, and there are certain conflicting and overlapping provisions in the said two acts. This dual jurisdiction does result in some hardship and inconvenience. The company, for instance, must prepare its annual statement in a form prescribed by the federal Department of Insurance, but its annual report is prepared differently to comply with the provisions of the Ontario Corporations Act. The investment powers under the Ontario Corporations Act do not conform to those provided for under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Since the company is in direct competition with federally incorporated companies, it feels prejudiced by the more narrow investment privileges under the Ontario Corporations Act.
There are certain areas of difference in the field of administration between federal and provincial requirements which could be resolved if the company became a federal company.
The Ontario department of insurance has been quite understanding in dealing with this company in its operations under these circumstances and the company has been treated much as if it were a federal company. The Excelsior Life Insurance Company is licensed to operate in each province and carries on business in all the provinces of Canada.
It is not considered feasible to reincorporate as a federal company and to sell and transfer the company's assets to the new corporation in view of the large size of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company. In the first place there are about 200,000 policyholders and more than one billion dollars of insurance in force. It would be impracticable to transfer these policies to a federal company. Second, there are mortgages on real estate held by the company totalling about $88 million and marketable securities to a value of about $99 million. It would hardly be feasible to register assignments of all the mortgages and to prepare the necessary transfers of all the securities to a new corporation.
[Mr. Weatherhead.l
[Stage Direction]
The most serious opposition to this bill's predecessors, Mr. Speaker, has centred around the fact that since 1960 a controlling interest in the Excelsior Life Insurance Company has been held by Aetna Life Insurance Company which has its head office in the United States. Aetna, which holds 72 per cent of the shares of Excelsior, is one of the largest stock life insurance companies in the United States and has been doing business in Canada continuously for over 100 years, longer than any other American life insurance company.
At the time of the acquisition of its controlling interest in 1960 it was declared by Aetna that there would be no change in the management, personnel or directors of Excelsior and that Excelsior would continue as an autonomous Canadian operation, managed and administered by and for Canadians. The following will attest to the validity of this declaration:
1.	Since 1960, Excelsior has continued to conduct and expand its operations under the same Canadian management.
2.	Excelsior has acquired a substantial volume of Canadian business originally written by Aetna.
3.	Excelsior has a board of 12 directors of whom nine are resident in Canada.
4.	The invested assets of Excelsior which exceed $211 million are invested almost exclusively in Canadian assets. Less than one-tenth of one per cent of Excelsior's invested assets are invested in United States and foreign securities.
Mr. Speaker, Section 16 of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act prohibits the transfer to foreign control of those life insurance companies which were Canadian controlled on September 23, 1964. The section also, however, provides a blanket exemption where more than 50 per cent of the shares were held by a non-resident on that date.
Excelsior, as a provincial company, is not subject to said section 16, but even if it had been a federal company it would have been exempt from the 1964-1965 amendments of section 16, since more than 50 per cent of its shares were held by a non-resident at that time and had been so held for about four years. There are 12 other federally registered insurance companies with the same exemption as Excelsior, as far as section 16 is concerned.
December 5, 1968
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The purpose of this bill is to achieve the effect of re-incorporation as a federal company without the apparent difficulties posed by that course of action because of its large size. It is an old established company of high reputation, carrying on business in all the provinces of Canada for over 70 years. It simply wishes to clear up its status in a way which the Superintendent of Insurance entirely approved in the hearings on a similar bill which were held by the miscellaneous private bills committee on February 14, 1967. The bill would subject the company more firmly to federal legislation and cut off provincial authority and control. It would make the Excelsior Life Insurance Company more competitive with other companies in the field and enable it to serve the public interest better.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, those who are interested in the operation of insurance companies in Canada will appreciate the interest that the sponsor of this bill has shown in the role of this insurance company, the purposes suggested for it by the principals concerned, and the reason this type of bill is introduced in this way. For a number of years I have been opposed to this bill but the sponsor did not mention the reason for my opposition.
It would be very simple for the sponsor to agree to a change in the bill, a change such as been accepted by other insurance companies, whereby it would divest itself of American control within a period of years. This was the aim of the former minister of finance, Mr. Gordon, who wished to end American control of Canadian corporations. We do not suggest that this be done to the disadvantage of the company. We suggest, and this has been accepted as a reasonable proposition by a number of other companies, that it be given a ten-year period in which to accomplish this objective. The company would not have to rush out and sell its stock on the market immediately.
This is the type of proposition put forward by the former minister of finance when dealing with banks operating in Canada. In some cases it was accepted reluctantly, and in others favourably. In fact two suggestions were made. The first was that a bank could carry on business as it had been and would be treated as a foreign owned bank operating in Canada. But under this arrangement it could not expand its operations. The second suggestion was that a bank be allowed to expand but that within a ten year period, at the point

Excelsior Life Insurance Co. it thought most advantageous to itself, it would sell controlling interest in its stock to Canadians and become a Canadian owned company.
Earlier this afternoon this house discussed a very serious agricultural problem. If the sponsor of this bill had wished to bring tears to the eyes of hon. members he could have suggested that this insurance company might agree to use its mortgage funds to help farmers suffering difficulty in western Canada.
Aetna Life Insurance Company is an American owned company. It is a monolithic structure. I went to the library to find out some facts about it. Its president is connected with Connecticut Insurance and many other companies. It has quite a bit of money to invest. Last year it held a surplus in shares of upwards of half a million dollars, a surplus in insurance funds of $11 million and had total assets of $185 million. Had the hon. member done this I am sure some of the members of my party would have risen and said: Let us get on with it and spend this money in an advantageous way.
But the company has not suggested this. It acts the same as any other corporation. It is here to make money, and it believes it will be more advantageous to make money with a federal charter than with a provincial charter. But having examined the company's assets, frankly I fail to see how it has hurt the company not to be federally incorporated. I might call this a harangue-I would not want anybody else to call it that-but frankly I do not see why it should be given this power.
This is an old Canadian company which was acquired by an American firm, and since becoming American owned it has not become any more Canadian oriented than it originally was. We have an obligation to foster the idea of Canadian ownership. If the Excelsior Life Insurance Company were federally incorporated and instructed to become Canadian owned within a ten year period, I have the idea at the back of my mind that at a future date, when we were controlling it through our Department of Insurance, we could say to the company: As a good corporate citizen you might make money available for this purpose or for that purpose. I see a number of members from Toronto in the house. I am sure they would like to see more money devoted to housing. Farm representatives would like to see long term loan capital made available to farmers at a reasonable interest rate. This seems to be what this bill is all about.
December 5, 1968

Excelsior Life Insurance Co.
I listened carefully to the sponsor of the bill when he discussed the reason why this company is seeking federal incorporation. It involves an amendment that was made to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act which provided that a company which was wholly owned by a foreign company in 1964 could get federal incorporation. In effect the plea being made here is: Let us not follow that law; let us make an exception.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Let us go back to the original incorporation. It was incorporated originally, I believe, in 1889 by letters patent of Ontario, amended by orders in council in 1889 changing the name to Excelsior Life Insurance Company of Ontario. It was modified again in 1897. In 1899 the name was changed to Excelsior Life Insurance Company by supplementary letters patent. This company was originally a Canadian owned company. It became involved in foreign control back in the early 60's and now is owned by a United States corporation.
There is another problem that bothers me. Sometimes we are not right but we are not always wrong either.
I refer to the situation which developed several years ago in the private members' hour. Over a period of years we had seen an amalgamation of the major banks in this country. We saw the Canadian Bank of Commerce amalgamate with the Imperial Bank. We saw the Dominion Bank amalgamate with the Bank of Toronto. There were a number of amalgamations, but there is no need to list them all. There was a drawing together of a number of banks. Then a couple of years ago along came a number of bank bills. In each case the sponsor said: Just pass this legislation and this will give the right to print money.
It must have been wrong to have the amalgamation if it is wise to have a proliferation. If, on the other hand, it was right to allow the amalgamation, then the reverse must be true. When a number of companies wish to expand their operations by setting up new units this must be wrong if the other was right. We pointed this out. We are opposed to the expansion of the number of banks just for the purpose of expanding without having any competitive position along the line. As is already evident two of these banks are out of business. Another has surrendered its charter and another is in a dubious position. I believe one is partly successful. My colleague who

comes from that province may say that one is highly successful, but I do not know.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: What is the name of that company?


William Arnold Peters: I am referring to the Bank of British Columbia. Another of my colleagues says that he has some money invested in it, so I suppose it is still solvent. The point I make is that it was not advisable to establish these banks because they did not have the financial structure that was necessary. Yet continually we are faced with the establishment of new companies.
This company, the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, is in Canada and has been here for several years. It was operated as a wholly owned Canadian company. Aetna Life Insurance Company did not become involved in it because the company was in difficulty or anything, but rather to control it. That in itself is not a bad thing except that Aetna Life Insurance Company was in this country doing business as it has for a great number of years. It has been doing a very large amount of business in Canada. I believe Aetna was organized in 1850 as an annuity company. I believe it commenced business in Canada in 1850 with a licence to transact the business of accident and sickness insurance. So this parent company has not been really left out of business in Canada. I believe it does less business, however, than Excelsior, but it has liabilities in Canada of $53 million. Therefore it is not a small contribution.
I am sure a check will show that Connecticut Life is also doing business in Canada and that there is no drought of insurance companies. Therefore there really is no reason that this company should have any excess advantage in the market because it is not doing any particular good. Certainly I believe, perhaps wrongly, that if a company is a Canadian owned company then we have a responsibility to allow it certain benefits we would not allow a foreign owned company. This, of course, has been established in the difference between the regulations contained in the Insurance Act which affects Canadian owned companies and that which affects British and foreign owned insurance companies. Both are acts of parliament and treat companies in a different way.
I suggest that there is great advantage in this company being a Canadian owned company. I am sure we would not ask the Aetna Life Insurance Company to give up its control
December 5, 1968

without due remuneration. I have never noticed any difficulty in respect of these companies disposing of their stock when they make the decision to do so. If this company decides within a ten year period to be a wholly owned Canadian company with Canadian directors resident in Canada, I am sure this could be brought about without any additional cost to the company.
The sponsor of the bill, in passing, mentioned the board of directors of the company. It is interesting to note that there are Canadian directors of the company normally resident in Canada. Bruce Matthews is of Toronto, Henry Gooderham is also of Toronto. I presume Mr. Matthews is the well known lawyer and that Mr. Gooderham has liquor interests. A. E. Walford is of Montreal. Mr. Paul Matthews is of Toronto. Then it goes on and mentions John A. Hill of Hartford, Connecticut, Olcott D. Smith of Hartford, Connecticut and Fraser M. Fell of Toronto. They list five or six directors who are Canadians. It seems to me that Mr. Matthews would not have much time to devote to his duties as a director of this company. I am sure this is also true of Mr. Gooderham. Perhaps they are on the board, as is the situation in respect of some of the people in the other place, only to provide a Canadian content. In my opinion this is not good enough.
While listening to a couple of economists discuss our national economy I was surprised when they pointed out that the insurance companies of Canada spend more money in the United States than the United States supplies Canada with capital. The drain of money is not into Canada as would normally be expected; it is out of Canada. We have money in Canada which could be used for more development than is the case now if it remained at home rather than going across the border. I suggest this is probably the wish of our people. Therefore it is my opinion that it would be to our advantage that this company consider the suggestions we have made that it be returned to Canadian ownership with a full slate of Canadian directors so that the company will be directed toward Canadian development because of the large sum of money that these insurance companies control.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
There was another problem that interested me immensely in respect of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. Is it the pleasure of
Excelsior Life Insurance Co. the house that the hon. member have leave to continue?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I received on November 16 the following letter from Mr. Leon Verville who is the executive secretary for the Bois-Franc-Saint-Fran-cois de Warwick region, and I quote:
Dear Sir,
Along with my colleagues of the Societe des Artisans, I am counting on you to oppose as strongly as you can the bill proposing to levy taxes on insurance companies and which places on the same footing co-operatives and fraternal societies such as ours and other life insurance companies.
There is no doubt that the societies and companies hit the hardest are those controlled by French Canadians since they are the smallest. Such legislation will create considerable difficulties in their development and will undoubtedly contribute to maintain the economic inferiority of our people.
Kindly accept our anticipated thanks, etc.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing today Bill No. S-13, which is intended to create an exceptional situation for one insurance company that, in a way, forms part of the American monopoly, since the field of insurance in Canada is largely influenced by that capital.
Several members will probably recall a supplement published by Le Devoir, on October 10, 1968, dealing with insurance problems. This supplement underlined the insurance problems in Canada by comparing French-Canadian companies with Anglo-Canadian and foreign companies. The example was given that in 1946, 23 French-Canadian establishments controlled 8 per cent of the market, while 92 per cent was in the hands of 66 Anglo-Canadian and foreign-owned concerns, and the situation has never changed for the better since. The bill before us would give the Excelsior company and its owner, the Aetna company from the United States, a privileged position and the right to compete with other companies.
Mr. Speaker, the paradox in this matter is that, on the one hand, the government members are ready to give some privileges to foreign companies and, on the other hand, in his mini-budget, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) dealt a nearly mortal blow to our French-Canadian companies.
So that you can realize the full extent of the problem, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that the Societe des Artisans, about which Mr. Verville, to whom I referred earlier,
December 5, 1968

