1968-10-04

AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the failure of the government to take appropriate measures to protect the Canadian farmers by preventing the dumping of American com in Canada at fire sale prices, as well as the government's failure to take action to stabilize prices for Canadian corn producers, resulting in the disastrous collapse of the Canadian corn market.
If Your Honour finds some difficulty in determining the urgency of the matter, I am prepared to debate it at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member realizes, it is not the urgency of the matter that most concerns the Chair at the moment but the urgency of debate on the matter. I would invite the hon. member to address the house on this limited aspect of the matter.


Harold Warren Danforth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of debate arises from the subject matter of the motion, which relates to antidumping provisions. I am firmly convinced there is no way in which the question of anti-dumping provisions can be debated at this time. It is urgent that the debate take place now because measures would have to be implemented immediately in order to save for the farmers any substantial part of the 1968 market.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
A further factor relating to urgency of debate is the fact that only this morning was it fully apparent that the government had absolutely nothing to offer to relieve the disastrous situation in which the com producers find themselves. Up until yesterday the
minister had left the impression that some kind of action would be taken by the government.
That suggestion was completely dissipated today. Now that we know nothing is being done to deal in a practical way with the situation resulting from the dumping of cheap United States corn at fire sale prices, it is up to this parliament to act. That is why the farmers have arrived here today to bring their case to parliament, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, they have a right to have their case heard. On another similar occasion last spring the farmers found the doors of parliament locked in their faces, the only time in the history of this nation that this has happened. I maintain that this is an urgent and an important case nationally, and if parliament is to be once again closed off to the farmers, where are they to turn?
A great principle is involved here, and surely it must be admitted that it is not every day that the deliberations of this chamber are interrupted by the primary producers of this country seeking justice from this house; because that is all the farmers are asking. There is no other way in which this matter can be dealt with, no other way in which the farmers of this country can find justice other than to ask this house to interrupt its deliberations at this time to deal with the question of according them the opportunity to sell their products without interference.
For my part I do not feel the least embarrassment in asking this house to deal with this question now, because it is a question basic to our institutions and to the survival in this nation of the important producing industries which are at the very base and foundation of our economy. I am proud to make this request on behalf of the farmers of Canada. I wish the Minister of Agriculture would join me in my view that parliament would be fulfilling its functions nobly if it interrupted its proceedings now to deal with this very real, urgent and pressing grievance of the farmers of Canada at this time.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few
words in support of the request that this motion be allowed, and I do so in terms of its procedural aspects. The citations regarding

October 4, 1968
Importation of U.S. Corn the use of standing order 26 are many and lengthy and they have often been put on the pages of Hansard, so I shall make only two brief quotations. The first is the first sentence of citation 100(1) in Beauchesne's fourth edition. It reads:
The definite matter ol urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.
The motion placed before you by the hon. member for Kent-Essex refers to the dumping of com in Canada at fire sale prices. When one is asking for something to be done against dumping, this clearly involves a matter that comes within the responsibility of the federal government. The urgency of the matter itself has been demonstrated by the number of times that questions have been asked in the last few days. It is also demonstrated by the presence of the farmers who are affected on parliament hill this morning. But of course Your Honour will bring us back to the point that urgency must apply to urgency of debate. Therefore let me read citation 100 (3), which is as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that two or three efforts were made yesterday to have a discussion of this matter. In the first place an attempt was made to get the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to agree to revert to motions so that his statement could be read and the matter could be discussed on the floor of the house in that way. There was not unanimous agreement to this procedure. Later in the day serious effort was made to get the committee to agree to discuss this question of the plight of the corn growers during discussion of the legislation that was then before us.
There was not unanimous consent that this be done, so the chairman of the committee of the whole had no option but to apply the rule of relevancy.
The business for today has been announced. It relates to advance payments for grain, which affect the grain producers in the western provinces. The business for next week has been announced, in accordance with a practice recently instituted. If one looks over the items scheduled for next week one does not find an item under which this problem

could be discussed. Frequently Your Honour is in a position where there is a supply motion coming or estimates or something of that nature to which Your Honour can draw our attention. There is nothing of that sort at this juncture. We are therefore faced with the fact that it was not possible to discuss the matter yesterday, it is not possible to do so today and there will be no opportunity to discuss it next week. I feel, therefore, that the motion by the hon. member for Kent-Essex comes within the purview of citation 100, subparagraph (3), and I hope Your Honour will see fit to allow it.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the motion of the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) is of major interest, not only to the Ontario corn producers but also to the population as a whole.
We are in favour of the adjournment proposed by the motion, and our attitude is justified by the presence on parliament hill of the com producers delegation who have come to ask some measure of justice in regard to their work.
As a representative of agriculture, I must, with my colleagues, support the motion of the member, and I am happy to do so.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, many of the points I wish to make in support of the motion have already been covered by the hon. member for Kent-Essex and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, there are one or two matters which have not been brought to your attention.
One relates to this question of urgency. Your Honour may assume that while there is no immediate supply motion planned nor are there any estimates to be considered shortly, this question may well be discussed within the next three or four weeks. However, I am afraid that would not be satisfactory because of the United States corn which has been dumped on the markets of the United States and this country by the United States government. This corn is having a depressing effect on the Canadian market. I am reliably informed that com prices yesterday in Chatham, which is the centre for much of this product in southern Ontario, were $1.05 per bushel, and the price is still falling as it has been falling all week.
It has been pointed out already in this house that the cost of the production of this
October 4, 1968

item is about $1.22 per bushel. If the price continues to fall at this rate, and if the debate takes place only in three or four weeks, then the farmers will be ruined. There is therefore urgency of debate in connection with this matter now.
There is one other point I should like to mention. Your Honour might very well say there is agricultural legislation before the house. Second reading of some bills will be called shortly, and there will then be a rather broad latitude in debate to discuss agricultural matters. If Your Honour refers back to decisions of your deputy and the deputy chairman of committees, even during the resolution stage when very broad latitude is normally permitted, Your Honour's juniors in office would not permit discussion of this subject.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, there will be no opportunity to debate this matter at an early stage. If this state of affairs continues for several weeks it will be too late to take any action. Therefore I respectfully submit that there is urgency of debate and that we should deal with this matter today.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that a very serious problem is involved here in view of citation 100, to be found at page 89 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. That citation says that a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that import and export control does in fact involve the administrative responsibility of this government. However, I think it would be stretching it a long way to argue that changes in the price of corn in the market place involve the administrative responsibility of this government, notwithstanding the fact that we do recognize that there is a serious problem here.
Paragraph 2 of citation ICO says the matter must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. I agree that the matter needs immediate attention, but I suggest to Your Honour that immediate attention has been given and that action has already been taken. The decision was announced yesterday that negotiations would be initiated at once with the United States government to find ways and means of dealing with the problem created by United States corn coming into Canada at distress
Importation of U.S. Corn prices. I am sure all hon. members of the house realize that under our international agreements this is the first essential step to be taken in seeking such a solution.
Paragraph 3 of citation 100 deals with urgency, and this means not urgency of the matter but urgency of debate. Debate should only be had when the public interest demands that discussion take place immediately. I suggest that the action that is essential in seeking a solution to this problem has already been taken, and that any discussion in this house would not immediately add anything to the action already initiated.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a prohibition in paragraph 5 which reads:
The adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
I should like to couple that with part of paragraph 8 of citation 100, which quotes the Speaker of the British House of Commons as saying in part:
What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the house will allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house, because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject.
The citation closes by saying:
That is not the purpose of the standing order-
That has reference to standing order 26.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: After a while-all the action that ought to be taken and that has been taken meets the provisions of standing order 26, and that the government already has moved to take appropriate action to try to deal with this matter. In conclusion I say there is no evidence of the dumping of corn by United States growers in Canada when one considers the usual definition of dumping.


Mr. Horner:: The minister has invented a new definition

October 4, 1968
Importation of U.S. Corn


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but I must remind him that we are discussing at the moment the question of urgency of debate, and perhaps at this point the minister is going beyond that limit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is entering into debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is one more point I must mention. Hon. members of the opposition have based their argument on the premise that there has been dumping in Canada of United States corn. We have investigated, and we do not believe there is any evidence of corn coming in here and being dumped or sold at prices below the price offered in the United States. If one applies the usual definition of dumping one must concede that corn is not coming into this country at prices low enough to constitute dumping.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the minister's explanation, if there is no dumping why did the government belatedly, after knowing for a week that the farmers were on their way, decide officially yesterday that they were going to get in touch with the United States authorities to stop the dumping?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a full, complete and comprehensive reply to that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: It is about as good as the rest of the minister's statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising to ask a question of the minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member ascertained whether the minister wishes to reply to his question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, I shall reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minister read only part of paragraph 8 of citation 100, would he tell us, since it is right in the citation, in what year the decision he relies on was given? Does he not

think there may have been some changes since 1894?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can do that-


George Harris Hees: That is about as up to date as the minister is.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can do that, but I must also remind the hon. member-


Mr. Ricard:: You couldn't do anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I could do that, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member's question was argumentative. I think we might move on and have a contribution by another hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to address myself briefly to the question of urgency of debate. This morning the question of whether there has been dumping of United States corn in Canada was raised. The minister said to the farmers not long ago, in front of this house, that there was dumping and that he was prepared to take action. Now he says there is no dumping. I say that shows all the more reason for debating this matter fully today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: First, there is evidence in the country today that past policies have failed. Yesterday, when an attempt was made to debate this question in this house we on this side of the chamber were ruled out of order. The minister promised the farmers that he would get in touch with the United States authorities and talk with them about the question of corn coming into Canada. If the government's present policy has failed, and if the minister is to attempt to enunciate new policy to the United States, then surely he ought to be sent to the United States armed with the correct facts and a full knowledge of the problems confronting the farmers of this country.
Today we saw a mass demonstration before this house, and it is sad that our primary producers have to go to such lengths to have their grievance heard. Surely parliament has the right to have its say on this urgent question; surely, Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent question that ought to be debated.
Oclober 4, 1968