Excelsior Life Insurance Co. wrote me, has more than 354,000 members divided into 150 locals and 18 regional offices, including three for Franco-Americans in New England. This is an important company, with permanent and very active agencies. Each one has a board of directors and a regional office constantly at the disposal of local organizations. The general assembly of the society is attended by delegates from its various regional offices. Economically, this body constitutes a democratic system which is very efficient and which does not ask for special treatment but wants to be treated equitably.
On the basis of 1967 figures, the tax levied by the Minister of Finance would represent, for the Societe des Artisans, an amount of some $500,000. To give an idea of what that amount means to the Society, I would point out that it is estimated that $800,000 will be paid as rebates in 1968 out of the gains of 1967.
Mr. Speaker, you realize all the trouble taken by this government to help our companies which are truly Canadian, dyed-in-the-wool Canadian, as compared to the advantages granted to those companies.
The last budget led to the following disastrous consequences: first, increased administrative expenses on account of the upheaval and supplementary work which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that the remarks of the hon. member are related to the bill now under consideration. I think he is trying to carry on the budget debate, and I respectfully suggest to the hon. member to limit himself, during the time allowed for private members' business, to the bill tabled by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly pay heed to your very kind remarks. I wish to point out, however, that the purpose of Bill No. S-13, as outlined by its sponsor, is to put on the same footing this company, which was in Canadian hands before it was bought by American interests, and the other American companies.
It is said that there is double competition in this field, overlapping of legislation, which makes it more difficult to draw up annual reports, and so on. We were told about the extravagant amount of money involved because of the overall policies in force. We were lectured on mortgages, securities and so on. However Mr. Speaker, to make it short,

their purpose, through this bill, is to grant a privileged status to this company.
Indeed, the explanatory note accompanying the bill reads in part, as follows:
Due to the size of the company, continuation as a federal company and not a federal re-incorporation has been applied for.
Therefore, in my view, this bill is favoured treatment, whereas the last budget was unfavourable to insurance companies.
It is precisely to bring out this point that I referred to the serious consequences of the last budget on one of our insurance companies, the Societe des Artisans.
If, on the one hand, Mr. Speaker, we pass Bill No. S-13, this government would have to accept our proposals concerning French-Canadian and Canadian insurance companies.
That is why, Mr. Speaker-without questioning your good judgment, because I think it is better than mine since you have greater experience than I have in this field-I would be pleased if I could conclude my remarks with respect to the Societe des Artisans to show how serious the situation is, since it affects considerably our French-Canadian companies.
In fact, we would create a precedent if we acted this way towards this company and I want to record my objection. I want foreign companies to be placed on the same footing as Canadian companies, provided however that our Canadian companies are not scuttled but assisted.
Mr. Speaker, if we harm French-Canadian and Canadian companies, it is absolutely unacceptable that we should pass Bill No. S-13 which promotes, in a way, foreign investments at home as well as purchase of our own companies.
The Excelsior Company was incorporated in 1889. It was purchased by the Americans. If the budget measures are passed and implemented by this government, tomorrow other American companies will buy our French-Canadian companies. I want to object to that and I consider this a matter of principle. That is why I object strenuously to the passing of Bill No. S-13.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: That applause is almost embarrassing, Mr. Speaker. Some
December 5, 19G8

time ago the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development made an announcement in the house about the establishment of Panarctic Oils Limited. At that time he pointed out that one of the reasons for the establishment of Panarctic Oils Limited was a co-operative venture among a variety of oil exploration and mining companies, and the federal government, to act in concert through one company to carry out exploratory work in the northern part of Canada.
The Canadian government put up 45 per cent of the common and preferred share capital for that company. The point I am getting to-and this is only in a preliminary way-is that this was lauded as a most commendable aspect of the attitude of the Canadian government toward Canadian ownership. As was said then, and as was said this morning before one of our committees, if it had not been for the Canadian government's participation in Panarctic Oils to the extent of $9 million it would undoubtedly have been necessary for that consortium of companies to obtain money from foreign sources, and thus become another aspect of the foreign ownership activity in Canada.
The Canadian ownership aspect, as I understand it, was to the extent of 76 per cent, partly because of the percentage of Canadian ownership in the other companies in Panarctic oils and partly because of the 45 per cent, or $9 million invested by the Canadian people. That brings it to 76 per cent Canadian ownership. This was lauded as being extremely commendable and reflective of government attitude toward Canadian ownership, something which we have been espousing and arguing in favour of for some time.
The former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, in addition to the former minister of finance to whom my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) referred, went on a nationwide television broadcast. So concerned was he about the matter of foreign ownership that he took to the nation's communication medium to tell the Canadian people that he, Mr. Pearson, as prime minister of Canada was in favour of Canadian ownership of industry and manufacturing in the economy of the nation. I believed him. Many others believed him.
I think this was a fine declaration to have made. Many of the former prime minister's colleagues in the cabinet did not agree with him. Many of them were of the reactionary, pro-foreign ownership type, and there was a
Excelsior Life Insurance Co. split in the cabinet about this matter. None the less the former prime minister, who spoke for the cabinet and the government of the day, made that declaration. We endorsed it, supported it and wished fervently that the declaration would come to some fruition, and that we would see the results of it as time went on.
But we have a different Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today, Mr. Speaker. He was one in the cabinet of Mr. Pearson who was of the reactionary class or group when he was minister of justice. Regardless of the impression he leaves, regardless of his gentle smile and soft voice, the present Prime Minister fell then, and falls now, in the class of those favourably disposed to foreign ownership and control of the economy in Canada. An indication of this reactionary attitude showed up today in the almost flippant and arrogant way in which the Prime Minister dealt with the fisheries problem on the east coast, something of tremendous concern. He said almost disdainfully: Come on back tomorrow. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries will be here, and he can deal with it then.
I use this as an introduction to the bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member has been speaking about many things, few of them relevant to the bill before the house.


Mr. Gibson:: That was the preamble.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend opposite, whose constituency I am afraid I do not recall at the moment, just said that was the preamble. It was the preamble to the aspect that the bill before us concerns a foreign owned company.


Colin David Gibson: More verbose nonsense.


Frank Howard: It would be helpful if the hon. gentleman would not make remarks from his seat. They make more sense that way, but the rules of the house provide that if he would like to say something he is perfectly at liberty to ask me any question, and I will be glad to try to answer it. The point at issue is the matter of the foreign ownership of this company, Excelsior Life Insurance Company, and what the parliament of Canada is going to do about it.
As we have in the past, we look in many respects to the government of the day because any enunciation of public policy in
3556	COMMONS
Excelsior Life Insurance Co. this matter should emanate from the government. Because this is a one-man government, we must look to the Prime Minister, who so far has been silent on the matter of foreign ownership and control of Canadian industry, silent on the matter of foreign ownership and control of Excelsior Life Insurance Company, and all the other insurance company bills that are before us.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Yes; I have sufficient time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might be given an opportunity to ask the question from his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: While he is doing that-


Mr. Speaker:: In the meantime the hon. member might go on with the preamble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, as company law is both federal and provincial, does the hon. member not think he has been most unfair in his criticism of the Prime Minister? He is trying to develop answers to the problems, prior to the federal-provincial conference, where all these things are discussed in the context of a federal-provincial atmosphere of distribution of powers?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I were to be permitted to answer that question I obviously would be out of order. But I would point out to the hon. member that this is another indication of the attitude, not only of the government but obviously of the whole Liberal party, namely: Wait until tomorrow; wait until another day; let us see what occurs.
As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister, because he is the leader of the government, in respect of foreign ownership of Canadian industry, is as phony as a $4 bill, and everyone who supports him in that concept of waiting until some other time to do something about it falls within the same class. It would not surprise me at a bit, and I understand this is the case, that in cabinet already-perhaps my hon. friend does not know about this because he is not close enough to cabinet to find out these things- there are moves afoot to bring in a public law giving the open door treatment to companies

DEBATES	December 5, 1968
like Excelsior Life Insurance Company, and all the rest of the Companies foreign owned, and those controlled by foreign capital, saying to them-and this will occur if the government decision comes out in the open, and it will very soon-that they no longer have to go through the process of having their affairs examined in public; that they can come in by the back door and become incorporated by letters patent. If that comes to pass, as I am told it will-it is a matter the cabinet is discussing-it will simply be an indication once more of the favoured treatment the government has given and will continue to give to the foreign domination of this nation's economy.


Colin David Gibson: Which government, federal or provincial?


Frank Howard: Does my hon. friend have another question? I would be glad to listen to it.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
In addition, it would not surprise me a bit if even in the rules of procedure of this house, the revision of which is to be tabled tomorrow by the procedures committee, some suggestion is not advanced which will give the government control over the affairs dealt with in private members hour, in order to buttress the position of the government, and through which the government can treat its friends with extreme favours.


Mr. Deakon:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Skeena a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Skeena now has the floor. The hon. member seeking to ask the question cannot do-so unless he secures the permission and consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, T
would be glad to extend the consent to the hon. gentleman.


Walter Cyril Deakon: I was wondering whether the hon. member would enlighten me as to whether or not this is an exercise in futilty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question is not entirely relevant. Also I have to say that some of the comments made by the hon. member for Skeena in my humble estimation were not entirely relevant to the-bill before us. The question before the house is not the general matter of private bills and.
December 5, 1968

whether we should continue to have a private members hour, but the very specific proposal moved by the hon. member for Scarborough West. I think the hon. member for Skeena should be able by this time to address himself to that bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I was desperately trying to do that, Mr. Speaker but I was sidetracked by a couple of irrelevant questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Perrault:: The hon. member had better hurry up or no time will be left for a vote.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member is hungry he can go and have his dinner.


Frank Howard: The expression is that this is another voice crying in the wilderness, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say another wilderness crying in a voice.
Regarding the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, perhaps what I can do in order to ensure that I am in order is to read from Hansard the remarks which were made on another occasion with respect to Excelsior Life Insurance Company, remarks which were not ruled out of order at that time. I am quoting from page 2513 of Hansard where the remarks of the then hon. member for Skeena appeared. They read as follows:
The position of the New Democratic party has been enunciated on a number of occasions. It is a position that goes beyond the narrow confines of the statutory requirements of the Insurance Act. It is a position that, with respect to companies such as Excelsior Life Insurance Company, is identical with that-
-of the then government.
Perhaps I could refer to something that took place before the committee on February 14, 1967 when the committee began to consider the bill and had certain evidence presented to it. Certain officers of the company appeared before the committee, namely a Mr. Fraser M. Fell, Q.C., who was listed as the parliamentary agent, and a Mr. Kenny who was then president of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company. These gentlemen, together with Mr. Humphry, the superintendent of insurance, and the sponsor of the bill, proceeded to give the committee certain evidence. Part of the evidence related in a broad, general sense to the matter of foreign
Excelsior Life Insurance Co. ownership and control. In this regard, thinking in terms of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, which is a massive company with large amounts of money at its disposal, part of which is invested in different parts of the world, we might make reference to the Canada-.!apan Trade Council Newsletter of July 1968 where we find the following:
The tremendous industrial and commercial expansion by Japanese industry since the mid-1950s has been accomplished almost entirely without benefit of foreign investment. By and large it has been the policy of the Japanese government to discourage direct foreign investment, except in cases where a Japanese industry would clearly benefit by foreign participation.
Then it points out the degree to which foreign capital has been invested in Japan as compared with other countries, and it says that Canada had a foreign investment and equity capital of fourteen and one half billions of dollars and that Japan, in a similar period, although not in exactly the same year, had a foreign equity investment of only $.7 billion dollars-a tremendous difference. Here we are being asked to make retroactive to 1910 an aspect of foreign ownership and control of another life insurance company in this country, something we can well do without. The whole process that took place earlier on, both before the committee and before the house, continues to have the same force now. It continues to be true that such proposals are antagonistic to the interests of Canada, derogatory to our economic well-being and to our prospects in the future. We should not continue to go through the process of giving a carte blanche to foreign controlled companies to move into this country and do whatever they wish, without any restrictions being put on their activities.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour assigned to the consideration of private members bills has now expired.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Legault in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1. Departmental administration including the Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee, contributions to the commonwealth agricultural bureaux, and a contribution to the Agri-
[Stage Direction]
December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
cultural Economics Research Council in an amount equal to one half the contributions to the council from other sources during the fiscal year but not exceeding, $8,520,375.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: When the house went to the consideration of private members hour at six o'clock, I was dealing briefly and rapidly with what the government should have been doing at least two months ago in attempting to deal with the difficult situation which was building up in western Canada. The minister has been out across the western region. I recall that even back in October he was pictured on television, walking in water amongst the swathed crops. He had plenty of evidence then of the situation, and it is too bad the government has not acted.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Did you say in or on the water?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said in the water. We now have the facts, and know that something like 40 per cent of the grain crop has been taken off, and that in fact in northern Saskatchewan some 55 per cent of the grain still remains to be harvested. I suggested before, sir, that a correlated effort should be made to round up all available dryers from farmers who are through with them. This could easily have been done through municipalities, and a listing of them made for the government. The government could easily have paid the transportation costs of moving these dryers to the grain, or to the vicinity where there was a lot of damp grain. This course should have been adopted two or three weeks ago at the very latest. It was evident then there was going to be a lot of damp grain. Rarely is any crop harvested after the middle of November. It was known in November that a huge amount of damp grain was available, and the minister would have been wise to inform the farmers at that time that it would be better to abandon the damp grain. It would have been better to allow some to lie in the swaths.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain suggested, the government could have told the farmers to leave their grain in the swath. There is no question about it, that grain will lie in the swath over the winter. It will deteriorate a grade or two, but it is still there in the spring, capable of being harvested, depending on the type of spring weather we get. According to a recent article in the Ottawa Journal the minister said that farmers who have been careless, unlucky or unwise are no different from unlucky storekeepers or plumbers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I didn't write the editorial.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When the minister makes such a statement, he is plainly abandoning his responsibility, and that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as that of the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Tell that to the editorial writer;
I didn't write the editorial.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have had to dispute some newspaper articles during the time I have spoken in this house, but I can honestly say very few. If the minister wants to say he was misquoted-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I was not; I said I didn't write the editorial, that is all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the editorial writer put the wrong interpretation upon his remarks, I can only say that is tough; he must have been very misleading in his remarks.
We have a very difficult situation, and the minister has announced he is going to call an agricultural conference to study the whole agricultural industry in Canada. Back in the fifties, when we had a surplus of grain, the farmers were encouraged to diversify. Today, we have a surplus in rapeseed and, a surplus in mustard seed, and a surplus in flax is fast building up. The price of flax is going down correspondingly. Into what is the minister going to tell the farmers to diversify now, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce 'has not made any real effort to promote the sale of Canadian grain? As I mentioned before, a sale has been made to Red China. This sale consisted mostly of No. 4 and 5 wheat. No new agreement was made, and there was no mention of an agreement. This order took up the slack in the old agreement, which is running out. I ask the minister this question: Were Nos. 4 and 5 chosen because of price competition? In other words, I am asking whether Nos. 4 and 5 is the only wheat that is competitively priced with our major competitors in the world markets? Certainly I would judge this to be so.
Earlier today I dealt with the question of flour. The minister is fairly knowledgeable on that subject, because at one time there was a flour mill in his own constituency. It has since closed. There was one in Moose Jaw and that closed down last year. For the first time, Great Britain has not led the list as our best customer in cash sales; Japan has taken over. In fact our sales have fallen off.
Recently we exported some barley to Japan, and there was some doubt about its
December 5, 1968

quality. I mention this mainly to point out that when the Board of Grain Commissioners appeared before the agriculture committee they said they were hampered in their investigations of further markets because of the lack of money from the government. Surely this is a very weak excuse. It is a fairly good excuse for the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, but surely the minister cannot honestly say he has gone to bat for the farmers. He should be helping the Board of Grain Commissioners to research more markets. That is why we urged the government to agree to this debate, so as to have an opportunity to try to persuade the minister to reexamine the whole situation. The government made what they thought was an important statement about the reduction of tariffs on dryers, but actually the reduction saved the farmers very little money, if any. Indeed it caused the dealers a great deal of headache because the farmers came to them and asked for refunds.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
As I suggested earlier, Mr. Chairman, the government could have purchased these large stationary grain dryers and operated them at various parts of the country where there were insufficient farmer-owned dryers available. This co-ordinating committee, to which reference has been made, could also ensure that this grain is dried properly so as to safeguard the quality of the grain. It is a well known fact that if grain is dried too quickly or at too hot a temperature, its quality may be severely damaged.
May I make just a few comments about the conference next March. The minister said that some 400 people would be invited, 140 of whom would be farm producers. Yet on the steering committee the minister is only permitting the participation-and I use that word because it has a certain significance to that government over there-of two national farm organization representatives. His weak excuse for this is that he told them he would hear from one of them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, both of them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister now says both of them. This is an example of how he confuses the house, Mr. Chairman. Apparently he heard from both of them after he had asked them to select one representative.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One nomination from both organizations.
Supply-Agriculture


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what I said. I think it is well known in farm circles across Canada that there is a great deal of conflict of opinion as to whether or not Canada should have one national farm organization, or two. It is also well known that there are something like four or five major national farm organizations in the United States. I cannot see why we cannot have two in Canada. But the minister has made no recognition of the fact that there is this conflict of interest between the two farm organizations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Does the hon. member want that carried into the steering committee?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Carry it in if you like. If you want my words, take them. I suggest that if the minister is broadminded and wants proper participation in the activities of the steering committee, since 140 delegates out of 400 are producers then the very least number to represent them on the steering committee should be two delegates. As I understand it, the steering committee is going to consist of five members, and I ask the minister whether six members would make it unwieldy, and indecisive, when it comes to deciding how much time should be allotted to each group and how the conference is to be divided up into its various committees. In effect, the minister has told the conference that he has made them a big offer and that it is now up to them to get together.
That is what he told the corn growers when they came to Ottawa. He told them that he could not do anything about their situation, that they had better get together. You can only pass the buck for so long, Mr. Chairman. The minister told the corn growers of southern Ontario that there was no dumping of corn in this country, and then a week or so after he stopped that dumping.
With regard to wheat sales, generally speaking wheat is grown for sale, not for storage. But it must also be recognized that in bumper crop years it is not imprudent to store wheat. The old adage of the Egyptians about storing up in the fat years to meet the needs of the lean years is a sound one, and applies in this case, so long as we remain competitive on world markets.
According to today's Ottawa Journal there is a report to the effect-I do not have the report with me, so I cannot use the minister's exact words-that it is difficult for Canadian farmers to maintain their production if they have to compete with subsidized agricultural


An hon. Member:: Socialism.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear the remark "socialism". I think this could be compared to the Russian system, under which eventually the government owns everything. It now appears that farmers cannot pass on their farms to their sons, unless they become good corporations. If our farmers get together and set up big corporations, what is going to be the next step-state farms? Is the government going to take over our farms completely and manage their production if they are overproducing? I do not know whether that will be the next step, but if it is I would not be surprised. If the government continue on their present course, I suggest that much of this industry will be lost. It will be lost through overproduction and managed control by those who control the economy, this economy which tends to direct farmers into larger and larger units and to destroy active participation by those same farmers in the government and in their operations generally.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Benjamin:: I am happy I was unable to rise to speak until now because I must confess that all the afternoon, before the supper break, I had the feeling I had lost my temper, and that is not a good state to be in when one speaks in this chamber.
My first thought, after hearing the minister introduce these estimates, was, I must say: "Well, I'll be damned!" When the house moved into committee to hear the minister make his statement on these estimates, it was for one reason. The minister knows very well why these estimates were placed before the committee today rather than next week or the week after. It was to allow discussion of the grain crisis in western Canada. Well, in a speech lasting 20 or 30 minutes, the minister
December 5, 1968

uttered not a word on this subject. He had no report to give the house as to what action the government had taken, or was contemplating to deal with this situation.
To me, this smacks of a most casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the minister. It is an attitude of unmitigated gall and amounts to an insult to the farmers of western Canada. It is an extension of what happened last May during the election campaign, when the leader of the Liberal party paid so much attention to farm policy that in the course of travelling between Newfoundland and Vancouver he handed one out through the window of his airplane at Winnipeg.
The whole government knows why these [DOT]estimates are before the committee today. The grain crisis in western Canada, and its solution, involves not only the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce but also the Minister without Portfolio, who is supposed to be in charge of the Wheat Board. Incidentally, I wonder what has happened to some of the other prairie liberals-the hon. members for Assiniboia and Provencher. I make no apology to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and a few others in this house for talking about wheat at this time.
First, I want to say that the government has received repeated warnings about the situation since mid-September. While it might be said that on September 15 or 20 those warnings were premature, or the fears expressed were exaggerated, they have since proved well justified. Representations to the minister on this subject were continued by the farm organizations, by those interested in the grain industry and by members of the House of Commons belonging to opposition parties. I do not doubt for a moment that there were backbenchers on the other side who also expressed warnings and requested that action be taken. Well, we were given repeated assurances that the situation was in hand.
I wish to refer to three factors in this situation-box cars, grain dryers and terminals. We were assured that the railways were cooperating. Mr. Chairman, the supply of railway equipment for the movement of damp and tough grain is still done on a hit or miss basis. The fact is that not only are insufficient cars being supplied but those which are being sent are being allocated inequitably; the railways are only co-operating to the extent that fits in with their own transportation priorities and requirements. A request was made to the
S upp ly-A griculture
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a few days ago that the government appoint a transport controller with complete authority to assess the situation and the requirements at each shipping point in the three prairie provinces and northwestern British Columbia, to co-ordinate the work of the grain companies and terminals for the receiving, drying, forwarding and storage of the grain and, most important of all, require-and I underline that word "require"-the railways to supply the rolling stock and motive power necessary to move damp and tough grain in record time.
At the moment there is no one person or agency responsible for overseeing and coordinating the use of railway equipment for grain movement. Instead there is a confused conglomeration of three government departments, three government agencies, three railway companies, all the grain companies and terminals. All these organizations pass the buck among themselves; none seems to know what the others have done or are doing. The inequities in the allocation of box cars as between shipping points at dozens of locations on the prairies smacks of sheer incompetence and indifference on the part of the railways and of the government. Where the railways have been allowed, under Liberal governments, to cancel or suspend scheduled freight or mixed train service, points on some of these lines all too often go two or three weeks without any local train service at all. This is why they do not get box cars. These branch lines suffer unfair treatment as compared with lines where there is a regular, scheduled train service. This unfair allocation of box cars as between subdivisions and as between individual shipping points is not new. It has been going on since the beginning of the bumper crops in 1950-51, and it has become impossible to accept any longer. When it continues in a situation such as faces us this year, marked by the piling up of so much damp and tough grain, it becomes completely incomprehensible.
Let me cite some specific examples. I mentioned in an earlier debate a shipping point called Tate, Saskatchewan. This is a siding on the Canadian National main line between Semans and Nokomis. There are three elevators with a capacity of 114,000 bushels. Mr. Chairman, not one box car was loaded there from July 5 to October 23.
My next example is Tullis, Saskatchewan. This is a dandy. It is in the constituency of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and is on a