[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I shall not refer again at this point to the rules or to the relevant citations in Beauchesne; I intend to confine my remarks to the question of urgency of debate, and point out that there are in fact several opportunities for this important question to be discussed by the house.
Hon. members opposite have debated whether or not this involves dumping. I call attention to the fact that there is presently on the notice paper a motion to refer the antidumping white paper, which could come forward for discussion next Monday. There will be full opportunity then to discuss this subject. If hon. members opposite wish, I am prepared to call the motion next Monday to allow this particular subject to be discussed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Call it today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the hon. member for Crowfoot that it was placed on the order paper only last night, and I think we should abide by the rules.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: By unanimous consent it could be called.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the fact that yesterday I set out the business to be dealt with during the coming week. I do not like to mention discussions outside this chamber with other hon. members, but I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that there is a supply motion available under the arrangements we have established for dealing with supply this fall. Whether the supply motion should come forward at an early date, that is in the coming week, is a question which was left to hon. members opposite. I repeat that if hon. members opposite wish to have a supply motion called on Monday I would be pleased to change the order of business which I set out yesterday in order to make possible the debate on supply to which the opposition has a right under the procedure we have established.
Apart altogether from the opportunities for debate available in the house as a whole, the government has stated its intention to refer the estimates of the departments generally to the standing committees. As I have already indicated to members of the opposition, if they choose to use the supply days in the house to discuss the estimates of any department the government is prepared to agree,
Importation of U.S. Corn and we can call the estimates of the Department of Agriculture in the near future. In fact, not only do we have the three opportunities for debate in the house which I have mentioned, but if the house chooses to refer the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to the standing committee on agriculture there will be an early opportunity to consider the estimates in that committee and deal with this subject, as soon as I receive from parties opposite the list of those they wish to be appointed to the standing committees, enabling the committees to be set up.
I therefore submit there will be plenty of opportunity in the near future for this question to be dealt with both in committee of supply and in the standing committee. If the opposition wishes I am prepared to call the supply motion for Monday, when hon. members will have full opportunity to discuss this question they would like to deal with, and have it debated fully.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is an admission it is urgent.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: The
Minister of Agriculture advanced two arguments by means of which he attempted to show that there is no urgency of debate as far as this subject is concerned. I submit that both arguments are fallacious.
The first and most important point he made was that any action which could be taken had already been taken. This is simply not the case. There are several other forms of action which could be taken to relieve this acute situation faced not only by corn growers but by other producers.
First, an embargo could be imposed. This is a form of action which might well be discussed in this chamber today. Second, the government could enforce measures of import control, another form of action which might be discussed here today. A third form of action which could be taken would be to place corn under the provisions of the stabilization act and announce a stabilization payment. This approach too could be discussed. These are three measures by which this urgent situation could be met. They all require discussion, yet the minister has insisted that all the action which could be taken has already been taken. His argument falls to the ground.
The second argument advanced by the minister, as I understand it, was that this is more or less a local matter. In fact the importation of corn in large quantities will have a

October 4, 1968
Importation of U.S. Corn serious effect on all grain producers not only in eastern Canada but in western Canada. It will also have serious effects upon livestock production and marketing.
The President of the Privy Council said a supply motion could be called on Monday. What he is attempting to do is this. He is attempting to dictate to the opposition the form of supply motion they should introduce. He is saying in effect "This is the form of supply motion you must use if you wish to discuss this matter at all".


Gerald William Baldwin: There will be half a dozen more emergencies by Monday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I contend that the time to discuss this subject is now, and that there is no other opportunity available in the immediate future unless we find ourselves in the position that we must use our supply motion for the purpose, and we only have one this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am prepared to give a ruling now, if hon. members will allow me. I gather the hon. member for Edmonton West is seeking the floor.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal specifically with the arguments put forward by the President of the Privy Council. I suggest to Your Honour that those arguments are an attempt to frustrate the purpose of standing order No. 26. If we accept the proposition he advanced, the remedy available to this house under that standing order can be neutralized simply by the existence within the rules of the possibility of calling the estimates of a particular department or of utilizing a supply motion.
This has never been contemplated. If we follow the argument of the President of the Privy Council we might as well wipe out standing order 26. Opportunities for discussion on estimates and supply motions do exist, but it was never in the contemplation of this house that they should be utilized as a substitute for what may be done under standing order 26. This is the point I would direct to Your Honour's attention.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I merely wish to comment briefly on the debate in progress.
Like many other members, I believe that a good government must, above all, show foresight. Therefore, I feel that the demonstration going on this morning on parliament hill is

due to the fact that the government did not foresee the present agricultural crisis. The leader of the house suggests that we wait till next Monday to discuss the matter. I wonder why we could not do it now, seeing the farmers are here-I expect they will not be here on Monday and, therefore, they will be unable to witness the debate.
That is one of the reasons why I feel that we should start the debate immediately on the present crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know it is always extremely difficult for the Chair to reach a decision in the case of a motion under standing order 26. Very strong arguments are normally put forward, as they have been today, for the granting of the motion; and strong arguments are advanced-as is also the case this morning, I suggest-against the granting of such a motion. The Chair has the responsibility to weigh one against the other in the light of the precedents and the citations. In my view citation 100(3) is very much to the point:
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
I have the impression, in spite of the interpretation placed on the rules by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that when there is an opportunity provided, then the rule should not be applied. The President of the Privy Council has referred to opportunities during the coming days, such as the supply motion. I know there is some difficulty, and I recognize the objection which has been advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I gather there is also a possible vehicle for discussion under the item of business standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council to which the minister has referred.
I would think that because of these opportunities in the very near future it would be very difficult for the Chair to allow the motion, although the matter might be reviewed later on; but for this morning, and in view of the statement of the President of the Privy Council, I cannot see my way clear to accepting the motion of the hon. member.
October 4, 1968



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETINGS WITH ONTARIO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister give a report to the house on his meetings with the delegation of Ontario farmers this morning; and will he state what undertakings, if any, he gave to those farmers on action with respect to the grave problems faced by the Ontario corn growers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but under the rules I will not be able to make as long a reply as I would like. Just a few minutes ago we had a very satisfactory meeting with the Ontario corn producers who are here protesting against the decline in the prices received for their corn in Ontario. I think it was an exchange of views that was useful both to me, as the representative of the government and to the members of the union.
I gave an undertaking that we had initiated action, and that we were going to pursue it immediately, to make sure there was no corn coming into Canada below the United States support level. At what price that level is, is something we intend to argue. It is not all that clear because of the very complex way in which the United States pays subsidies to its corn producers. But without transgressing the rules of this house, Mr. Speaker, I think it was a useful meeting.
There were suggestions made in other areas to which we made a tentative reply, and they will be under investigation and future study. There will be an additional response later.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, arising from the minister's statement that he intends to meet with United States officials on this matter, will he say whether the government will impose a temporary embargo on some classes of corn coming into the country to prevent a further fall in the market price?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oxford knows probably better than most members of this house what our obligations are under our international agreements, and I am sure he will be the first to recognize that we have taken the most useful appropriate action within the bounds of the agreements Canada has signed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the minister not agree that this same kind of action was taken with
Inquiries of the Ministry respect to the importation of turkeys a few years ago?


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether in addition to the undertaking to discuss this problem with the United States department of agriculture the government intends to take any concrete action besides discussions?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The first step, Mr. Speaker, is to discuss.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. Has the government received a note from United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk calling on the Canadian government in rather blunt terms to maintain its present troop strength and nuclear capability in Europe; and will the Prime Minister say whether the note from the Secretary of State will receive a formal reply from the government of Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think this same question was answered a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John Angus MacLean: I do not recall that it was, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he can confirm that he discussed the role of NATO in Europe during his talks with the Prime Minister of France earlier this week, and would he indicate to the house the nature of those discussions?


Mr. Trudeau:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In our review of international affairs we did discuss the problem of NATO, France's relation to it, and the view of the French government on the happenings in Europe which have some bearing on NATO.


John Angus MacLean: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister contemplate having similar discussions at an early date with the governments of some of our other NATO allies, such as the United States, on this same subject?
October 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in New York, and I am quite sure it is contemplated that there will be informal meetings there of NATO member countries to discuss these problems. I am not quite sure of the agenda, but I have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that he intended discussing NATO problems with them.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further brief supplementary question on this important subject to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister say whether reconsideration is being given to the government's announced policy of closing the Canadian forces base at Zweibrucken in Germany, which closing is to take place next summer?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this problem, like most of the problems concerning national defence, is under review.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the numerous complaints we have received concerning the payment of subsidies to industrial milk producers, does the Minister of Agriculture intend to contact the data centre with a view to finding a more efficient way of distributing subsidies to the parties concerned?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, my attention was diverted for a moment. I wonder whether the hon. member would mind repeating his question.


Gérard Laprise: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture whether, following the numerous complaints we receive from our constituents, he intends to make representations to the data centre in order to find an efficient way of paying subsidies to the producers of industrial milk.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we already have a reasonably satisfactory means of distributing quotas to industrial milk producers. This is under review, but by and large it is generally accepted by the dairy producers of Canada as reasonably satisfactory.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In his opinion, can a delay of three months in the payment of subsidies be considered an efficient system?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick causeway. In view of the great concern in Prince Edward Island, obviously shared by Premier Campbell, regarding this project, will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Works make an early and full statement to the house about this very important matter so the people of the area can realistically plan their future economy rather than leave any uncertainty?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to add to what the Minister of Transport stated to the house yesterday.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this very important project is being considered purely on its merits, or is the announcement of an unfavourable decision being delayed pending the preparation of a suitable booby prize for Prince Edward Island?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING CONTINUATION OF SHARED PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the speech he made at Calgary the night before last, in which he said the government was looking

October 4, 1968	COMMONS
for programs which have served their purpose and might be discontinued, can he indicate to the house which programs the government has in mind either for discontinuance or for cutting down so far as the amount of money involved is concerned?
Bight Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I was stating a general principle that I am sure the members of the opposition would agree with; that we have to discontinue programs which we do not find up to standard. We gave an example of such programs when we discontinued the winter works program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a supplementary question, since the Prime Minister referred in his speech to the Canada Assistance Plan and programs like that, are they due for discontinuance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member is in error, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe I referred to the Canada Assistance Plan. I did refer to all the social security, health and post-secondary education programs in general, and I did indicate that we were trying to find means of promoting greater economy in the application of all plans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I just remind the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that on page 4 of the text which was issued from his office there is a reference to the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Do I gather from his remarks that it is not the intention of his government to increase old age pensions for those people in need, and pensions for veterans and other such people in need?


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister wanted to answer that question according to the just society, and these people are certainly just in need.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can advise the house whether the government received a formal warning from officials of the Ontario government earlier this year that federal forecasts were gravely underestimating the total cost of the post-secondary education and hospitalization programs?
DEBATES	793
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be here on Monday.


An hon. Member:: This is his day off.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These matters are dealt with by the Treasury Board. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board has a statement to make.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Treasury Board in a position to advise the house whether such a warning was received?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the newspaper article which I think gave rise to this question. It is a long and complicated one. I was assured some time ago that we were not in receipt of any formal communication, but I am having another check made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the
event that formal representations were received is the minister prepared to table them prior to the budget debate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, formal communications between governments are, of course, subject to privilege. If indeed there were any I will look at them to determine whether they are privileged.


Mr. Robert Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the questions regarding shared programs, and I address it to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement to the annual conference of Chamber of Commerce of Calgary the other day regarding cutbacks in government spending, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether he intends to go ahead with the medicare program which is expected to cost half a billion dollars in its initial year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before and now repeat, we are endeavouring to have federal-provincial meetings of ministers of finance and ministers in other areas of administration such as health and welfare to discuss all open ended programs. I refer to programs which are determined by statute and the spending on which cannot be controlled or perhaps even foreseen with accuracy. This proposition for federal-provincial meetings is now being forwarded.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this careful review of the scope of a just society and the paring down of expenditures, what
October 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry has the Prime Minister to say about the galloping increase month by month of the cost of the arts centre in Ottawa? Is this being looked into, and can the Prime Minister explain how the initial expenditure of about $15 million will now amount to an expected $54 million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the right hon. gentleman would expect us to discontinue this particular project in the name of a just society.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is so, why will the Prime Minister not give assurances in respect of social programs which atfect the average Canadian by saying those programs should not be reduced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can not for the life of me see how it would help these poor people by knocking down this arts centre or terminating this project at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not trying to knock down the arts centre; we are trying to knock down the Prime Minister to give us some information.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the Prime Minister related to his address to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Calgary yesterday. Can he say whether his announcement of government policy to cut back on certain programs for economic reasons included the present very stringent criteria applying to student loans? What was his reply to student demands at Regina on Wednesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my reply was that students were not the most unfavoured class of our society and that all the amounts that had been set aside for loans by the federal government had not been taken up in past years. I said there was a greater supply of money for loans than had been demanded.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Prime Minister related to his address in Calgary in which he referred to the extra attention being given to research in the business field? Will the Prime Minister assure the house that this extra attention to research will include the agricultural sector of the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Department of Agriculture is spending a great deal of money on research.