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
Canadian National branch line northwest of Beechy. There are two elevators with a capacity of 104,000 bushels, and it has not received one car in the last nine weeks though there are 15,000 bushels of damp grain at this shipping point.
Now I come to Craven, Silton and Lockwood, three shipping points on a Canadian Pacific branch line between Regina and Nokomis. There are five elevators with a capacity of 300,000 bushels. From September 30 to October 28, a period of four weeks, cars received-none.
Next I turn to Dinsmore, on a C.N. branch line in the same general area as Tullis. This is one of the larger shipping points with five elevators, having a capacity of 584,000 bushels. This is one of the larger shipping points. They have 16,000 bushels of damp grain in store in the elevator. It takes them four days to turn it, and then they have to start turning it again. There are 150,000 bushels of damp grain still in the farmers' hands in that shipping district. The grand total of cars loaded between November 4 and December 4-10
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Wolverine-I am sorry the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt is not here because this is in his constituency, C.P.R. line between Lanigan and Colonsay, two elevators, capacity 87,000 bushels. Cars loaded since August 1 -seven, five of them on November 2-none since. For five weeks there have been no cars. There are still 91,000 bushels of damp grain in that shipping district. Of the three bushel quota they can move 46,000 bushels, and that will leave 35,000 bushels to be dried locally. The farmers will require an additional two bushel quota to move their grain.
Young, Saskatchewan, C.N.R. main line between Watrous and Saskatoon, and a C.P.R. branch line, five elevators, capacity 430,000 bushels. Between October 26 and November 30, over four weeks, no cars loaded at the four elevators on the C.N.R. tracks and four cars loaded at the one elevator on the C.P.R. tracks. There are 200,000 bushels of damp grain at this shipping point. They can dry 50,000 bushels locally, and it will take 75 cars to ship the balance.
Lucky Lake, in the constituency of Moose Jaw, C. N. R. branch line next point south of Tullis, four elevators, capacity 346,000 bushels. Five cars were received in the past five weeks, three of them on November 2 and two on November 29. There are 25,000 to 30,000 bushels of damp grain in that district.

Allan, another place in the riding of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, C.N.R. main line between Watrous and Saskatoon, five elevators, capacity over half a million bushels. They are all plugged, and again it is taking them four days at a time to turn damp grain in store at those elevators. The last cars received were 12 on November 1. Today is December 5. There are a million bushels of tough and damp grain in the Allan district, and the problem about local drying is that nobody has the cash for it. Some farmers in that district have not even delivered their four bushel units yet. The driers located in that place charge $20 to $45 per hour, depending on capacity, which amounts to ten cents a bushel.
Mr. Chairman, if a few other members of this house will spend the length of time that some of us have, calling country elevator agents, the people who know and who are closest to the problem, they will come up with dozens more places like this. Only the organizational genius of a Liberal government could see to it that, in a country with the two largest railroads in the world, with 40,000 box cars, there would be a short supply of box cars.
I have a telegram here received today by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, from Bir-say, Saskatchewan, which reads:
This point has only had 19 cars for grain loading since new crop year. Elevators plugged and still on unit quota. Some points within 20 mile radius on two bushel dry grain quota. Request you make every effort possible to get cars to this point.
It was sent by Don Kain, President of the Birsay Board of Trade.
I make no apology, Mr. Chairman, for taking up the time of the committee to bring these matters to the attention of the minister. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is not responsible for the allocation of box cars. That matter is supposed to be under the Canadian Wheat Board, but that minister is somewhere else and apparently for him there is no crisis. I know the Minister of Transport has some responsibility for the operations of railways, but that minister too is somewhere else. I know that the Minister of Finance could be helping out with matters financially, but he is somewhere else.
There was a news report in yesterday's Leader-Post as follows:
Federal Grain Ltd. Monday reported survey results showing that about 72 per cent of this year's prairie grain crop, tough or damp as a result of a wet harvest, will require special storage practices if quality is to be maintained.
December 5, 1968



"The situation in western Canada is even more critical than we first thought," said Federal President G. H. Sellers.
I don't think it could be said that Mr. Sellers is a man who gets excited easily or who cries doom and gloom.
"On an all-grains total of 1,105 million bushels, 800 million bushels are either tough or damp, it was estimated in the survey by 1,200 Federal grain elevator managers."
We are talking about over $1 billion worth of farm produce, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sellers said Federal has decided to instal another drier at one of its lakehead terminals and is investigating the possibility of installing more driers at some other terminals.
I suggest they are to be complimented for this. If the government moved half as fast it would be doing better.
That brings me to the question of terminals, but before I refer to that I wish to point out that in spite of the assurance of the government that the railways are co-operating with respect to box cars, this is certainly not the case. I have here the Board of Grain Commissioners figures for car loadings from August 1 to November 30, 1968. Last year in that period car loadings of all grains-wheat, oats, rye, through to rape-if you will pardon the expression, totalled 89,309 cars. In 1968 the figure was 81,490. This shows the great co-operation there has been because this year there have been 8,000 fewer cars moved than in the same period last year.
Let us now move to terminals which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. I have here car loadings from inland terminals, August 1 to November 30, 1967 and 1968. Things are not doing too badly at Saskatoon terminal. They are working well there. A total of 74 cars have been shipped out of the Moose Jaw terminal, but there were no loads moved out of Moose Jaw inland terminal between August 1 and October 23. In the past five weeks they have shipped 74 cars. Edmonton-big deal-39 cars. They are going to handle lots of grain there. Lethbridge-here is a dandy one-no cars shipped since August 1. There is a grain drier there with a 1,000 bushel capacity. What the hell is it doing? The Minister of Agriculture may say, as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), mentioned, that Lethbridge is away south of the trouble. You have only to go north to Red Deer to get damp grain and it can be moved down to the Lethbridge terminal.
S up p ly-A gricu Iture
Moose Jaw terminal has a capacity of 5.5 million bushels, and I cannot understand why it has a drier with only a 1,000 bushel capacity, yet inland terminals at Edmonton and Calgary have double that amount of grain drying capacity. It passes all understanding. Liberal planning!
We were assured, Mr. Chairman, that the terminal at Moose Jaw was operating seven days a week, 24 hours a day. We have found it has been operating five days a week and not always 24 hours a day. There are not sufficient car loadings of damp grain arriving there to keep the driers operating. There was a hurried meeting a couple of days ago when the minister was in Europe, as a result of which the railways said they would move 140 cars to Moose Jaw by the middle of next week. Last week the minister told the house that they were getting a backlog of cars loaded with damp grain, yet Moose Jaw was not getting enough cars to keep it operating round the clock. The trouble is that there are too many departments, boards and agencies involved, and one does not know what the other is doing.
There is the Robin Hood elevator at Moose Jaw. The flour mill there is closed, but the elevator has a capacity of 1.8 million bushels, and there is no drier there. Why not? Mr. Chairman, grain drying facilities at terminal elevators will be able to handle only about a third of this damp and tough grain. The government has known about this situation for many weeks. In spite of questions asked in the house, and suggestions from other places, it has made no effort to instal additional equipment on an emergency basis at its own terminals. This group, and I am certain other groups in the house, call on the government to institute emergency measures to increase substantially the capacity of its own terminals for grain drying.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We urge country elevator companies both private and co-operative to purchase immediately and to instal additional grain drying equipment, both at their own terminals and at selected country elevator points. The government, if it has not already done so, should immediately call a meeting with the representatives of these companies and officials of the grain companies to persuade them, help them co-ordinate and offer them some incentives to do this. Since wet harvest conditions such as have been experienced this fall occur only once about every eight or ten years on the

December 5. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
average, the nation, the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Canada surely cannot expect the farmers to bear all the cost of making substantial expenditures for grain drying equipment that will sit in their yard for five years out of six, or for six years out of seven or eight years. Surely we cannot expect them to bear that cost.
What has happened is not their fault. It is not the fault of the government either; I cannot blame the government for the weather. If I could find a way to do it, I would. Surely it is unfair to expect the farmers to make these substantial expenditures for equipment that will be used this winter and then sit idle for several years. For the individual farmer, this means thousands of dollars of capital, which he does not have, being tied up in extraordinary equipment which in most years is of no benefit as a capital asset on the farm.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have got beyond the point where I lost my temper and will try to be a little warmer now. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will realize that I sincerely mean what I say. I think he is capable of being the best Minister of Agriculture this country has ever had, but I suggest that until he convinces his colleagues on the front benches, and the Prime Minister, that this is a national emergency he will be stuck with the blame, and no one else. I suggest that everyone in this house and this government must take the basic position that this vast problem is much too large for individual farmers to tackle. If there is spoilage of grain, the loss must be that of the whole country and not just of the farmer. The additional cost of drying is unusual. This is no fault of the farmers and therefore they should not be required to bear it alone. Therefore, government action on a massive scale on a number of fronts is warranted and essential in the national interest. This is the position of the New Democratic party. It is a national emergency because a loss of large amounts of grain through spoilage affects the entire Canadian economy. The first to suffer are the farmers because they have a drastic increase in expenses and a drop in their income which has already suffered a decline this year.
This is a national emergency because it affects stocks available for export in the next two years, which in turn will hurt our balance of payment position. There will be layoffs in the farm machinery and the transportation industries, and a subsequent slowdown in supporting industries. There will be a drop in retail sales. Small businessmen will be hurt

and so on down the line. This is a national emergency and must be treated as such by the government. In spite of advance warning as early as mid September the government, to date, has shown the imagination of a doorknob and has moved with the speed of a snail to cope with the situation. In fact it has contributed to the problems of the farm industry this fall by permitting unwarranted increased interest rates on farm loans.
I should like to make some proposals. I know the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has already done this, but I have some other positive proposals. First, I suggest a crash program to instal additional grain drying facilities in government terminals both interior, lakehead and seaport. Second, I suggest incentives for elevator companies to instal additional drying equipment, with the government picking up the shipping costs, giving tax credits, and exempting the companies from the tariff and sales tax. Third, I suggest authority and incentives for elevator companies to instal grain dryers at selected country elevator points. The fourth proposal is that a complete and thorough survey should be made in respect of where the damp grain is located, and where the dryers are. Fifth, the government should pay transportation costs for moving dryers from place to place where needed. Then sixth, all available and suitable dryers in the United States should be located, hired, and airlifted to the prairie provinces, with the transportation costs paid by the government. Dryers should be brought in, along with any competent personnel needed to run them, with the rental and transportation costs paid.
My seventh proposal is that because of light weight grain the wheat board should be reimbursed for all dead freight charges on carload lots of tough and damp grain, so that the farmers will not be required to pay for this through the board, or the railways should be required to lower the minimum carload weights on all grains that are out of condition. Eighth, all possible off-track storage such as airport hangars, curling rinks, skating rinks and warehouses should be located and dryers placed there. How about using some imagination, Mr. Minister? The government should pay the cost of fitting such buildings for temporary grain storage. Ninth, the farmers should be encouraged and assisted in respect of the building of homemade dryers.
The tenth suggestion is that at points where dryers are operated under government or commercial auspices the farmers be paid 20
December 5, 1868