George Robson Muir: Not enough.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion-Melville):: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the government received a request from the government of Saskatchewan for increased assistance for university student loans? If so, what action has been taken on this request?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Last summer, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance received a letter concerning this matter. The Minister of Finance replied that he would make sure that adequate funds were available in view of the increased demands by students in Saskatchewan for loans. These amounts were forthcoming. The house should know that over $6 million, I believe, was lent to students last year at the University of Saskatchewan and that to something like 7,200 students.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whit-by):: May I ask a further supplementary question? In order to meet increasing costs, both in the area of student loans and other welfare measures which so obviously concern the Prime Minister, is he giving consideration to the early introduction of a capital gains tax to defray some of these costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Finance will deal with all the forms of taxation which we contemplate in his budget speech.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Solicitor General who, as a result of his crystal ball, left the chamber five minutes before I could ask my question. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether, in view of the government's decision not to re-establish the all-party joint Senate and House of Commons committee on penitentiary construction and policy, consideration will be given to referring the matter to a standing committee in order that this committee work can proceed? This is of great interest to the members of this house and of the other place.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the Solicitor General to take this question as notice. It seems a reasonable suggestion.
October 4, 1968



COMMONS DEBATES ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North asked me whether I had received any request from the attorney general of the province of Quebec to set up a royal commission to examine the spreading of crime across the nation.
The answer to that question is no, the minister has not received any request from the province of Quebec to set up a royal commission. The hon. member will perhaps recall, as will the house, that on January 6 and 7, 1966, a federal-provincial conference of attorneys general on organized crime was held in Ottawa. As a result a committee was established of members from the attorney general departments of Ontario and Quebec to study this question of organized crime.
I think the hon. member will also recall that this committee published a report in August of 1967 recommending the establishment of a new central intelligence mechanism called the Canadian criminal intelligence system with headquarters in Ottawa. That system has been established with offices in all the provincial capitals except in Quebec. I understand they are still working on this problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, has the minister suggested or asked that the R.C.M.P. work in co-operation with the police forces of the urban centres in Canada in relation to organized crime which is now rampant across the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General speaks on behalf of the mounted police, but I can say from experience that the R.C.M.P. are in constant co-operation with provincial and municipal police forces in this country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will he tell the house whether the Minister of Justice was stating government policy when in a speech to the American real estate counsellors he said that
Inquiries of the Ministry nations should surrender some of their sovereignty and jurisdictional control to an international commission which would regulate multi-national corporations?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there is no definite government policy to surrender sovereignty. But I should say that personally I think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -this government is inclined more to institutions which are broadly international rather than toward nationalistic approaches.


Gerald William Baldwin: Like NATO.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice stated that the place to begin is in Canada-United States economic relations, will the Prime Minister say whether any discussions have been held with United States officials on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such discussions, Mr. Speaker, but I must say it sounds like a very good idea.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the plan of the Minister of Transport to appoint as president of Air Canada a man whose only qualification for the job is service to the Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I recommended you, George, but they wouldn't do it.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with respect to Air Canada. Has the government received the report from the investment experts on the reorganization of Air Canada, which was referred to twice last year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly to which report my hon. friend is referring. A considerable number of studies
October 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry have been made regarding the problem of financing the national air carrier, and these are under review at present to decide how best to finance the requirements of Air Canada both in the short and the long range.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary question to the Prime Minister may I ask him if he would hold up any major changes in the executive structure of Air Canada until these reports are received?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy Royal.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question because I think it is extremely important.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport just said he was not quite sure which report was referred to by the hon. member. I cannot promise to hold up decisions for which the opposition is pressing until these hypothetical reports which we cannot identify have been received.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the Prime Minister not feel that any new appointments of political hacks to Air Canada would greatly prejudice its rights as a public body?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CHURCHILL, MAN.-NEGOTIATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister taken any steps to meet with the premier of Manitoba in relation to the pressing problems of the development of the townsite of Churchill, Manitoba?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have a meeting with the premier of Manitoba some weeks ago. It was followed up by some letters, and action is being prepared in our government departments.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I understand this meeting took place prior to September 12, has the Prime Minister yet replied to the letter of the premier of Manitoba dated September 12 asking for a meeting so this matter could be expedited?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I have, Mr. Speaker, but I will check and confirm it.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a pleasant question to address to the Secretary of State. Would he express appreciation to the C.R.T.C. for its very firm action, as reported today, in encouraging private stations in Canada to live up to a reasonable standard of programming?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to give this message to the C.R.T.C., just as I am ready to communicate the views expressed by all hon. members.



PLUTONIUM-INQUIRY AS TO PRICE PAID BY FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could he tell us what price per gram we obtained for the plutonium sold to France?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is not here at the moment. Out of curiosity 1 inquired about this. The sale was made under an agreement of a confidential nature between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Commissariat de l'Energie atomique de France.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the recent sale of plutonium to France indicate an improved atmosphere for sales of uranium to that country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question as asked is perhaps a little too general.
October 4, 1968



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have leave of the house to revert to motions in order to make a brief statement on housing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, hon. members already know that 1968 will be a record year for housing in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The original estimate of 175,000 new housing starts in all areas in Canada is now virtually assured, and there is every prospect that the final figure will be close to 185,000. However, distribution of new housing starts as between rental accommodation and single family dwellings for home ownership continues to cause concern. Multiple dwelling starts for the first nine months are 26 per cent higher than the comparable total for 1967, whereas the rate for single family dwellings is 8.4 per cent less than 1967.
The original estimate of housing starts for this year was based on the expectation that
100.000	multiple housing units for rental purposes and 75,000 single family dwellings for home ownership would be started in 1968. There would appear to be a very real possibility that single family dwellings started will fall short of 75,000 units and that multiple housing for rental purposes may exceed 100,000 housing units.
In order to alleviate the shortage of family accommodation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been authorized to make, from within its capital budget, $170 million available for commitments for home ownership dwellings during the balance of the year. This represents 9,000 units of new construction in the form of single family dwellings and condominium together with 2,000 loans on existing dwellings. It is estimated that of the 9,000 proposed commitments for single family dwellings approximately 3,000 will be for individual home owners. The remaining
6.000	units will be available for merchant builders.
Effective October 7, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will accept applications for loans from merchant builders, without a presale requirement. These loans will be distributed across the country on an equitable 29180-51

Inquiries of the Ministry basis with emphasis on houses of moderate cost.
In addition to the favourable employment results, this program together with the increased activity of institutional lenders will go some way to restoring the balance between rental and home ownership homes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first page of the minister's statement is concerned, it is a Tweedledum and Tweedledee proposition because he has quoted statistics which show a shortfall on the estimate for single family dwellings and an excess in respect of apartments. I am sure there are good and valid reasons for this. One reason is that mortgage institutions are preferring to obtain a higher return from apartment buildings as against single family dwellings. With regard to the
9.000	units that are now to be the subject of, shall we say, direct loans from the corporation, I do not see why this program could not have been started much earlier.
This statement will afford poor satisfaction to the many people who are seeking homes at moderate cost. Of course, the minister did not speak about the interest rate, but we have a pretty good idea what it is. If these homes are to be available some time in the spring, this of course does not mean anything until we study the availability of land services. This government has cancelled the winter works program and work which would have been carried out under the program is not going forward. This will cause the municipalities great difficulty. Naturally we welcome an increase in the availability of homes, but I wonder whether this is part of the minister's program which he calls "housing is living".


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that this will be the peak year for housing starts in Canada. When he said that I thought he would also say that this is the peak year for interest rates on homes in Canada. The action of the government is too little and too late and I think it is a cover-up for the bad publicity the task force has been receiving of late.
The minister says that the estimate is
185.000	housing starts this year. He must remember that the Economic Council of Canada said that 200,000 units should be completed in one year, 190,000 new units and 10,000 units to replace older homes. One has to consider the shortfall in housing in the last few years, and the objective of the government should be at least 250,000 units to take care of the shortage in those years. In 1965 we had 165,000 units,
October 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry in 1966, 134,000, in 1967, 160,000. This indicates a shortage of 140,000 homes in three years, and the target that has been set of
185,000	falls short of the estimated 250,000 required to take care of the slack in those years.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The direct reason for the slack in housing has been the philosophy of the government which has depended on private builders to take care of the single dwelling homes while the government took the initiative with regard to the public and low cost housing. This deliberate policy of the government has failed. The reason it has failed is apparent in the statements of the minister with regard to consultations with the insurance companies and banks in the latter part of the summer and the statements of the builders that they have not been able to obtain loans for housing.
The lack of action by the government with regard to high interest rates and the removal of the sales tax, its lack of action with regard to the imposition of rental controls even though the city of Ottawa requested them to meet exorbitant rents, and the lack of action by the government with regard to the establishment of a ministry of urban development indicates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member in order to remind him that according to the standing order comments made on ministerial statements should be brief.


John Gilbert: I am about to complete my statement, Mr. Speaker. As I have been saying, the lack of action by the government with regard to the establishment of a separate ministry of housing and urban development and its lack of action in all the other fields I have mentioned indicate the reason that we are having a serious housing crisis in Canada today and will continue to have in the future.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, at first sight, the statement which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has just made about the problem of housing and the possibility of 187,000 new housing starts, compared to an expected high of 175,000, makes me happy.
However, we sincerely feel that this measure comes a little late. We also feel that it will not solve the problem of ordinary people, and in particular of low income families, the


unemployed, the pensioners, the widows, people without a trade, newcomers to this country, those who get social assistance payments, the Indians and the half-breeds.
While prices are increasing, Mr. Speaker, the purchasing power of those families is decreasing. Since rents are inevitably high, families get along by spending less for food, clothing and education, or they cut down housing costs by living with friends or relatives, or in houses divided into small units unfit to live in.
That is why I am quite upset by this part of the minister's statement:
However, distribution of new housing starts as between rental accommodation and single family dwellings for home ownership continues to cause concern.
Mr. Speaker, that causes concern to us also, the more so because immediate steps are not taken to help low income groups, the most severely affected by the rise in the cost of living.
At this point, I would like to remind the minister of a statement which appears on page 216 of the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, and I quote:
In the absence of an early upturnand the minister's statement is surely not an upturn-
___in new residential construction, a severe housing shortage could emerge very quickly in Canada; and rent increases could become a powerful new factor accentuating the rise in living costs and in wage demands.
Therefore, I am asking the minister to consider introducing immediate legislation in order to help low income and large families as regards housing.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries I should like to take the questions as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the government of Canada take diplomatic initiatives in an attempt to persuade the governments of the U.S.S.R., Britain and France to stop providing arms to Biafra and Nigeria?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dealt with the problem of diplomatic representations previously.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the increasing frequency of heart transplants and in view of Dr. Christiaan Barnard's statement yesterday that the conventional definition of death is outdated, is the government considering legislation to provide a legal definition of death which will be a suitable guide to surgeons?