cents per mile, round trip trucking costs for distances over 10 miles to a maximum of 100 miles. Eleventh, the federal government should reimburse the Canadian Wheat Board for all additional costs for transportation, extra storage, handling, and so on, connected with the movement, drying and so on of damp and tough grain. Twelfth, arrangements should be made with all lake and oceangoing shipping companies to leave a maximum number of ships anchored at the lakehead from the time of freezeup until spring breakup. This was done last year and six million bushels of wheat were stored. This could be doubled this time, and the federal government should pay the cost of this additional storage.
There are a number of members in this house who could think of many more suggestions. I ask the minister to think of these ideas, use some imagination and encourage the government to get off its fat backside and make a move in respect of this national emergency. The suggestion that we have until the end of July next year to dry damp grain is damned nonsense. Surely the government will now profit from this experience and also launch some long term plans so that this never happens again. Our terminals are grossly inadequate, both in terms of capacity and drying facilities. The government must begin a program immediately which within five years will substantially increase the storage and drying capacities.
In Saskatchewan the storage capacity of the terminals at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon need to be doubled and the total drying facilities need to be quadrupled. In Alberta at Lethbridge, Calgary and Edmonton the same thing is required. In Manitoba the only terminal is at Churchill. For years everybody has been asking that the terminal capacities there be increased. A new terminal should be constructed at a place like Dauphin or Brandon.
The government must, on a long term basis, encourage elevator companies to carry on similar expansion of their own facilities. I do not think we will ever see the day when there is less than a 700 million bushel carryover of grain in this country. Our farmers are becoming more and more efficient all the time, much to the discomfort of this Liberal government. I urge that the government, in concert with the grain, elevator and railway companies complete research and testing in respect of improved methods of grain handling, types of railway equipment, the loading and unloading of this equipment, unit
Supp ly-Agricu Iture
trains, and dock and terminal loading and unloading facilities.
Mr. Chairman, may I repeat that this is an emergency. It is not something that can be treated casually. I am sorry that only one minister of the crown could be here on a day when they all knew why we were to have this discussion on the agricultural estimates. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will use all his influence on his colleagues so that all the government departments concerned with any part of this problem will get together to coordinate their activities, in co-operative action along with the provincial governments, so that there will be effective action taken to deal with this grain crisis.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, so that there will be no misunderstanding about the debate that is taking place here in this House of Commons today I wish to make it completely clear that all of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are before the committee and therefore any suggestion that these estimates have been called solely for the purpose of dealing with one particular problem in the nation is wrong in my opinion.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
There is a great problem in western Canada as a result of volumes of tough and damp grain. No one denies that fact. There are also problems of vital interest to the Department of Agriculture in respect of many parts of Canada, and many other products. I say that because I do not want to leave a false impression so far as my attitude is concerned that is, that we are here to have a discussion in respect of grain on the prairies, and only that problem.
Let me now turn to some of the matters which have been raised, by saying to hon. gentlemen opposite and, indeed, on both sides of the house, that they need not continue this debate in an attempt to persuade me that there is a problem in respect of not only damp grain but in respect of many other sectors of the agriculture industry. If they are doing that, they are preaching to the converted, and I accept this.
My next point is that hon. gentlemen opposite should try to come up with some suggestions or guide lines, so far as solutions are concerned. It does not take a great deal of immagination or courage to identify problems. It does take a little bit more to come forward with some kind of well thought out solutions, which in practical terms will

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
be of economic benefit to the farming community.


An hon. Member:: Were you listening?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. gentlemen opposite about the-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I particularly appreciated the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition who led off the debate, when he said in his opening sentence-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) says that the opposition does not suggest any solution. He knows the solution to the agricultural. It would be to create an agricultural bank in order to provide-


Albert Béchard: Order. I would ask the hon. member to allow the minister to go on with his statement, because there is no question of privilege.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I was about to comment on the opening statement of the Leader of the Opposition, that I had opened the debate this afternoon with bland remarks about the entire agricultural industry. Let me say to him with all the charity I can muster, there is nothing bland about my attitude toward the agricultural industry. The hon. gentleman then went further by making the accusation that the country was being flooded with cheap United States corn, and indeed that importations were up something like 20 per cent. He did not give any date in this regard, or any calculation for a specific year as opposed to another. For his information, and I think it is well for the Leader of the Opposition to know these things, the average corn production in Canada from 1961 to 1965 was 42.2 million bushels. By 1966 this had increased to 66.3 million bushels. I am talking about Canadian production. By 1967 this had gone up to 74.1 million bushels, and in 1968 production increased to 78.1 million bushels. There has been a steady and significant increase in the production of Canadian corn.
If one is cleverly selective in digging up statistics he can show where there have been increases in the importation of corn, and also that there have been decreases. I think the Leader of the Opposition might like to have

another look at the years he is talking about, because it may be that from one year to another there has been an increase in the importation of United States corn.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't you know?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: At the same time there has been a steady and significant increase in the production of Canadian corn, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, which has been going into the Canadian market.
The hon. gentleman then went on to indicate there was a 6.4 per cent increase in farmers' costs over last year. I think he must have read the statistics wrong because the latest statistics show there has been a 6.4 increase in the index of farm input. This increase amounts to 2.9 per cent so far as costs are concerned. Perhaps that is even too much. I noticed that the hon. member for Crowfoot did not make the same mistake.
The Leader of the Opposition then complained about the decline in wheat exports this year as opposed to the year before and the year before that. That is true, but let me say this to that hon. gentleman. The 1967-68 crop year was the first crop year for a very long period of time that we were selling to the international market without an international agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whose fault is that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Whose fault is that? There were 35 nations involved in respect of the agreement. If the hon. gentleman thinks that Canada has any way of forcing her will on the rest of the world he had better reassess his assessment of the situation. It was not Canada who refused to sign the new international grains agreement in April of 1967. I was not there, but my information is that had it not been for Canada coaxing these nations to come back to the negotiating table the talks would have dissolved and we would not have any agreement today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Canada dealt with industries first.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is only part of the story. What the Leader of the Opposition failed to see is that during 1964, 1965, and 1966 we had the highest levels of grains exports, and at the highest prices, in Canada's history.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us why.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It may or may not be coincidental that the Liberal government was in office at that time.
December 5, 1968

Supply-Agriculture


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And you are in office now.	Mr. Sianfield: Where?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In any event, those are the facts. Those two years were also associated with the highest crops on record. In 1966 we had almost 840 million bushels, and perhaps through the effort of the government-I prefer to refer to it as the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board-we were able to dispose of the major part of that crop without building any surplus. In my opinion that was a great achievement.
The hon. gentleman then went on to talk about other problems. So that he will not have to bother looking up the facts for himself, let me tell him also that from August 1, which is the beginning of the crop year, to the end of October we have increased our exports by 25 per cent over last year. Our exports have increased by some 23 million bushels over those of a year ago, making a total for that short period of time of something over 94 million bushels.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Leader of the Opposition did not bother to do his homework in this respect.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member will have all kinds of chances to put all kinds of questions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is just a short question.


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have pages and pages of questions, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot is rising on a question of-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member's question after I have answered all the question I already have before me.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition complained that the government did not do anything in the face of some difficulty that the corn producers in southwestern Ontario were having. I tell the Leader of the Opposition that in the face of some difficulty-and he is aware of this-we put on value for duty at the United States loan price of $1.05 U.S. f.o.b. Chicago, on corn entering Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can bring a sheaf of letters in here and show that the corn producers and the practical, knowledgeable people in that area claimed it raised their price from 11 cents to 12 cents a bushel within ten days. As a matter of fact, the price of corn in Chatham yesterday was $1,174 for street, and it is up to $1.21 for May and $1.23 for July futures. So the future is somewhat better. Maybe it is not enough; it is never enough. But this indicates that the Leader of the Opposition is not in touch with the people who know, in that part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He then went on to repeat some of the complaints that have been hurled around this house for the last few days about grain drying, and tough and damp grain. He said nothing has been done and the government generally was not living up to its res-ponsiblity with respect to this great problem. I categorically reject that statement. I have spent the last three days in western Canada. I spent some time with the delegates to the Alberta wheat pool convention in Calgary, and at two meetings in Brandon which were attended by farmers from all over the province. The minister of agriculture for Manitoba was there. I have been talking to the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan today and many times recently. In Alberta there are some other activities going on and it is a little difficult to get hold of the minister right now, but I tried to call him, too.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Do you have regrets?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is one of those kinds of statements that usually are made when you have not bothered looking up the facts. The facts of the matter are that there have been meetings called by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners in full cooperation with the provincial departments of agriculture, who not only have to, but in fact have assumed a reasonable share of the responsibility for resolving this problem, as has the whole grain industry. They have taken an active part in trying to find solutions to this problem, in time. That is why I resent and reject the statement that the people concerned in the area are not doing anything about it.
There is one other thing, Mr. Chairman. In addition to all the assistance that can be

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
offered by the federal Department of Agriculture and its agencies, the Wheat Board, the provincial departments of agriculture and the grain trade, there is one other factor, and perhaps it is the most important single factor in reaching a solution to this problem. That is the resourcefulness, the ingenuity and the capabilities of the individual farmer. I would like gentlemen on all sides of this house to know that I put a great deal of faith in the capability of a farmer to look after his own crop. I resent the suggestion made by some hon. members that the farmers are standing back, wringing their hands in the face of this problem, and are not doing anything about it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who suggested that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not what they are doing. That is not the breed of men that I know in western Canada. But of course the fact is that this suggestion is not true. It is not even close to the truth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Nobody said it was true.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The implication has been that only the government should solve this problem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do you want to read that editorial again?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government has never
claimed that they were going to move in and do this job for the farmers, and the farmers do not want them to either. They are going to be in there helping. Anyone who has any knowledge about the matter and wants to be objective knows what happens when you have a lot of tough and damp grain. There are many ways of handling tough and damp grain, other than sending it through the elevator channels or buying expensive grain dryers.
I can remember being part of farming operations when we had thousands of bushels of tough and damp grain, before we ever heard of on-farm grain dryers. I can remember in 1942, for example, when shipping was restricted and we had thousands of bushels of it. We managed to keep that grain in condition with grain loaders, and by moving it around when the temperature and humidity of the air were drier. Some of that grain was not sold for two and a half years afterwards, and we never lost any of it. Farmers in western Canada today know that too, and if some hon. members would listen in the right places they would find that the farmers know this.

The hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and several others know these things. It is amazing to me that they do not tell their colleagues what can be done to keep grain in condition. It can be done by forcing air circulation through it during the winter months, by pumping fresh air into the bins, by moving it from granary to granary, and so on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot on a point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know that the trained seals are in good form tonight, but surely they will let one speak. The minister suggested-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What is the point of order?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I make it, Mr. Chairman,
or would you rule first?


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I would ask the committee to let the hon. member for Crowfoot state his point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggested that certain members on this side of the house were not informed and had not told their farmers how to dry grain. We are well informed on how to dry grain. Most of us in western Canada are well informed in this regard. We have been trying to convince the minister that because of the unusually large amount of damp grain in western Canada the government should take additional measures to solve the problem.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly it is a point of order.


Albert Béchard: That is no point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The only point of order
involved here, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member has not fulfilled his responsibility in advising his leader about what goes on. But there is one other thing that is damaging to
December 5, 1968

the farmers with regard to what has been going on in this house during the last few days. This is the fact that some of our customers, because of the publicity that hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to get out of this situation-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Some of this adverse publicity has got to our customers overseas and inquiries are now starting to come in asking us whether the whole Canadian crop is in this terrible condition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not doing the Canadian farmers any good. All I and the Canadian Wheat Board will have to do is to work to repair the damage to the Canadian reputation for having good wheat on hand.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a question of privilege.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection whatsoever to the minister putting his points across. We did so previously, now it is his turn. But I do object when he says that we brought up these questions for the purpose of seeking publicity.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. There is no question of privilege in what the hon. member said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There certainly is.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said several times in his speech that I took no action, and so on. That is his opinion and I do not object to his saying so. I believe that hon. members opposite are seeking publicity and it is my right to express my opinion also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Surely I have a right to express my opinion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Go ahead.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let us dispense with these phony points of order and questions of privilege then.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is not for the Minister of Agriculture to say we are seeking publicity.


Albert Béchard: 
John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture suggested someone was raising phony points of order and phony questions of privilege. Let me point out that he himself is doing nothing to improve this debate by making such remarks, because the point of order was quite in order. The minister alleged we said things on this side of the house that we had not said. He was imputing motives when he suggested we were saying these things purely for publicity. I suggest this is definitely a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. So both the point of order and the question of privilege were in order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that I am happy I am not as thin skinned as the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is apparent you are thin skinned.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let us get back to the serious points in this debate on a very serious matter. An increasing number of inquiries have been coming to the responsible agencies in Canada about whether or not the whole Canadian supply of wheat is in the damaged condition which hon. gentlemen opposite alleged it is. We will have to do a great deal of work now to repair the damage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read Mr. MacNamara's report.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The fact of the matter is that Canada has adequate supplies of good, dry and high quality grain to fulfil all our commitments. So I say that these attempts at solving the problems by hurling allegations and accusations at someone for not having done anything, or for not having done enough- and in this case the allegations are made mostly against the federal government and its agencies-will not help to solve the problem at all. The magnitude of the whole problem is great; no one denies that. What we need is a very close co-operation and co-ordination among everyone who is involved, including those who are traditionally competitors. That is what we need to resolve this problem. With the exception of hon. members on the other side of this house, we are receiving that kind of co-operation all across the country.
I do not want to repeat what I have said about the efforts of the Board of Grain Commissioners in giving publicity to the matter of drying grain, in holding meetings and that sort of thing. I also mentioned that the Wheat Board did call a meeting and publicized the

December 5, 1968
S upp ly-A griculture
fact that it will be necessary for the farmers to keep some of this grain in condition on their farms, because the volume is too great to send it through commercial channels. This is in addition to the work that has been done by the provincial governments, and I give all three of them full credit for having co-operated in attempting, first of all, to make a survey of the number of on-farm grain dryers that they have, and in their other action to co-ordinate the activity of these grain dryers at strategic points so that they can be of maximum benefit to farmers.
One of the most useful functions would be to set up strategic positions in which the dryers that are already in western Canada could be placed for truck turn-around operations, in addition to the grain dryers that are already in commercial positions. In other words, farmers, who do not need to have a quota to do this, bring in their grain, have it dried and take it back to their farms. Otherwise, all kinds of other problems arise if the dryers have to be moved around too much, or if it is done in other ways. I suggested to many of the farm groups that the people who are in the best position to do that are the elevator companies. The reason is that they have the men in the field with the knowledge, the contacts and the expertise with regard to western Canada where this grain is grown, and they have indicated a willingness to cooperate. Of course there are many details to be worked out and administrative and physical problems that cannot be solved in a day. Action in this respect has been taken a little more rapidly in some provinces than in others, but in all the provinces things are moving along and I give them full credit for it.
In so far as the elevators under the management of the Board of Grain Commissioners are concerned, the Edmonton drying operation is going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is a sufficient amount of grain for the operation to continue on this basis. The Calgary dryer is operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Sometimes insufficient grain is available, but 80 cars of damp grain are expected there at the beginning of next week. The Saskatoon dryer is operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and occasionally running out of grain, but it is expected to have sufficient carloads for continued operation by the middle of next week. The Moose Jaw dryer is operating 24 hours a day, five days a week, but, as has

been pointed out, they have run out of grain. They will be receiving 140 cars of tough wheat by the first or the middle of next week. Let us bear in mind that Moose Jaw is not in an area of damp wheat, and also that the volume of tough grain is limited; so it has been difficult to set up the machinery to keep this moving through smoothly.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre knows as well as I do that it is not possible to set out a policy for the movement of such a large volume of grain and make all the arrangements to put it into motion immediately. This is not the way it works. It takes a little more time than that to start the whole thing moving swiftly and smoothly. He might remember that in the fall of 1965, when the problem was not with wet grain but rather with getting sufficient volumes of grain into export positions, it took up to ten weeks before all these problems had been worked out, and co-ordination was achieved in moving this grain through all the channels into export positions. We did not have this problem last year, and in fact we have not had it since 1959 in great magnitude.
The hon. member for Crowfoot knows that you do not suddenly decide one day that you are going to give a three bushel quota for tough and damp grain and the next day everyone must deliver. It does not work that way. The problem is much greater than that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How many times has the western grain transportation committee met? Once in the last six months.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that a great deal has been done. The work on the arrangements for the fiscal movement of this grain started several weeks ago and the movement in and out of dryers has been building up. So far as I am concerned, the co-operation from the people in the field has been excellent. There will be some places where more could be done. I do not claim we have done everything that could be done, but it is a long, long way from the truth to say that we have not done anything.
I want to turn to another subject, and that is the matter of family farms raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He wondered if we had concern for family farms. We certainly do. I want to tell him for example, that the Farm Credit Corporation-


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.
December 5, 1968


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is so entertaining, and he may give us some information later, so let him keep on.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I thank the committee for that. I have a lot of questions to answer and I shall do so as quickly as possible. I was about to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the credit extended by the Farm Credit Corporation in 1963 amounted to $96 million, and by 1967 it had gone up to $251 million. This is a rather significant increase. In so far as crop insurance is concerned, in 1963 the average for family farms was in the neighbourhood of $16 million and by 1967 it had gone up to $187 million. One can see, therefore, that these programs are designed specifically with the family farm in mind. There has been a great deal of response to these programs by those in these farm units.
The Leader of the Opposition also had something to say about the national congress on agriculture.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why don't you deal with the point I made about family farms, if you are going to talk about them?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You mean about succession duties?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, the hon. gentleman knows very well that there were no succession duty changes that were different for farmers than for any other citizens in Canada. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to deal with matters relating strictly to finance, and which apply to all citizens of Canada. There is no discrimination with regard to those small farms or small businesses, so it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition has the same access to the Minister of Finance as I have and could make these representations to him.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Did the Minister of Finance talk to you before he brought in these taxes; that was the question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Finance and I have a number of conversations on a number of things.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is he concerned about the effect of these taxation proposals on the family farm, or is he not?
S upply-A griculture


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is yes. I might say that, as Minister of Agriculture, I am concerned about all things that affect the well-being of people who are involved in agriculture.
The Leader of the Opposition had some remarks to make about the national congress on agriculture. He felt there would be some disability suffered because of the failure of the two farm organizations to nominate someone to the steering committee. I should like to advise him that there were, we felt, a reasonable number of positions created on the steering committee; I think there were five. We asked the ten provincial departments of agriculture to nominate one representative on the committee. They got together and did nominate one person to that committee. We asked the processing and marketing groups in the country to nominate a representative to the committee, which they did. We asked the farmers union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to nominate someone to represent them on the steering committee. I have the letters, if the hon. member would like to see them. Both organizations wrote back and said they could not agree on who it should be, so they nominated more than one person. Well, there was only one position vacant. It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition should recognize that if ten provincial governments of different political stripes could get together to nominate one person to represent them on the steering committee, surely it was not expecting too much for two farm organizations to do this.
I believe it was the hon. member for Crowfoot who said-and these are not my words- that it is well known there is some disagreement between these two organizations. I do not endorse that. If there is, I do not think it should be transferred into the steering committee, when we are trying to set up a national congress on agriculture.
The Leader of the Opposition said we should have some projections made for 1975, and even beyond that. I want to tell him that I have with me an agricultural projection prepared on an international scale by the OECD. The ink is hardly dry on it because we got it in Paris last week. This projection was prepared in co-operation with all countries within the OECD area-Japan, North America, most of western and southern Europe. What the hon. member is suggesting we should be investigating, in fact, has already been done.

December 5, 1968
Su pp ly-A gricu Iture


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That does not include the communist countries.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have some information on them, too. Unless there is a higher level of agreement in the international field with regard to co-ordinating national policies and to adjusting some of the incentives to give consideration to the subsidies, these long term projections in so far as agriculture is concerned are not very optimistic for some commodities. There are some commodities of course where things are somewhat easier. With regard to dairy products, for example, and cereals, there are some very severe problems, unless some political decisions are reached to change some of these incentive subsidy programs. I have no fear for Canadian agriculture. We can compete on a practical basis with anyone in certain crops that we grow well. I am deeply concerned about competition between national treasuries in connection with these subsidies.
I will be the first to admit, because I am directly involved and probably spend more hours than anyone else in this house on the problems of agriculture, that there are some very difficult problems. For example a reference was made, I believe by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, to the outlook conference which was held in Ottawa on November 25. If you took all the documents and made a summary of them you would find the outlook conference concluded that Canadian farm income cash receipts will rise, because of increased returns from the livestock sector. They concluded also there would be little change in cash crop returns. So far as crop insurance is concerned, the coverage taken up in 1969 is expected to increase. So far as seed costs are concerned, there is likely to be no increase in expenditures for seed. Of course, we have had above average production of wheat, and this is good.
On the marketing side, we admit that there are some problems. As I said before, for the first three months of this crop year our exports were up 25 per cent over the same period a year ago.
The outlook conference indicated that corn production in Ontario and Quebec will continue to rise. It also indicated that, with respect to apples and fruit, prices should be up, this because of some smaller crops. Increased marketings of honey are cutting into supplies, but the indication is that prices will strengthen in 1969.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In regard to processed fruit, packs were lighter and higher prices are expected. So far as processed vegetables are concerned, except for tomato products and perhaps peas and corn, prices will likely be stronger. With regard to sugar beets, a stabilization payment on the 1968-69 crop is likely, and grower returns may average above the support level.
As far as beef is concerned-and this is one of the bright spots-beef supplies in 1969 will be higher than in 1968, but a continued strong demand will sustain prices. With respect to hogs, marketings in 1969 will be below the high 1968 levels, although it is not expected that prices will rise very much above the present levels. However, they are at significantly higher levels than they have been for some time.
Prices of lamb and veal are expected to remain relatively high. Production of chickens will likely rise at steady prices, without any break in those prices. We anticipate a further increase in the demand for turkeys, which is expected to warrant a 5 per cent increase in production for the next year.
As far as eggs are concerned, there are reduced marketings and higher prices are likely in 1969 until mid-year, when there may be some seasonal decline.
So it is not all dark clouds on the horizon as far as agriculture is concerned. I do not want anybody to say that I said "You never had it so good"; but if hon. members are going to be objective in looking at the whole agricultural picture they must admit there are some reasonably bright spots, along with the troubled areas.
I have already trespassed on my time, Mr. Chairman, but I hope hon. members will not mind if I take two or three more minutes to answer the points they have raised.
The hon. member for Bellechasse suggested that there be a substantial increase in the estimates for the Department of Agriculture. I would be the last one in this house to disagree with that. However we must bear in mind that this has to be balanced against the needs and requirements of all other sectors of the economy. As far as the estimates are concerned, they are up slightly from the estimates for last year.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for his very constructive remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Explain.

December 5, 1968


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is true, and I can explain that statement in a couple of sentences. If hon. members really want to be objective and get at the root of solving these problems, then I suggest that what the hon. member for Fraser Valley said is far more beneficial in the search for solutions than all the whining and complaining that went on from members opposite.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain tried to impress upon me that there were problems with grain drying. I acknowledged at the outset that this was a problem of great magnitude. The hon. member suggested that certain services be provided by the Board of Grain Commissioners. I want him to know that these services are already being provided and that we are going to expand them as rapidly as we can. This service on the part of the Board of Grain Commissioners is free, and is directed as much as possible to what you might call quality control, offering advice and that sort of thing, in order to see no serious mistakes are made which would damage the quality and grade of the wheat.
The hon. member also suggested that the F.C.C. declare a moratorium on payments. I would advise the hon. member that we are not prepared to do this. However, we have, and have had for some time, a regulation whereby anyone who has been severely adversely affected by weather conditions can apply to the F.C.C. for deferment of his payment. If just cause can be shown for deferring the payment, then permission is granted.
The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria, I believe it was, inquired about setting up a potato marketing board. May I tell him that the task force is looking into that matter. But even more important than this, in co-operation with the provincial ministers we have, in my view, made a great deal of progress toward finding a way, legally and technically, of empowering a national marketing board to take this step. We are not particularly concerned whether this means a transfer of jurisdiction in this particular area from the provinces to the federal government, or whether some contractual arrangement is made. But if this action is taken, we want the result to be workable. Throughout the meetings that we had with the provinces going as far back, in my experience, as July, a great deal of progress has been made, and there has been a meeting of minds in an attempt to resolve this problem.
The hon. member also suggested that there has been a reduction in potato acreage in
Supply-Agriculture
New Brunswick; or perhaps he was inquiring whether there had been, it was not clear. During the five year period from 1961 to 1965 the average acreage of potatoes in New Brunswick was 53.6 thousand acres, whereas in the current year it is 61,000 acres. So there is no indication that it is down this year from that average.
I now come to some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. The hon. member complained that there has not been enough active sales promotion. I do not accept that statement. The Canadian Wheat Board do not announce to the world where they send their agents to try to sell grain. He complained about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce being away in South America and failing to sell grain. How does the hon. member know that the minister was not trying to sell grain down there? I would be very surprised if he were not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He told me that he was not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I never said that. We have never sold grain to South America.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose we would be criticized if we did not explore every possibility of selling grain, whether in South America, Asia or anywhere else.
The hon. member also complained about a drop in flour exports. I am as concerned as anybody about lagging flour exports or any other commodity, but I do not think the hon. member is justified in suggesting that the Canadian Wheat Board is not doing a good job of sales promotion.
The hon. member also complained about research, and said we were lagging behind. I think he read from the report of the Economic Council when he suggested that we were lagging behind the research efforts of the United States, or wherever it was. I wonder whether the number of scientists per million acres or the number of dollars spent on research, and so on, is really the measure. In this context the hon. member was talking about cereal plant breeding, I think. As far as hard wheat is concerned, more new varieties have been developed in Canada than in any other part of the world. So I do not think we need apologize for what our researchers have been doing in this area.
The hon. member also talked about the steering committee of the conference next March and suggested there was insufficient representation, but I have answered that.