Gerald William Baldwin: The best example is the Liberal government.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not like thinking about the subject, but I will certainly consider it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In view of the fact that the minister is absent, whether or not his absence is authorized, I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Since the great urgency of this matter is supported by requests from Cape Breton, and is also implied in the legislation, will
Inquiries of the Ministry the government not make available the Devco report?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's representation to the notice of the minister, who is temporarily absent.


Donald MacInnis: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of his great concern for the just society, does he not think that an urgent question which has been put to his government for the past week or so should have been answered by now, especially since the legislation implies it is an urgent matter? Why is it we cannot receive this report on Devco?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The minister was here a few moments ago but he had to leave the house.


An hon. Member:: Where is he? Get him back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is now 20 minutes past 12 and he had a meeting at 12.15. I suppose he did not think that members of the opposition would be so loquacious this morning.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A ruling has been made time and again in this house that I and other members of the opposition are not allowed to put questions to ministers unless those questions concern their departments. This is the ruling, and I could turn up any number of precedents. I ask the Prime Minister again: why is it written into legislation that we cannot attend to this emergency? Why is it that as early as this week the Prime Minister himself designated the wrong minister to answer the question? Where is the just society? When and where are we going to get this report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and refers to the late show last night. When was the letter which he mentioned in the debate last night written to the premier of British Columbia and the railways involved? Has any reply been
800	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry received? If so, has there been a date set for the meeting mentioned in that letter? Does the minister plan to be at that meeting?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the letters were written yesterday. Obviously there has not been time yet for a reply. I do not contemplate being at the meeting because the matter primarily concerns the railways, the government of British Columbia and the lower mainland planning board. However, I took the liberty of advising the premier of British Columbia and the railways by telephone that the letters were on their way so that they would be aware of them and could facilitate their plans more expeditiously.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the minister had an opportunity of checking out what the Minister of Public Works said about the Roberts Bank development so we can find out who is expressing government policy?


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the fact the minister got the letters away so expeditiously yesterday, has he been able yet to get a definitive legal opinion avout the constitutional jurisdiction involved in the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority rail line question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is in train, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the report on the study which is being conducted into the extension of the shipping season at Churchill will be an interdepartmental or a public document?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which of the numerous studies that have been made in respect of the matter my hon. friend is referring, so perhaps I had better take the question as notice or he could put it on the order paper.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister? In the interests of economy would he not consider cancelling these studies and appointing a public inquiry commission so that representations could be made by interested bodies with a view to recommending what action should be taken?

DEBATES	October 4, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making representations. This is not really a question.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I address what I consider a most interesting question to the Prime Minister? I understand that today all members received a communication about a new experiment in connection with the attendance of cabinet ministers in the house. This communication states the Prime Minister will be here during question period five days a week and the cabinet members will all be here on Wednesdays. On Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, 13 of the 28 will be here. May I ask the Prime Minister when this experiment will be put into effect?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member finds this question very interesting. I hope he finds the answer interesting too. We thought that this plan might begin on Monday. We hope the house will see the advantages in it.


An hon. Member:: You have been experimenting already.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A member says that perhaps there has been an unwilling rehearsal for the past couple of weeks. The remark which has just been made is an indication that the opposition might stand to gain if this plan works. We hope that the result will be that, rather than ministers being away on business as they have to be during the session at unforeseen times, with the consequence that a full cabinet is rarely present in the house since its members have to be occupied with other aspects of business across the country, the plan will permit members of the opposition to ask questions within stated departmental fields on days which will be foreseen, not only by them but by the ministers. We hope that in this way ministers will be able to plan their attendance, and the opposition will be able to plan questions, in a way which will give more information, not less information, to the opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to comment on the Prime Minister's statement. The statement he has made is an indication of the government's intention to carry
Oclober 4, 1968

this plan into effect. I believe that the statement and the plan constitute a calculated contempt and an infringement of the privileges of this house, of all members of this house, including all the members of the opposition and government backbenchers', in so far as both tradition and the standing orders of the house are concerned.
I want to commend to the Prime Minister a sentence which appears on page 149 of Beau-chesne dealing with the practice of questions being asked on orders of the day:
The practice has been so long and so regularly in the House that, if not impossible, in my opinion, it would be inadvisable to stop it.
It appears that the right hon. gentleman does not mind rushing in where Mr. Beau-chesne feared to tread.
I would also point out that standing order 39(5) of the rules of this house provides that:
Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ministers of the crown-
This statement was included in a recommendation of the procedure committee which was adopted by the house unanimously, I believe. There is no suggestion that questions should be asked only of some ministers of the crown. There is no suggestion that they be limited to such ministers of the crown as the government or the right hon. gentleman see fit to designate to be in the house. The recommendation covered all ministers of the crown.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I submit in as strong terms as I can that this action of the government, all the more flagrant because it goes in the face of the very reasonable and moderate criticism of this proposal when it was first broached, and in view of the fact that a standing committee has now been established with terms of reference requiring the committee to pay attention to this matter, is a very contrived contempt of the House of Commons.
The rights of the members of this house under standing order 39 go a step further. They have now been given the right, when Your Honour for reasons that you think are proper rules that a question is not urgent or when hon. members are not satisfied with the answer, to give appropriate notice and debate the matter, and this plan cuts down that right.
While I base my submission on the statement of the Prime Minister and on the absence from the house of ministers who should
Inquiries of the Ministry be here to answer these questions, I also base it on a letter that was sent to all members of the House of Commons, and which I assume is public property, by the President of the Privy Council. Dated yesterday it says:
On Wednesday, September 25, the Prime Minister asked the house for co-operation in an experiment in relation to the attendance by ministers during the daily question period. I am enclosing a copy of the roster.
On examining the roster, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this is the day the Minister of Agriculture will not be in the house. The whole farcical nature of this experiment is shown by the fact that the minister is not so obviously engaged on business, because when the application under standing order 26 was made he came into the chamber. This arrangement is contrived and continues to be contrived, I say, in complete contempt of the house and parliament.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the second paragraph reads as follows:
This roster is based chiefly on the cabinet obligations of the ministers. Naturally, from time to time ministers will have to be away because of other public responsibilities or illness. It is not suggested that questions should be delayed in such instances; rather, they could be addressed to the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.
The only inference that hon. members can derive from that letter is that when, in response to the dictates of the Prime Minister, ministers are not in the house, questions asked of them by hon. members will not be answered but will be disregarded. No attention will be paid to them at all. I think that is quite plain, sir. What the President of the Privy Council is saying in this second paragraph of the letter is that where the minister is away on legitimate business questions can be directed to parliamentary secretaries or the acting minister. He is saying: When a minister is away because the Prime Minister has said he is not to be here, no attention will be paid to questions.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who have had the opportunity of seeing the extent to which the question period in the United Kingdom has deteriorated to the point that it is useless see in this practice a very serious and retrograde step. I suggest to the government, to the right hon. gentleman and to the President of the Privy Council that if they are seriously interested in saving time and in the expeditious handling of the business of the house, then the one minute or so spent in asking a question and giving an answer could well save a great deal of time later when a member, frustrated in his desire to obtain
Oclober 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry legitimate information, is driven to the course of making a speech on the matter when such opportunity is given to him.
I suggest that the government seriously review this practice. It is a contempt of parliament and a restriction on the privileges of hon. members. I suggest that the right hon. gentleman review this practice right away and not let this period continue to degenerate. I make this plea sincerely. If not, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that this house is in for a very difficult time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a brief moment because the case has been extremely well stated by my hon. friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I support his protest and his plea.
I suggest that though there may be many things about our procedure that need to be improved or which are wrong, the question period is not one of our trouble spots. The question period is an occasion when the government is kept on its toes by members of the house generally. I contend that this proposal to have a number of the ministers out of the house every day is an attempt to cool the question period and, in my view, this is not good for parliament.
There was one standing order that the hon. member for Peace River did not quote and to which I should like to refer. Standing order 5 reads as follows:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
I know that this rule is violated every hour of every day by individual members who are not here and who pay no attention to standing order 5, Mr. Speaker. But for the Prime Minister to stand up and deliberately say that certain of the most important members of this house, namely, members of the cabinet, are not going to be here is, I suggest, in defiance not only of the rights and privileges of the members of the house and in contempt of the importance of the question period, but is in defiance of standing order 5. The government has no right to foist such a practice on this house.
Mr.' Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the seriousness of the plea that has been made by members of the opposition but I wish to assure them that there was no intention in our proposition to do something that is in contempt of the house. This is an experiment. It was presented in that light and I think it

would be more progressive to try it before discontinuing it, as members of the opposition suggest.
I think the experiment is worth while because not only the opposition but parliament will stand to gain if there can be a little more order on days when we ask our questions. Members of the administration do have to be away on occasion, Mr. Speaker, as is the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is at the United Nations, and the Minister of Finance who has been absent for the commonwealth finance ministers meetings and lately for the World Bank meetings. I myself had to be away yesterday to attend a function in Calgary. It is inevitable that members of the administration have to be away.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, when one minister was away for a period, say at the United Nations, it was possible that the opposition could be stonewalled. A government could say that it would not answer a certain question until the minister returned and that he would answer the question in ten days' or a fortnight's time. We believe that this present arrangement will put the government under an obligation to have somebody here to answer questions in specific departmental areas. If the minister himself cannot be here on a day when he is supposed to be here, then he will be replaced by the acting minister or the second acting minister, by his parliamentary secretary or by the Prime Minister. Someone will have to attempt to answer, and the departments of the absent ministers will be able to brief the acting minister. We hope that this will be to the advantage of the opposition. If it is not to the advantage of parliament we shall discontinue the system.
The house no doubt realizes that members on the front benches have always been here. I see that on the front bench opposite only four members out of 14 are present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They were here.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are asking the questions. You answer them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, after one hour and 45 minutes of sitting, the percentage of members of this administration present is greater than the percentage of like members in the opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 4, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The front benches of the N.D.P. are not doing too badly. Their attendance averages 50 per cent, although a moment ago it was only 25 per cent.
Everyone in this house realizes that members have to be away. That does not mean they are not working as hard as they can for the common weal, or as hard as if they were sitting in the house. They may have business to attend to in various departments or out on the front lawn.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Or they may be golfing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members may be in their offices, or in other parts of the country or elsewhere in the world attending to government business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just as the Minister of
Agriculture was today. He was not very far away.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Agriculture was on the front lawn talking to the corn growers. If he had not been there you would have complained. We brought him back into the house to deal with the motion under standing order 26, and he was here.


Donald MacInnis: You brought him back? Would he not come back on his own?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he had not come back someone in the opposition would have raised a question based on standing order 26. That is why the minister had to be brought back.
I do not think that many cases of national disaster have arisen from the fact that a question which was asked was so urgent that it had to be answered on the day it was asked and not on the day following. An hon. member referred to what is happening in the United Kingdom. In some instances one minister is present only every three weeks to answer questions. The parliamentary system has not broken down there.