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
The hon. member also brought up the matter of beef, and said that partially cooked beef was coming in from the Argentine. May I advise him that this is fully cooked beef in sealed tins or sealed polythelene wrappers, not something else.
May I thank the committee for allowing me to speak over my time. If I have missed any questions, I am sorry and I will try to answer them during the next few minutes.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Chairman, I will try not to hold up the proceedings unduly but there are a few questions I should like to ask the minister. Two concern items that originated with his predecessor, the former minister of agriculture. Item No. 1 concerns the promised $60 per acre for not growing sugar beets-the phasing out program. This indirectly affects the minister, because shortly after parliament convened in September I asked him when the farmers could expect the $60 payment they were promised by the previous minister on June 10, 15 days before the federal election. His reply was to the effect that payment had been held up due to lack of information as to those eligible. That was quite acceptable. About one month later I inquired again. The minister advised me that lists of those eligible had been received and that the department was working on them. I naturally assumed that payment would soon be expected. In fact this was inferred. I am a patient man. I waited another month before putting my question again. I was then told by the minister that payment could not be made until it had been authorized by parliament. In other words, the undertaking which the previous minister of agriculture had given to the farmers of southwestern Ontario was not worth the paper it was written on. I do not blame the present minister in any way, shape or form, and I will say nothing more about it if he can tell me that provision is made in these estimates to get those cheques out promptly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have examined this question as to whether we can legally pay these amounts without a vote title, or a supplementary estimate. The Department of Justice advises us that we need a supplementary estimate. I am prepared to submit that. I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that we now have all the data required to determine the total of the amount required and we expect it will be just short of $1 million.

I should like to correct one impression. The purpose of this is not to make a payment for not growing sugar beets; it is to assist people in getting into some other crop, during the transitional period, because a plant closed. And that was not the responsiblity of the federal government.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I fully accept that. If the minister had been listening carefully he would have heard me use the phrase "phasing out program".
There is one other item to which I should like to refer, and that is the final payment in relation to the last crop grown in 1967, in other words, the final settlement. Normally this final settlement is made considerably earlier in the year. Indeed in 1965 it was made in late October, just before another federal election. Why the delay? It is my understanding that this comes under the stablization board, and as such there is no need to wait for a supplementary estimate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. gentleman wish me to answer that question before he continues?


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I would appreciate it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is true that payments have been made earlier in final settlement, but not under the present formula, and further information is still needed before we are in a position to make the final payment. However we expect that it can be made reasonably soon-perhaps within two weeks, or four weeks. The hon. member can decide whether this is "soon" or not. We do not need vote title for these payments; we already have sufficient authority.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Thank you. There is another item I should like to deal with. The minister himself alluded to it this afternoon. I was about to ask the hon. gentleman what happened to the Barber commission on farm machinery. This is so ancient that when it was organized it was called a commission. I noticed this afternoon the minister referred to it as a task force, in line with the new nomenclature. I submit we should by now have been given an interim report. If one had been made, perhaps it would not have been necessary for farmers to import tractors from the United Kingdom at an estimated saving of between $2,000 and $3,000 per unit. Surely we are entitled to know something about the causes of this obvious disparity in prices. My
December 5, 1968

farmers want to know how this comes about. There are many who suggest there must be pressure from high financial circles and that this is causing undue delay.
I am not one who sees sinister motives behind everything, but my tolerance is being strained to the limit by current developments. I should like to refer to one suggestion I have heard, namely that this government of which the minister is a member has placed an embargo so as to prevent farmers duplicating the effort they made in Toronto a few weeks ago in importing these tractors. If the interest of the farmers is paramount-and I think it is a big "if"-cannot some report be made as to the terrible disparity which now exists in prices? Why should it have been necessary for a group of farmers to take the action they did in importing tractors from the United Kingdom to Canada at a reported saving of $20,000 on seven tractors? I am more confident than ever that there are forces at work in this country, and indeed, in the world, against the welfare of the farm segment, and I think this should be investigated. But investigation is one thing; reporting on the results of the investigation is another.
The high prices of farm machinery are not being brought about by our own Canadian dealers across this country, most of whom deserve our sympathy rather than condemnation. The mortality in this business is unusually high. Last week I was shocked when I returned to my home to hear of two more business failures among farm equipment dealers, and this in an ever-lengthening list. Most of these dealers are financially involved, up to their necks. The big suppliers stand to lose very little, because most of the dealers have been forced to co-sign and are responsible for time payments in the event of default.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I suggest that the pattern of government, indeed the aim of government apparently is to provide the cheapest food, in abundance, for consumers. If this is the aim I do not argue against it; but this being the aim, then I submit that every consideration should be directed toward helping the producer reduce his costs. Instead of that the reverse seems to be the case.
We have free trade in farm equipment between Canada and the United States. This pertains supposedly as well to used equipment and so, with the tremendous volume of 29180-227
Supply-Agriculture
equipment used in the United States, many people, particularly from my area, who were short of cash, went to the United States and purchased some of this used equipment. There was greater variety available, and in many cases tremendously lower prices.
I am thinking of the tremendous auction sale held bi-monthly at Archibald, Ohio, where some of my neighbours were able to pick up machinery that would do them, at vastly reduced prices. Indeed, some of the dealers down there also transacted quite a bit of business in this regard. But this was not the case for long. The revenue department, under excise, found some obscure way of taxing these transactions, so that this alternate source of equipment has nearly dried up. This has had the effect, minimal though it might be, of increasing costs. The commission should have some information on this phase of agricultural costs, and moreover should be reporting it.
Returning to the farmer imported tractors from the United Kingdom, one of the disturbing features is the fact that some of these machines are manufactured by great international concerns, and many are assembled from parts made in different parts of the world. An expert on farm equipment tells me that in some machines a transmission case might be cast in England, the differential might be cast in France, and the final machine could conceivably be assembled in the United States. If this is the case, how does the minister account for the tremendous differences in price? There are too many unanswered questions here in the mind of the farmer, with his back to the wall, caught in the cost-price squeeze. Hopefully the Barber commission may shed some light on this, and I was happy to learn, if I heard the minister correctly, that that commission's report will be published early next year.
Machinery costs are one factor in the cost of doing business but there are several others. A new word has crept into our vocabulary and all the experts are using it-inputs. I take it to mean all the items that go into the cost of production. This being the case, then commercial fertilizer is one of these inputs.
I am concerned, as many people are, about the great spread between farm costs in Canada and those in the United States. This is another factor that weighs heavily on the competitive position of the Canadian farmer. The fact that potash produced in Canada is reportedly selling for one third less, and even

December 5, 1968
Supply-Agriculture
greater discounts, in the United States than is current here, demands an urgent investigation. I know the minister is aware of some of these discrepancies, and indeed said in this chamber that there is nothing to prevent Canadian farmers going to the United States and buying their fertilizer there. Well, we will soon know, but I suspect from information coming to me that there may be a few roadblocks. As a matter of fact I think some road blocks are already being thrown up. Imagine, if you will, potash brought to the head of the lakes from Saskatchewan, shipped by boat to Ohio, and sold to Ohio and southwest Michigan farmers reportedly at $20 per ton less than farmers in southwestern Ontario can buy it.
Here are some examples of the advertised fall list prices for southwestern Ontario compared with Ohio and southwest Michigan prices. It covers a variety of fertilizers. The first one is 6-24-24. The Canadian price for it is $91.50 per ton bulk, and the U.S. price $53. The bagged price in Canada is $96.50 per ton, and in the United States $57. Let us take another analysis-8-32-16. The Canadian price is $101 per ton bulk, and the U.S. price $58. The Canadian price bagged is $106 and the U.S. price bagged $62. Urea 45 per cent nitrogen has a Canadian price of $116 bagged, and the United States price is $69.
This is too large a spread. Our farmers cannot be expected to compete with this spread. For example, many farmers in my area use as much as 500 or 600 pounds per acre, yes, even up to half a ton or more. Of course many use less, but if you use an average of, say, 300 pounds per acre of 6-24-24 then our farmers' cost is $14.46 per acre compared with $8.55 in the United States, a spread of $5.91. That is the disadvantage the Canadian farmer is at, just on that one input.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, a very large chemical plant started to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer close to my home area. It has been suggested that this Canadian plant may well be supplying the U.S. fertilizer company that offers Urea at $69 per ton compared with a Canadian price of $116 per ton. This is about the same kind of deal there is in the U.S.-Canada automobile pact, where an automobile manufactured in Oakville sells for $300 or $500 less in Buffalo than it does in Hamilton.


Mr. Smerchanski:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he speaking of dealers' price, manufacturers' price or distributors' price?


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: If the hon. member would care to wait until I finish he can ask me this question again.


Albert Béchard: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may be permitted to advise the house, as acting house leader, that the estimates of the Department of Fisheries will be called for tomorrow instead of the estimates of the Department of Transport as was announced earlier by the President of the Privy Council. I understand that this is in compliance with discussions held between parties and the suggestion made in the house earlier today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries should be concluded, what other department would we move to tomorrow?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, the second reading of the Bretton Woods agreement I understand. There are several other matters that could be taken up. I am advised by the President of the Privy Council to make this announcement at this time so that hon. members will be advised. Perhaps the house leader for the New Democratic party would know what else. However, earlier today the indication was that the Department of Fisheries would take all day tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday November 30 I asked the following question on the orders of the day, as reported at page 3307 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is in charge of housing. What progress, if any, has been made with regard to building homes at the Malvern project in order to ease the housing crisis in Toronto?
December 5, 1968

As a result of that question I was directed either to put it on the order paper or discuss it on the adjournment debate. I also asked a supplementary question which reads as follows:
Will the minister consider appointing the former mayor of Toronto, now the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), to be in charge of this project? Otherwise the housing policy may well be a charade.
I asked these questions because back in
1953	a 1,662 acre parcel of land situated at the corner of Sheppard and Markham Road in the township of Scarborough was jointly acquired by the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario and set aside for public low cost housing. Then in
1954	the Ontario government announced it would build 5,000 homes on this site. Fifteen years later not a single house stands on this land. On January 12, 1967 Mr. Randall, on behalf of the Ontario government, announced that work would begin immediately. No action was taken in that year. On August 28, 1968 Mr. Randall stated, as reported in the Globe and Mail:
The time is now ripe to develop the (Malvern) area ... Sewers, water and roads are within close proximity. Our partner, Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., is only now willing to go ahead with the scheme as is the municipality of Scarborough and we will proceed with all possible speed.
This was on August 28. The latest rumour we have is that the building will commence in January of 1969. This is the reason I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is in charge of housing, for a report.
Thirty thousand new public and private homes could be built on this land. The Home Ownership Made Easy plan of the Ontario government could be implemented in respect of this project. With the serious housing crisis we have in Toronto, particularly in respect of public housing, this project would help to ease the situation.
Earlier I suggested to the minister that the former mayor of Toronto, now the member for York West (Mr. Givens), could be put in charge of the federal housing responsibilities. Thus far the former mayor has had difficulty in applying his administrative talents in Ottawa. It was the mayor who said before the finance committee last week that this committee was a charade. I have no desire to have the former mayor of Toronto say that the housing policy of the federal government is a charade.
29180-227 J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I had hoped the minister in charge of housing would be present to give a full reply, but I am sure the hon. member who will reply will deal with this matter adequately. It is for that reason I took only five minutes, so as to give him more time to deal with this serious question.
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I hope the information given to me by the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) will shed some light on this Malvern housing project to which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has just referred. I am sure the hon. member knows that the Malvern lands were purchased by both governments, and that the feasibility study was sponsored jointly by the federal and provincial governments in 1967. This led to the appointment of consultants in March of 1968, with the request that they prepare a development plan. Provided a plan of subdivision can be registered by mid-1969, it is expected that the installation of services will be under way by the end of that year. The appointed consultants have the responsibility for the design of services and also the supervision of their installation. Actual house construction should follow immediately after the installation of services. I should like to assure hon. members that work on the Malvern lands is proceeding steadily and that I believe this project will be a great success.
I should also like to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that the provision for more housing for the Canadian people is steadily increasing. Earlier this week the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation told a housebuilding conference in Toronto that housing starts in Canada will reach a record total of 190,000 this year, compared with 164,123 last year. This is good news following the previous forecast of 175,000 housing starts for 1968.
Urban housing starts for the first 11 months of this year totalled 147,076, up 19.5 per cent from the corresponding period last year. As a member of parliament representing a Toronto constituency, I am very happy to note that in metropolitan Toronto 34,207 housing starts have been achieved in the first 11 months of this year. This figure already exceeds the total for the whole record year of 1965.
Furthermore, I believe that greater achievements in the housing field will be made after the Minister of Transport puts into motion some of the excellent recommendations made to the federal task force on housing.
December 5, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion RURAL DEVELOPMENT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ARDA REPORT ON INDIAN POVERTY AREAS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I requested permission to table a special report concerning Indian people. That request was apparently not acceptable, mainly because of the actions of government members. I propose to discuss this matter at this time. The hiding of this report is just one more symptom of the insistence of privacy on the part of this government.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The Indian Act is under review, and hearings are relatively public. That is a good step as far as it goes, and we applaud it. But the public approach to the Indian Act is the exception. The rule of this government is to meet in private and to make decisions without adequate consultation. We saw that in regard to the reorganization of the Department of Indian Affairs, and we are seeing it again now. This is a most important report. It is highly critical of the present government, which it describes as "a paternalistic and custodially attuned administration, which has resulted in the failure to arrive at any positive policies and goals, and any comprehensive attack... to alleviate the present disadvantaged position of the Indian people."
Therefore, in this report officials of the government itself condemn the government's own policy in exactly the terms that we and spokesmen of the native people themselves have used. Government policy is condemned by its own officials as being paternalistic and inefficient. That is an important fact because it proves that there is virtually unanimous agreement that the policies of the department of Indian affairs have kept the native people down. The report states the conclusion that "fundamental changes in the direction of federal policy and in the roles of the federal and provincial governments will be necessary before the gap"-between the Indian and the average Canadian-"will begin to close."
This report goes on to suggest a different approach. It points out the importance of using, adapting and co-ordinating existing policies of regional development, health services, manpower and other policies to help the native people. It refers to the serious fact that present policy creates among the native people a sense of separateness which is bound to breed prejudice and inequality. It says that the centralization in the Indian affairs branch 

has "in practice blocked the provinces and other federal programs to Indians, and more particularly, those programs developed to facilitate the relief of economic disadvantage."
The report points out that the income gap between the Indian and other Canadians is growing larger, not smaller. It emphasizes the importance of co-operation with the provinces and suggests the provinces will need money as well as encouragement from Ottawa before they are prepared to actively initiate new programs. It recommends the establishment of a special joint committee comprising "as a minimum, representatives from the Indian affairs branch, the rural development branch and the social development group of the privy council office." It suggests this committee should be struck as soon as possible and should prepare a comprehensive submission to outline strategy and examine both policy and financial implications of various programs.
This report is not a blueprint, of course. It does not have all the answers, and some of its suggestions need study and discussion. But it is a report with some authority, prepared by senior people with extensive experience in public service. It is a report which would be helpful to every group concerned about the condition and prospects of our native people. It is a report that should be made public.
This government has talked about involvement and participation. Obviously it says one thing and does another. The government promises involvement, and then it hides reports. This report will not stay hidden. Although I have been denied permission to table it in the house, we have had some copies made at our own expense and they will be available to representatives of the press and the native people's organizations.
Mr. Chairman, it is important at any time for the public to know what is going on and to have a chance to influence policy. It is especially important in respect of this problem, because it is a matter of great concern to people across the country. It is a question in which Canadians are prepared to become involved, if the government will lift the cloak of secrecy. Even more important, it concerns a group of people who for too long have been denied a voice in their own affairs. Let me quote one last passage:
Concerning the development of leadership and of social organization, the potential represented by the band councils and the Indian organizations has been more or less ignored, even stifled.
December 5, 1968

The custodial practices of the federal government have, in short, taken from the Indians all capability to influence and to spell out for themselves the decisions which determine the conditions of their existence. Among other consequences, this approach has engendered a suspicion and a profound lack of confidence concerning all government efforts aimed at effecting changes in their way of life, and paradoxically at the same time it has resulted in attitudes of passivity and a greater and greater dependence on the Indian affairs branch.
I can only say in conclusion that in refusing to publish this report the government is revealing its paternalism once again. It does not trust the native people. It does not even trust parliament. The government should know that it will not be judged on its words but rather on its deeds.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the question very quickly in the three minutes I have under the rules. I will say initially to my hon. friend from Churchill that there is no report intended for the purposes which the hon. member has mentioned. However, before I go into details I wish to say, in fairness to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-and I put this on the record-that earlier in this session, on October 10, in a notice of motion for the production of papers he asked-
-that an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared by ARDA dealing with poverty among the Indians of Canada.
I discussed that with the hon. member for Winnipeg North and told him what I am going to tell my friend from Churchill tonight. He agreed, and the motion was withdrawn.
I think, with all due respect to the hon. member for Churchill, that he does no service to the native people, nor does he do any service to the parliamentary process when he quotes from a report that is still under consideration and that is indeed one of many interdepartmental reports that were never intended for publication, but in fact are for the consideration of departmental officials and the minister in the eventual formation of policy dealing with native peoples. As I indicated earlier, no such report had ever been tabled in parliament, nor was there any intention other than that of providing a basis for consideration, together with many other interdepartmental reports for the consideration of officials of the department and the minister.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It is difficult for me to know, from what the hon. member has said, exactly what report he is referring to. As I indicated, there have been several reports along this line but I have been able to identify the report which was for interdepartmental study. It was not designed for publication, and may I repeat that it is not doing a service to our departmental or our parliamentary process to pick this particular report out of several. It only creates confusion among those who are concerned, confusion in this house and confusion among the departmental officials who have to deal with this matter and report to the minister. I think it is particularly unfair to those officials to have singled this report out of many.



SPORTS-HOCKEY-ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN NATIONAL TEAM

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: One
of the main characteristics of the new government that was elected last June 25 is a growing tendency to delay action on important issues. The question I wish to bring to the house tonight concerns the financial assistance which, over recent years, has been made available to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to assist in the support of Canada's national hockey team. I raised this question on Tuesday but there was no answer-at that time in the house.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Munro:: You were ruled out of order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As the minister has just stated, I was ruled out of order; this is quite correct, and I raised a question of privilege yesterday. However, I understand that the minister did make a statement outside the house. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring the matter once again before the house, under the rules, to see if we could have a statement from the minister in this chamber.
The C.A.H.A. a few years, in attempting to deal with problems that had become particularly difficult and embarrassing for Canada, with the assistance of outstanding Canadians such as Father Bauer, organized a national hockey team for international competition. All Canadians pride themselves on the fact that Canada has established an outstanding reputation in hockey, which we regard as our national sport. There are some of course who would dispute that and say lacrosse is our national sport. I am not going to debate that
December 5, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion point. I think we all recognize Canada has established an outstanding record in hockey. Indeed, hockey players are one of our main exports to the United States.
This national hockey team system has been assisted by means of grants that have been made available under the physical fitness plan. While this was an improvement over the old system, it was recognized by the C.A.H.A. that it still was not satisfactory. They have been pressing for the establishment of a more effective permanent system of providing an outstanding Canadian team for international competition. They have recommended, for example, that a Canada hockey corporation be set up, which would involve distinguished citizens interested in the promotion of Canadian national hockey competition, and which would provide possibilities for assistance by private citizens of Canada's amateur hockey team. Unfortunately there has been no progress in this direction, largely because it requires certain legislative action on the part of the government.
However, this year we do have two national hockey teams preparing for international hockey, one in the east and one in the west. At the moment, one of the teams is engaged in important international competition. Unfortunately, because of the delay in sending the usual grant from the physical fitness fund, the C.A.H.A. finds itself financing on the basis of bank loans. I am sure that all the members in the house, all the people of Canada, feel that this is placing an unnecessary additional impediment in the way of Canada's participation in international hockey competition. I trust that the minister, in his reply tonight, will be able to inform the house and Canadians generally that these grants will be forthcoming. I do not know what the reason for the delay is. I am sure funds are available. I am sure we all agree that we have to improve even further the method of bringing together teams of Canadian amateurs.
I would hope the government would be able to assist the C.A.H.A. through legislative action in achieving the goal they have been striving toward for two or three years, the establishment of a Canada hockey corporation. Until that happy eventuality, I think it is most important that we do everything we can to boost the morale of our young Canadians who are competing by at least making certain that the usual grant is forthcoming at the earliest possible moment, and supporting them financially to this extent.
[Mr. Dlnsdale.i


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member's remarks concerning the morale of Canada's national team. This gives me the opportunity to indicate that whatever action the government is taking it should certainly not be given the interpretation that we are not in any way in wholehearted support of Canada's national team. We would be very silly indeed if we did not recognize the tremendous effort that these boys are making, in many cases at enormous sacrifice, to bring some renown to Canada; they have our wholehearted support, and certainly mine.
If our support does not follow the pattern that the hon. member thinks appropriate, then that is his judgment. As far as I am concerned the action the government is now taking will in the long run be in the interests of our national team, both this year and next year.
There really has not been any delay for which we have to apologize. The fact of the matter is that the C.A.H.A. wrote to me requesting money some weeks ago. Their letter arrived a few days prior to a meeting that the C.A.H.A. was having in Winnipeg. At that time I had just received the second report of one of the committees of the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport which was studying the whole question of hockey. This was a report from the chairman and members of that committee, which in certain aspects was very critical of the C.A.H.A. and its relationship with the professionals.
One of the members of the official opposition who had studied this report asked me whether I did not have some sympathy with its contents. As a matter of fact, there were some matters worthy of note in this report. Therefore I thought it was only reasonable to advise the C.A.H.A. that, having received this second report only a few days prior to receiving their letter, I should have adequate opportunity to study it.
The following week end, which was past the deadline that they had set in their letter for a decision, my own fitness and amateur sport council was meeting to discuss the matter. I felt that since this body had been set up by statute to advise the minister in these matters, it seemed eminently logical to me that I should at least first meet the council and discuss this request before giving my answer to the C.A.H.A.
December 5, 1968	COMMONS
Having met with the council approximately two weeks ago it was decided that we would be prepared to meet with the C.A.H.A. in a matter of days.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Perraull): Order.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I just have one more minute of time?
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Perraull): Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: Since a meeting with the C.A.H.A. was not convenient at that time, the
DEBATES	3581
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion meeting was put off until this week, and then a decision will be made.
There are certain arrangements to be entered into. The C.A.H.A. are asking for a money commitment for this year and next year. In turn I should like them to indicate what they are prepared to do in terms of assistance for Canada's national team, both next year and in following years. So there is some negotiation involved here and the matter will not be settled until the latter part of this week.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Friday, December 6, 19G8