Gerald William Baldwin: It has, pretty nearly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not attempting to go that far. We think this system may be the best proposition for the opposition. They will have the opportunity under it to ask questions, perhaps not of all ministers at one time, which are related to departmental areas. They may ask their questions on given days and we think this policy is to their advantage. If it is not, we can change the system.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it has always been the story of history that when rights were interfered with those who interfered with them found the most philanthropic reasons for what they did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been characteristic. As the Prime Minister spoke I thought he was going to make a good case for the absence of some ministers because, naturally, they have work to do and everyone recognizes that. But for the Prime Minister to introduce this system arbitrarily and gloss it over by the suggestion that what he is doing is for our benefit is, indeed, the very height of political hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We did not ask for this. We recognize, as do all who have had positions of responsibility, that ministers at some time must be away. But when the Prime Minister says, "I have decided to assist the opposition"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: He is worried about the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: -that causes me, free from suspicion as I am-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -to look with some care. I recall so well, sir, the occasion last February when the prime minister, who was then a member of a minority government, in effect said, "We are your masters." This is an obvious application of the philosophy, "We are your masters."
I say to the Prime Minister: When you are making experiments do you not think you should take parliament into your confidence and give your reasons? Should change not be brought about through the instrumentality of discussion? I say, sir, that the rule the Prime Minister is endeavouring to foist on the House of Commons is beyond the rights of the Prime Minister of this country. He cannot tell members of the opposition in parliament how they shall act. He can tell those ministers surrounding him that their mouths must be shut.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
804	COMMONS DEBATES	Ociober 4, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: He can say that his ministers must be silent and that leaks in the cabinet, described by a former minister-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A former prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: -as similar to leaks in a sieve, shall be stopped. On reconsideration I think the Prime Minister will decide that he has gone just a little beyond parliamentary practice when he tells this house that from now on it must keep a record of ministerial attendance. Now it is like school.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is to be here at all times; of course, there will be times when he will be absent, as he must be and as he was in the last couple of days, no doubt in pursuance of responsibilities to the nation. The Minister of Transport is to be absent on Thursday and Friday and present on Monday and Tuesday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And on Wednesday.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will be away a good deal of the time now while the United Nations is sitting, has the opportunity to be absent on Monday and Friday. The Minister of Public Works is to be absent on Thursday and Friday and the Solicitor General of Canada is to be absent on Thursday and Friday. They have changed around the attendance of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I believe he is to be absent on Tuesday and Friday. The President of the Treasury Board will not be here on Monday and Thursday.
Why, Mr. Speaker, this is conglomerate nonsense. That is all it is. I should like to have been present when they played the ouija game of picking out which ministers would be present in the house and charged with national responsibilities on various days of the week.
Let the Prime Minister once and for all realize this fact. While we want to co-operate with the government, I say to the government, do not apply a throttle to parliament, a throttle put on by the Prime Minister and glossed over by the specious suggestion that "what we are doing is for your benefit". We do not want any of this gratuitous assistance from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am much indebted to the gratuitous assistance of the

right hon. member for Prince Albert in coining one of his classic phrases, "conglomerate nonsense", which so aptly and effectively describes the arguments which have been put forward by hon. members on the opposition side with respect to this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I might confine myself to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River and point out that this proposal is neither in contempt of parliament, a restriction of privileges, nor a violation of standing order 39. The hon. member sought to read into the standing order a wording saying that all ministers must be present. I point out that the standing order provides for the opportunity for hon. members to ask questions but it does not impose the obligation enunciated by the hon. member.
In the same way, Mr. Speaker, 1 think you will recognize that this is not a question of a breach of the privileges of the house. The hon. member referred to the matter of debate on the adjournment motion. I point out to him that if a question is asked and no answer is given, there is a right to debate on the adjournment motion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made an observation which I believe is entirely correct when referring to standing order 5, the requirement for hon. members to be present at the service of the house. From the start of the sitting the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic party were absent, for a very good reason, I know. The hon. member did not say that his leader had leave to be absent, as the standing order requires. Also, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste was not present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not question the validity of the reasons hon. members have for not being here.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the difference
between us. We question the validity of your reasons.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out to the hon. member that standing order 5 has not been complied with generally and has not been complied with in the case of the three hon. gentlemen I have referred to.
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
From the standpoint of public policy there are sound reasons for doing what we propose ought to be done. With the increase in government business, particularly at the executive level, it is desirable that cabinet should have the opportunity of meeting in committee to deal with the various decisions to be made.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Crowfoot says no, but it seems to me a necessary part of our parliamentary form of government in which the executive is made up of members of this House of Commons. I therefore suggest it is entirely proper that we should adopt this arrangement.
The hon. member for Peace River appeared to look with disdain at the practice of Westminster. I would only repeat that the opportunity to ask questions in this house on a spontaneous basis is not being taken away. Ministers will be here and the opportunity to ask questions will remain. I hope there will be some co-operation from hon. members in terms of posing questions and giving the courtesy of advance notice, in which case I think we will find ourselves with a more effective rather than a less effective question period.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not wish to interrupt this discussion but I should bring it to the attention of hon. members that this subject was raised originally as a question of privilege. There is no motion before the chair, and it seems that the hon. member for Peace River was raising a point of order, more or less. I wonder whether we should not use the few minutes which are left to terminate the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the most important subject which has come before parliament for a long time. The President of the Privy Council has once again confused the functions of parliament with those of the executive. I think the subject deserves some consideration on our part because the rights of parliament and the right of the opposition to get information from the executive are at stake. Perhaps in the past, like all parliaments, we have failed to use our time to best advantage. But today we are on solid ground and I hope that along with other hon. members I shall have the opportunity to be heard.
DEBATES	805
Inquiries of the Ministry
With the greatest of respect to the statements made by the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council, may I say I consider they are trying to put something over on parliament and the Canadian people. I wish to come to grips with the argument advanced by the President of the Privy Council. Let me read the standing order. It says:
Before orders of the day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ministers of the crown-
Nowhere do we find that only some ministers can be questioned on any day. The word "all" is not there, but nowhere does it say that only some ministers may be questioned. The idea is that members of the opposition can question the executive of this country whose function it is to govern, and I think this is where the President of the Privy Council confuses the functions of government with those of parliament.
Let us take a look at the history which led up to this occasion. The government asked members of the opposition to acquiesce in the setting up of a committee to inquire into the various rules which govern the procedures of this house. The opposition worked together with the government in a co-operative manner and a committee was set up to look into the very procedures we are now discussing. The next day the Prime Minister came into the house and unilaterally, without taking parliament into his confidence or placing the question before the committee, made a decision by saying in effect: We are the masters of this house and we intend to implement a rule whether you like it or not.
The Prime Minister put forward a foolish argument when he referred to the absence of some members of the opposition from this chamber. The fact is that it is the function of the government to govern, and it is the duty of ministers to be here and ready to answer questions so that facts may be obtained by members of the opposition. It seems to me he is confusing the roles of the government and of the opposition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How can you govern if you are not the master?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would say that in the short time he has been Prime Minister of this country the right hon. gentleman has shown that he is going to set himself up as a little tin god, a little dictator. There is no doubt about that. As my right hon. friend from Prince Albert has said, the reason the Prime Minister has brought forward this suggestion is not so as to assist the opposition but in
806	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry order to assist him in becoming master of this house. He agrees with me that he wants to be master. He silences his ministers. Now he wants to silence the opposition. I say to him, that he is now treading on the very rights of parliament and on the freedom and liberty of the subjects of this country who speak through their representatives here. I plead with the right hon. gentleman to reconsider his position in light of the fact that he has set up a committee to study this very question. I urge him not to make a unilateral decision affecting the most serious matter to have come before parliament in many a day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo some of the remarks made by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, my hon. friend from Calgary North and others and speak from the point of view of a backbencher. I remind supporters of the government who happen to be sitting on my right that they may find themselves over here permanently after another election, perhaps fighting on the same type of issue as we are concerned with today, one which strikes at the fundamental practices and privileges of this house.
I listened to the Prime Minister today, as I listened to many of his speeches during the campaign, and I still have a smouldering belief that he is sincerely interested in trying to reform some of the practices and procedures of this house to bring them into the mainstream of the second century of our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I believe, too, that the President of the Privy Council, working with the other house leaders, also has a desire to renovate and reform where necessary, and I share his views on renovation and reform to bring our practices and rules into the mainstream of the second century.
Nevertheless, when the President of the Privy Council, let alone the Prime Minister, having agreed to set up a committee to consider these changes, unilaterally imposes a fundamental change in the practices of this house even on an experimental basis, I become most suspicious. I only hope that the government will refer this question to the committee which has been set up to do what we all want to see done, that is, reform the rules.
On another point, I was surprised and disappointed by the specious and fallacious nature of the argument the Prime Minister
[Mr. Woolliams.l
DEBATES	October 4, 1968
used, especially coming from a man credited with taking an intellectual and logical approach to matters under discussion. I was disappointed to see him point to his front benches and then to ours and comment that there were X members absent. Clearly, the point is not the number of members present today, or on any particular day, but the principle which is at stake. I am afraid his use of such a specious argument indicates his lack of appreciation of the functions of parliament, and I echo the words of my hon. friend from Calgary North: there is a difference between parliament and the executive.
Before you rise, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to make a fundamental point, one which those sitting on the back benches opposite should heed. There are two occasions when a backbencher can stand up in this house and confront a minister. One is during the question period, the other is when the estimates of a department are before the house in committee and it is possible to comment on particular points affecting a constituency in the expectation of a reply. I only wish backbenchers across the way would appreciate the fundamental principle involved here. It does not affect the opposition alone.
So far as the efficiency of this house is concerned, how efficient will the house be when I stand up as a backbencher and direct a question to the Minister of Transport which, it turns out, falls within the responsibility of one of his colleagues? We had an instance today. A question was asked of one minister and he replied "No, that is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources." Every day, because of the interlocking of departments, one minister hands over questions to another. The Postmaster General, I suppose, is going to be the minister of communications, of the post office, and perhaps of satellites, but there will be conflict with the Department of Transport.
Instead of an efficient house and a shorter question period this proposal will complicate the problem. The question period has not been the problem in this house during my experience, which is the same in time as that of the Leader of the Opposition, two and a half years. In passing may I say that the class of '65 on the government side has gone ahead a heck of a lot faster than the class of '65 on this side.
So far as efficiency is concerned there are two fundamental points involved. First the question period is one of the few times when
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
a backbencher can confront a minister. The second point concerns efficiency. Under the new system, when a backbencher asks a question we are going to have a parliamentary secretary or the Prime Minister say, "I will take notice of it," and the whole thing will have to be regurgitated next day. The functions of one minister are so interrelated with those of another minister that the whole thing bogs down.
We all understand that on occasion ministers have to be away from the house. We understand that the Prime Minister has to be away. I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking past the lunch hour adjournment time, but in conclusion I point out to the Prime Minister that the principle involved in having only five ministers in the house would be equally valid if there were only one minister in the house, and his argument about efficiency leaves me cold.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Donald MacInnis: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: It is after one o'clock and there can be no further debate.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was about to add to the arguments put forward by hon. members on this side of the house as to why this arbitrary move on the part of the Prime Minister should not be imposed on this house. The Prime Minister has overlooked one very important fact. It is well known that questions asked on orders of the day can only qualify if they are urgent or of national importance.
As I understand the attendance schedule for ministers, the Minister of Transport, for example, might be absent from Thursday until Tuesday. It is well known that acting ministers do nothing more than take questions as notice. Should an urgent question arise on a Thursday that I wish to ask that minister I will not be in a position to do so until he returns to the house, a period of some five days. As a result of this delay the question might no longer be considered and be ruled out of order. Following the five day
DEBATES	807
Inquiries of the Ministry delay the question might not be regarded as acceptable.
The Prime Minister has overlooked a lot of factors in regard to this change in the procedures of the house. It is a well established precedent that I am not allowed to direct a question to a minister about any department other than the department for which he is responsible. It follows that no minister should be allowed to answer questions posed by hon. members unless those questions relate to the department of the minister. If this works one way it must work the other way. If I direct a question to the minister of energy or the minister of health, no other minister should be allowed to answer that question because it does not pertain to his department.
The Prime Minister has referred to the responsibilities of his ministers and has said that they will be absent on certain days. During his remarks this morning he said that ministers may be absent on occasions because of government business. I suggest what this means is that cabinet members will have a three day work week. This is clear from what the Prime Minister has said. He is now trying to arrange a three day work week for his cabinet members.
It would be very enlightening to members of this house to know what the Prime Minister thinks about our rules of procedure. Far be it from me to lecture hon. members about these rules, because everyone knows what I do to them. I am in a position, however, to call to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that he might do a lot of good for himself, the government and this house if he would familiarize himself with the responsibilities of his cabinet members.
This week I posed a question and the Prime Minister stood up and said that the minister of mines would provide an answer. The minister of mines has no jurisdiction whatever in respect of the matter to which I referred. Surely the Prime Minister should ascertain the responsibilities of his various ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am just new. Give me a chance.


Donald MacInnis: After stumbling and fumbling around trying to answer a question I posed, the Prime Minister suggested that another minister would answer the question, although its subject matter did not fall within the purview of responsibility of that minister. I think the Prime Minister should familiarize himself
October 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry with the rules of procedure and the duties of his cabinet ministers before he attempts to impose changes in our long standing procedures.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take a day per week to do so.


Donald MacInnis: At the rate the Prime Minister is going a day per week will not be enough.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then I will take two.


Donald MacInnis: Let me also point out to the Prime Minister that there are other rules with which he should familiarize himself before making changes. On several occasions last week the Prime Minister broke the rules of this house; yet new members are called to task. When the Prime Minister was on his feet earlier today he broke the rules. These rules are not made for the Prime Minister to twist and change to the satisfaction of his cabinet.
The least the Prime Minister can do is familiarize himself with the duties of his colleagues so that when he is asked a question in the absence of any minister he will know which minister to designate to take notice of the question. During the last week I asked two questions of urgency concerning problems in my constituency. The Prime Minister referred me to two different ministers, neither of whom had any responsibility in respect of the problems. I had reference to a specific report and I suppose the ministers responsible were not aware of their responsibility.
This government wants to complete parliamentary business as quickly as possible. The government initiated a study in respect of this Cape Breton problem which was completed on June 25. The report suggested certain legislative measures and the responsible minister has had this report for some days but has not released it. Is there something in the report that the people of Cape Breton should not know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you obeying the rules of relevancy now?


Donald MacInnis: I hardly think that an interjection by the Prime Minister from his seat is in accordance with the rules. Let me say again that the Prime Minister should learn the rules of this house and familiarize himself with our procedures before imposing changes. He should study these long-standing rules before arbitrarily imposing new rules.

If I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question of urgency on a Thursday I will have to wait until perhaps the following Monday to get an answer. As a result of this delay the question, as I have suggested, would no longer be urgent and would be ruled out of order. Any question put to a member of cabinet on a given day must meet the qualifications imposed by Mr. Speaker. Having met those qualifications, we can only get the proper answer if the question is answered on that particular day. This waiting is no good. I think the Prime Minister had better smarten up to the extent of realizing that opposition members are entitled to an answer when a question is asked. The government should not be allowed to sit on questions for four or five days simply because certain ministers do not realize that a particular report is their responsibility.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, if I might have less than three minutes I would like to speak to the question privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River. The Prime Minister, with his impressive background, should realize more than most members that it is often said these days that the executive is exercising more and more power and control over parliament and private members than was the case decades ago, and that relative to other forms of government such as the congressional the power of the executive in our system is perhaps growing too much.
There is one argument which shows there is a redeeming feature about the parliamentary system and affects the relative power of the executive and private members, under our system, unlike any other, there is provision for members of the executive being held to daily account. This is done through the question period, at which time the tradition and practice have been that members of the cabinet present themselves for interrogation and to supply information. It is not just that they are expected to do so; this is an old practice that goes back over the centuries. Just as the right hon. member for Prince Albert indicated earlier today, I think the indication the Prime Minister has given that this practice will be impinged upon simply for the convenience of the executive will be very much to the detriment of parliament as a whole.
The only other point I want to make is that in all this matter a very disappointing role has been played by the President of the Privy
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
Council. He has been holding talks, discussions and negotiations with the house leaders of the other parties and has been soliciting their views and ideas with regard to likely ways in which the rules and procedures of this house could be reformed so as to expedite the passage of the necessary business of the house. But all along he knew that the Prime Minister had in mind making a rather drastic change with respect to cabinet members' attendance in this house.
I suggest that this point bears directly on the whole question of rules of procedure, the function of the opposition, etc. Therefore I think it was certainly unkind of the President of the Privy Council not to let us know that the Prime Minister had this in mind. I suggest that he was bargaining and negotiating in something less than good faith when he did not mention it to the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Has the hon. member inquired from his house leader whether a suggestion of this kind with respect to the question period was in the documents that he saw earlier in the summer?


Edward Richard Schreyer: I will let my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre answer for himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
objected to it at that time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I recall it, you said nothing about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not correct.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the outset that I wished to take only two or three minutes. I believe I have made the two points of my argument, which is what I set out to do.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, one point only comes to my mind in looking over this so-called roster. First, I certainly do not accept the idea, for the reasons that have been put forward by other speakers on this side of the house, that we have to live with this crazy notion for awhile-for how long we do not know.
I should like to ask whether the President of the Privy Council would consider changing Wednesday, the day when all the ministers
DEBATES	809
Inquiries of the Ministry are supposed to be here, to another day of the week when the question period is longer. In other words, if the government is sincere in its desire to assist opposition members, as has been put forward, why is it that the only day of the week all the ministers are to be here is the day on which we have the shortest question period? If we have to live with this plan I suggest that either the question period be lengthened on Wednesday, so we will have a chance to examine all the ministers, or another day of the week should be chosen when the question period is longer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With the indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker, in answer to this question I would be prepared to make it Wednesday and to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already taken part in this debate, but with the unanimous consent of the house he may be allowed to speak to the question a second time. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I accept the offer of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and would be quite agreeable to extending the question period on Wednesday to the full one hour limit, with the question period on Monday, of course, being reduced to 40 minutes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How about having all the cabinet members here on the other days?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Will you attend yourself?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That does not make any difference.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It does not make any difference in your case.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, will you grant me the privilege of asking a question? I did not expect that my simple question on the matter would lead to this debate. In view of the informative discussion that has taken place, which has been noted by the Prime Minister, could I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to reconsider having this system come into effect on Monday? Would the Prime Minister hold it in abeyance for further consideration? In view of the discussion that has taken place, and perhaps in order to bring it to a halt, I ask the Prime Minister to hold in abeyance putting this system into effect on Monday.
October 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give me an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should proceed in an orderly fashion. We will be returning to the question period in a short while. The hon. member may wish to ask his question at that time.


Mr. Skoberg:: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought we had possibly returned to the question period at this time. If we have not returned to the question period and are still in the bulrushes with regard to this question, I should like the privilege of asking a question later.


Mr. Speaker:: As the house knows, we are still on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River.


John Leroy Skoberg: Am I permitted to ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be a disposition to return to the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REQUEST FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of the preceding discussion, not have the system go into effect on Monday next? Would he consult all those who are so interested in this matter and hold it in abeyance? I ask the Prime Minister whether he will agree to this now.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the first time I spoke about this matter was last April. I spoke of it again many times during the election campaign. The President of the Privy Council spoke about it in his discussions with the leaders of the other parties. It should not come as a surprise to hon. members if they followed the election campaign. It is an idea for which I thought we had a mandate from the people. Perhaps we did not. But this is one of our election promises that we feel we should carry out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We all want to make parliament more efficient. I explained to hon.
IMr. Winch.]
members this morning that we are not trying to be doctrinaire about this. We want to be experimental. We beseech the members of the opposition to take a little chance with novelty to see how it works. If it does not work to the greater advantage of parliament, we will go back to our old conservative ways.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he does not think the people of Canada have taken enough chance with novelty already.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question which I should like to address directly to the Prime Minister because it is of concern to members of parliament. Will the Prime Minister not be dictatorial but give us an opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is simply restating the same question with only a slight variation.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I take it we have reverted to questions. I have been trying to ask this question since September 19 and 1 would like to have an answer now because I feel it is urgent. It is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the many complaints made to me by postmasters and postmistresses in rural communities in Newfoundland regarding discriminatory low wages paid to them, some as low as $13 a week for rent and salary, would the minister investigate this serious situation and report his findings to the house as soon as possible?


Hon. Eric Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to investigate the situation. I can report to the house right now in reply to the hon. member's question. As the hon. member knows, we have a number of post offices, to be exact 2,437, which have an annual revenue of less than $445 a year. We place sub-post offices in general stores and pharmacies right across the country.
The salary is related to the number of stamps that are sold or sales that are made. We are actually going through a process of closing a number of these post offices because they are not profitable, as the hon. member has just suggested, either to the person who
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
works there only part time or to the post office which at a cost of $1,100 or $1,200 in some cases may have a revenue from the sale of stamps and unemployment insurance stamps of about $82 to $115. This is the problem. That is about as full a report as I can give. Those people who are getting $13 a week are not full time employees. They are working in a store in some other occupation.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the provisions of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act passed in 1962 commit the minister to present an annual report on the operations of business firms and unions in Canada, can the minister explain why the returns from the trade union section have been submitted on schedule while the last annual returns from the corporations section were for the year 1963?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might put that question on the order paper with profit. This might be a good time to call orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. Before we go on to the orders of the day I wonder whether we could revert to motions for the purpose of making an arrangement for the private members' hour this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, many hon. members have pointed out the fact that since the first item of business today will be a resolution there will be no private members hour this afternoon, as indeed there was none yesterday. I believe, after discussion, that there would be agreement to an order along the following lines. I move:
That if the resolution called as the first order of business be not passed before 5 p.m. today and notwithstanding the provisions of standing order
DEBATES	811
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act 61A, the hour between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. this afternoon be given over to private members business, and that for the purpose of standing order 61A today be considered to be one sitting day under that standing order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to increase to six thousand dollars the maximum amount of advance payment that may be obtained by a producer under that act during a crop year; to increase to twice the present rate the rate at which advance payments are calculated; to permit the calculation of advance payments on grain deliverable under unit quotas, and for other related purposes.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bechard in the chair.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in this house today to speak on a resolution which is of such importance to prairie farmers in particular. The amendments which this resolution proposes are very important at the present time, and I hope that everyone in the house will agree fairly quickly that this is indeed the case.
Perhaps it would be appropriate for me at this stage to touch briefly upon some of the history of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to describe some of its uses in the past. This act was proclaimed on November 25, 1957 and through it cash has been advanced interest free to grain producers in western Canada against the security of threshed farm-stored grain. This has meant that producers have been able to receive cash for their products when there has been a delay in delivering to country elevators. From the time the program began, approximately 21 per cent of the eligible farmers have each year taken advantage of this act. The total cash advances over the nearly 11 year period have amounted to about $450 million. Each year on an average approximately $40 million has been advanced in this fashion.

October 4, 1968
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
In the 1967-68 crop year the total exceeded $47 million in advances to 45,811 producers. The recovery rate has been particularly good over the period this scheme has been in effect. Something in excess of 99.5 per cent of all advances has been recovered. In this scheme the government has borne the interest charges involved, and the total interest to the end of July of 1968 has amounted to $7.5 million. The government's share of default has come to a total of $49,845. Both figures cover the 11 year period during which the act has been in effect.
It is interesting to note that it has been generally the smaller producer who has benefited from the act. In only one year, the last year, has the average advance for all producers exceeded $1,000. In this last year the figure was $1,032.
I would now like to touch briefly on the main features of the proposed amendments to the act. The maximum advance under the act will be increased from $3,000 to $6,000. Comparatively few producers have sufficient acreage to allow them to benefit from this increase alone, and to ensure that the smaller producers will benefit from the act the rate of advance per bushel is to be dealt with. This will change the present rates so that in place of 50 cents per bushel for wheat an advance of $1 per bushel will be available. For oats, the figure of 20 cents will be changed to 40 cents per bushel, and for barley 35 cents will become 70 cents. With these new rates, these producers will be able to obtain double the amount they could have obtained under the existing act.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In a subsidiary change, exceptions relating to the unit quota or the initial quota will be removed from the act. The unit quota, of course, allows each producer, regardless of his acreage, to make a specific initial delivery of grain. In the existing act, grain which a farmer has on hand to fill his unit quota is not counted in determining his eligibility for an advance. In the new act, the distinction between unit and regular quotas will be removed. Because no change is contemplated in the schedule for repayment of advances, the burden of repayment relative to the advance will be lessened. For various reasons, the unit delivery will also then be counted for repayment purposes, as it is for eligibility. I think this is a most important point, that there is no change in the schedule for repayment, and I emphasize it even though it is clearly not an amendment to the act. Because 
of the increase in advances, the lack of any change in the repayment schedule will be of distinct advantage to the producer.
I want to assure hon. members that in the proposed amendments there will be provision for those producers who may already have applied for an advance in this crop year. These producers will be able to apply for additional advances which will put them in the same position as a fellow producer who has not yet made use of the act. Other amendments of a more routine nature will not be enlarged upon by me here. Of course, there will be opportunities to discuss them at a later stage. They are generally designed to facilitate administration of the act in the circumstances of the larger advances which I have described.
The Canadian Wheat Board administers this act on behalf of the government and the elevator companies and their agents extend the advances to the individual producers on application. The act has functioned very well these past years. I want to express the appreciation of the government to the Canadian Wheat Board and to the various elevator companies for the effective manner in which this act has been administered.
The grain producers, too, deserve credit for their co-operation and a particular word of praise for their repayment record. This does not surprise those of us who know the character of the Canadian farmer, but I draw it to the attention of less fortunate members. I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to the approval of these amendments so that this act, so important to the farmers, can be brought more into line with present conditions.


Robert Norman Thompson: have a question for the minister. I did not quite understand the implication of his reference to the initial delivery quota and repayment. Would he clarify that a little? I am referring to the units.


Otto Emil Lang: In the
existing act, as the hon. member no doubt knows, the unit quota is not taken into consideration in deciding the eligibility of a farmer, nor is it taken into consideration at the time of repayment. Under the proposed amendments, any grain which a farmer may have on hand at the beginning of the crop year, or any grain he may have on hand, is counted in determining his eligibility. The amount which he may deliver on his unit quota will not be subtracted in the future from the amount of grain he has on hand, as is the case at the moment.
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
Hon. members will appreciate that this may be particularly useful to farmers if delivery is indeed very slow at the beginning of the crop year. Once the unit has been treated in this way for this purpose, then according to the same logic it is treated in the same way later in the year for repayment of the advance. So it is taken into account at that time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, in rising to say a few words at the resolution stage of this cash advance legislation, I cannot help but note the minister's closing words. He said that these amendments would update the legislation and keep it in step with conditions. It is sad that western farmers have to have this legislation to double the advances that may be made. It is known, of course, that their costs have doubled. It is a sad thing, really, that very little has been done about this, but the farmer will be given a larger cash advance on his grain. It is a sad thing that something more has not been done to help reduce the costs or alleviate the load these costs impose on the farmer.
I cannot help but think back to the introduction of this act in 1957. We western farmers argued for something like this as far back as the fifties. The former deputy minister of trade and commerce said it could not be done; it would be impossible to administer. The statement of the deputy minister of that day is in line with the statement the Minister of Agriculture made today when he told the corn farmers of southern Ontario it was impossible to bring their product under the stabilization measure. As I say, the deputy minister of trade and commerce said at that time it was impossible to administer legislation of this type, but 11 years later the measure has been proven to be feasible.
I am glad that the present minister of external affairs, who at that time was deputy minister of trade and commerce, does not have to come before parliament as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is doing now and ask that this measure be approved. I am sure that would be a little too embarrassing for him.
There are some aspects of this measure which have not worked too smoothly. The minister did not refer to them, so I should like to bring them to his attention so that consideration can be given to them before the bill is introduced.
First, I should like to ask him if the elevator companies have been consulted with regard to the higher cash advances that will be paid? Are they in agreement with this
DEBATES	813
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act idea? Second, it has become standard practice that a farmer can only have a cash advance once during a crop year. If a farmer has grain in storage, takes a cash advance on farm stored grain and then delivers grain to pay off that cash advance, even though he may have more grain on his farm he is prevented, for some reason or other, from taking another cash advance. I see no reason for this. If a farmer has paid off one cash advance why can he not take another? I should like the minister to consider this question because I think that provision has handicapped a number of farmers.
Another problem is related to the taking of cash advances on grain grown on rented or leased land. This has caused a great deal of trouble because in many cases the owner of the land is many miles away from the farm and it is very difficult to get his signature to a document granting permission for the farmer to sell the grain or take a cash advance on it. In my opinion the wheat board, the elevator companies and the government could work out a system whereby cash advances could be made on the farmer's share of the grain grown on rented land. I should like the minister to get together with representatives of the elevator companies to try to work out something along this line.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I should also like to say a few words about the farmers' ability to repay. If this resolution is accepted in its present form and the farmer may borrow up to $1 per bushel on his stored grain, then the very minute he delivers his wheat to the elevator company he has to pay back the advance he has received. If he is receiving at the delivery point only $1.50 a bushel, or $1.37 for No. 3 or $1.40, depending on where the delivery is made, and he has to deduct $1 a bushel for his cash advance, he will become more and more hesitant to deliver any grain. Therefore the payment will not necessarily be any great boost to the agricultural community.
I suggest that basically what the government should do is to allow the farmers to deliver their wheat as soon as possible, ensuring that there is a greater degree of even distribution throughout the prairie provinces. In the past couple of years there has been a great deal of difficulty in marketing grain, on one occasion because the railroads were reluctant to handle grain and wanted to haul potash instead. We have also seen in the past great interest on the part of the grain companies in storing low grades of wheat at the
October 4, 1968

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act Lakehead, which has caused some points to have more storage space at the end of the year than others.
I want to leave this point with the minister. This legislation is not necessarily going to solve all our marketing problems. The government is going to advance to farmers another 50 cents per bushel on their own wheat, but this does not free the government from the responsibility of marketing wheat. I urge the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get together and establish an objective for this year as to the amount of wheat they are going to sell abroad. This will instil greater confidence in the agricultural industry on the prairies in the ability of the government to market wheat.
Last year the farmers had a very poor delivery quota, the maximum being something like six bushels an acre. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that you cannot make a living growing wheat when you are allowed to sell only six bushels an acre, because it may cost as much as $2 an acre to spray for wild oats. It may also cost $1 an acre for fertilizer. Then there are all the other expenses, such as seeding and combining the grain. It costs over $3 an acre to combine grain, so how can a farmer operate with a six bushel quota?
The cash advance that is given to the farmer on his grain he has to repay eventually. The only way he can do this is to deliver his wheat, and he cannot deliver his wheat unless he has a sufficient quota and there is storage space at the elevator. If you follow the chain of reasoning, Mr. Chairman, it all goes back to the question of export sales.
It is interesting to note that about three weeks ago the United States government told U.S. farmers that they plan to export this year 750 million bushels. That is to be their target. Last year that was their target and in fact they exceeded it. This government has not got the intestinal fortitude, the confidence in itself or the initiative to say to the western farmers: We are with you; we will do our utmost to sell 450 million bushels of wheat this year. That is what the government should say. It is the duty of the government to give the farmers some hope of paying back the cash advances they will receive under this piece of legislation, instead of sitting on their hands with their mouths closed and saying that in three or even ten years perhaps they can sell a lot of grain.
[Mr. Horner.l
Under the cash advance legislation these loans have to be repaid in the year that the grain is delivered. Therefore I urge the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Trade and Commerce not to rest on their laurels because they are giving the farmers 50 cents more a bushel cash by way of advance. As I say, the farmer has to repay this sum when he delivers his grain. I urge these two ministers to go out and sell wheat and thus restore the confidence of the wheat growing industry of western Canada. This very industry has in the last five or six years bailed out the Canadian government from a lot of financial problems. Particularly during the last three or four years, our balance of payments problem was greatly relieved when Canadian exports of grain, mainly wheat, were stepped up to quite a large extent.
Therefore I leave with the minister this urgent plea. Let the government not be satisfied with a six bushel quota, as it was last year when the grain marketing year closed on July 31 last. Let the government tell the farmers that it will do its utmost to see that the quota is increased to at least eight, nine or possibly ten bushels. This is what the farmers want to hear and it will restore the confidence and way of life of this industry. I urge both ministers to restore that confidence because it is badly needed in this very important segment of our economy today.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will work at it seven days a week.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The farmer has to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, so why not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what we are doing.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, I have been long enough acquainted with the irrepressible member for Crowfoot to know that he has to have the last word. I certainly agree with the Minister without Portfolio that the proposal to increase the cash advance this year is in line with existing conditions under which grain is piling up on the prairies. Our farmers were short of cash before they went into this harvest season, let alone what their circumstances will be afterwards. Their situation has been complicated, of course, by bad weather. However, farmers have learned to live with different kinds of weather. If one were not prepared to suffer the consequences of weather, one would very soon cease to farm. The fact is that it is not so much the weather as the economic situation brought about by the present government and its administrative
October 4, 1968

policies which has caused the real difficulty for the fanners at this time.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The availability of farm credit should help to solve the farmers' difficulties, and the government has made a fair start in this legislation. Practically all the farm legislation we are considering at the moment is legislation having to do with credit, and the current piece of legislation we are now considering will be of advantage to our farmers. The money to be paid under this legislation does not bear interest and will not increase the cost of carrying a debt load. The farmer will still have that load but the cost of carrying it will not be increased.
All the same, this measure is strictly a temporary one. Any money the farmer borrows he must pay back as he delivers wheat and this, of course, brings us to the central question of our ability to market and sell his product. The wheat carryover this year is the highest since 1957, the year in which cash advances were initiated. It now stands at 733 million bushels of wheat.
The situation was aggravated to a considerable extent by the grain handlers' strike which tied up deliveries. The strike was allowed to go on far too long; fortunately it was settled eventually. The strike aggravated the problems inherent in slow marketing. At the same time, despite suggestions and requests made to the government the farmers will not be assisted in the building of grain storage facilities to handle the present crop. Instead, farmers will be forced to spend their own money or to borrow additional money in order to store grain. One may be sure that with a 733 million bushel carryover, a great deal of grain remains on farms.
If you go to my area of Saskatchewan and down the road to the east from my farm you will find a man who farms a section of 640 acres. This crop year all his granaries, with the exception of one small one, were filled with wheat. At another place farther down the road is another man who farms a section and a half, 960 acres. That man has grain from the previous year sitting in temporary storage. There is not point in mentioning names, but if you travel about the district you will find, a similar situation prevailing generally. These farmers are not large farmers when one compares them with others in western and central Saskatchewan but they must go out and buy granaries to store their grain, as I must. Out of our resources, out of
DEBATES	815
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act our savings, we must draw money to build storage facilities. This money is dead money; it is lost money because the storage bins are of value only for the storage of grain which cannot be sold. If anyone on the government side has the idea that the wheat economy of Saskatchewan can or will operate on a six bushel quota, he had better disabuse himself of this idea because it will not.
The corn growers came to stand in front of the parliament buildings in Ottawa. I tell you, sir, that if it were not for all the rock, bush, and water in the pre-Cambrian shield between here and Winnipeg, you would see just as many farmers from Saskatchewan driving their tractors here and standing on the front lawn.
I wish to impress on the house that this is a temporary piece of legislation; it solves the problem temporarily. I hope no one is lulled into the idea that our problems have been met and resolved. I do not blame the government for our slow wheat trade on the international market. Anyone can read the figures. I do, however, criticize the government for restricting some imports, and in this connection I shall mention an example. We restrict imports from Singapore. I read a press report saying that customs officials had put pressure on Singapore traders to force them to put "voluntary quotas on exports of cotton shirts and trousers," no doubt to protect the textile industry in Canada. That was the sort of method we used with the Japanese for years. The restrictions are not really voluntary. The quota on Japanese colour television sets has been cut back recently in order to allow the industry in Canada to compete effectively.
Sir, Japan is just behind England in being one of the largest buyers of Canadian wheat. Is this our way of increasing wheat sales? Is this how we want to encourage our wheat to move into the markets of the world? That sort of thing violates the spirit and the intention of some of our trade agreements. Is this the new look of the new society or is it simply the old protectionism of the thirties being updated and made to fit conditions in the 1960's. If we want to sell grain or other products we must make progress in the trade negotiations which have been going on.
Western farmers viewed with uneasiness the end of the international wheat agreement. The new international grains agreement still has to prove itself as being a workable instrument. Before the agreement came fully into force we saw what happened last year. The United States and two or three other competitors slashed prices, and it fell to us in Canada
October 4, 1968

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to bear the brunt of maintaining the existing price structure until the grains agreement could be signed. The western farmer paid the shot.
From my observation, I do not think any great progress was made in the GATT negotiations in breaking down barriers for agricultural products. I base my opinion on the observation that the restrictions on agricultural products entering the European Common Market remained practically the same as they were before. In the European Common Market agricultural products are subsidized and the market is protected against Canadian farm products. Our best chance at the moment appears to be in the Asian markets. I notice that the Australians have developed a brand new product for sale to the Indonesian market; they call it Rycena. Perhaps we should be doing more along these lines. I doubt whether we are moving fast enough at present.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
During the election campaign we heard about a proposal to recognize the People's Republic of China-I think that is the proper designation. This is what the grain growers out west, where I live, were told. However, now that the government is in office, I do not read in the press these days of any great haste about doing this. If anything is being done I shall be pleased to hear so. It is to this area we must look for the increased markets we need.
We are told by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that we are to have a new national grains council, whatever that may be. I have seen press releases about it. The other day I asked the minister whether he would table the terms of reference and explain the purpose of the council, as well as give us the names of those who were to become members. As I read his reply in Hansard I understand he is ready to table the names of the members after they have been appointed. There is no mention of his attitude toward making known the terms of reference. I think it is important we should know the purpose of this proposed council and its terms of reference. In short, we should be told what it is for.
Over the years, indeed, practically speaking, during my lifetime, we have built up grain marketing machinery in western Canada largely as the result of the efforts of the farmers who live there and produce the grain. We have built the kind of marketing machinery which we thought was best suited to do
[Mr. Gleave.l
the job. We had a fair amount of trouble while doing so and we encountered some rough experiences. But out of it all we emerged with the Canadian Wheat Board, a staff who knew how to run it, the Board of Grain Commissioners, capable of controlling and overseeing the grain trade, and under them a staff of technical people well versed in the technical aspects of wheat marketing. More to the point, they are capable of handling wheat and grading it. Over the years we built up this system.
Within the Canadian Wheat Board we developed a staff with the knowledge and ability to sell wheat-and I know whereof I speak because I have sat with them overseas during two international negotiations. Certainly you cannot find more able men. We have people in the experimental service who know how to breed wheat and develop it. I wish we had more. I wish governments in the past had seen fit to provide money so that we did have more. No new variety of grain is approved unless these experimental people approve it and unless the Board of Grain Commissioners and the western grains standards committee give it approval. So if the sale of wheat is to be an imaginative, onward going process, there are already people with the brains and skill to do the job.
Now we are to have a national grains council. According to the last report I read, they are to meet in Winnipeg and consider then-terms of reference. These could be wide. If those terms of reference include wheat selling, pricing and so on, does the government intend to listen to the advice of the proposed national grains council or of the Canadian Wheat Board? Surely the time has come when the Minister of Trade and Commerce should answer fully the question I put to him in this house and tell us what the purpose of this grains council is to be. Like the trade policy of the government, like the foreign policy of the government, this will affect our well-being as wheat growers. Unless we do better than we have been doing, next year perhaps the Minister without Portfolio will be offering us loans of twice $6,000, that is $12,000. They have already gone up from three to six. Unless a better job is done he will be back with a worse problem next year, no doubt about it.
The farmers offered at one time to put up their own money for wheat utilization. The offer was not accepted, and I do not know why. In my experience in farm organization I do not recall many occasions when all the
October 4, 19B8	COMMONS
unions and federations of agriculture in western Canada were completely agreed on one thing. On that occasion they were, but the offer was not accepted. What we really need are trained, expert people, men who are trained in our experimental and research systems, trained in the Wheat Board's selling techniques, equipped with the technical know-how which lies at the core of the Board of Grain Commissioners operations and which has always been available to government. If we marshal this skill and experience we will make progress. We do not need a lot more opinions. What we do need now is a fair bit of action.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this occasion. First of all I want to congratulate my neighbour from the constituency to the west of my own upon having been appointed Minister without Portfolio, and upon having the opportunity to introduce legislation of this type. During the ten years that I have represented the people of my constituency I have recommended to them that they make the maximum use of this legislation. I have told them they should take advantage of the fact that the government of this country had faith in them and believed their grain would eventually be sold. This was primarily the thinking of the government in 1957 when it introduced the cash advance legislation. Up until the time that the Conservative government took office the attitude of the preceding government had been that it had no faith in the farmers' ability to sell their grain, and it did not believe cash advances should be paid to farmers for grain stored on their farms.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is interesting to see the transformation over the years. I know the minister was quite sincere in his pleasure when introducing this legislation at this time. I note that over the last 11 years it has cost the treasury something like $7J million in order that farmers may derive benefit from this legislation, and not only the farmers but all business enterprises right down the line. Up until the time cash advance legislation was introduced, business was at a virtual standstill until some grain was moved. It came to the point that grain could not be moved off the farms until January, by which time the roads were blocked. It was impossible for farmers to get to the bins without a vast expenditure on snow plowing. The result was that many farmers were practically on a starvation diet
DEBATES	817
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act all winter. All that changed following the introduction of cash advance legislation.
I can remember the days when long lines of trucks were hauled by horses, carrying heavy loads that made the horses almost double up by the time they reached an elevator. Sweating horses stood for three quarters of a day waiting for the trucks to be discharged at an elevator. Those days are gone, and it is a good thing that they are.
I have taken advantage of the cash advance legislation in the years that I have farmed. In my own farming operation I know that property taxes have increased again this year. Fertilizers are more expensive. Labour costs are greater. Now the government is introducing legislation that will raise interest charges. Inflated land prices have resulted in greater costs every year. Machinery costs have gone up, and each year the annual trek to the bank has become a little harder.
Losses on sales of grain have played havoc with the farmers' income. This year we have poor quality grain. I understand that the crop in the southern part of my area was frozen this year, and that, as a result, returns on it will not be too high. In fact I know that a lot of the grain will be sold as feed. The amount of money a farmer will receive for a bushel of wheat will be just slightly over $1.
As a result, and even though cash advances will be available, the farmer will be somewhat reluctant to take advantage of this legislation because he knows that when he delivers his wheat to an elevator he will not receive a very big cheque for it. The farmer always worries what he will do when the time comes that he has no grain to sell and he has no further source of income.
According to the statistics that I have before me, grain sales last year were 180 million bushels lower than the previous year. It is interesting to recall that when cash advance legislation was being advocated the suggestion was made that the Wheat Board would resign. But experience over the years since then has shown that this legislation, instead of making things more difficult for the Wheat Board, has enhanced its position. It has not been subjected to the same type of pressure from farm groups, and people interested in the marketing business, to move all the grain immediately. As a result the Wheat Board has gone about its business of obtaining markets as efficiently as possible. In fact cash advance legislation has left the road clear for the board to operate as efficiently as it sees fit.
818	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
I see that one of the amendments the minister has indicated he will introduce will raise the advance to $1. This was one of the suggestions my party advocated during the last election campaign. The Liberal party was somewhat reluctant to accept it, but now I am glad to see that party has adopted it. Next year we hope that our crops will not be as inferior as they are this year, with the result that once more the situation will improve.
The hon. member for Crowfoot has suggested that when a farmer takes a partial advance and has repaid it he should be able to obtain a second advance. This would be in the case of a farmer not taking the maximum amount of $6,000, and having the necessary grain. In such event he should not be restricted to one loan.
There may be good reasons why a farmer will be hesitant to take the maximum loan. First of all, farmers want to be able to repay everything they owe. They do not want to be so close to the line that they will be in default. Second, a farmer may be reluctant to obtain the maximum amount, because when he delivers a load of grain to an elevator he does not want half of his cheque sliced immediately to repay his loan. A farmer may require just enough to tide him over until January 1. Then comes another year for income tax purposes, and he may need money immediately after January 1.
Further, if a farmer were allowed to obtain a partial advance initially, the amount that would be charged to the treasury by way of payment on interest would be lighter. Then the farmer could obtain a second advance at a later date. For these reasons I suggest that the minister should consider the possibility of making provision for at least two, or if necessary three partial advances. Such a step might be cheaper in cost to the treasury.
Another matter I wish to mention is that of absentee landlords. In some cases these landlords are even out of the country, while in others they are far away from the area in which they own land. I know the difficulty involved here. In conjunction with the rest of my operation I work my brother's land. Sometimes it is impossible to contact him, yet on occasion we may require a cash advance. If for example the total cash advance allotment were $6,000, and if the landlord's share were $1,000, then I should be granted $5,000 provided I sign a statement. Second, the permit book should be arranged so that in a year that land is being summerfallowed a statement could be signed by the landlord or

DEBATES	October 4, 1968
renter to the effect that there would be no share coming due to the landlord.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
These questions have been asked many times over the years. Many farmers find themselves in the position that they would forget about a cash advance rather than go to the trouble of finding the landlord. We should make it possible for as many farmers as possible to get cash advances if they require them.
I should like to refer to one other aspect regarding the need for cash advances. There has been a tremendous drop in grain sales. As I pointed out the other day in this house, we have been told that one of the reasons grain sales had decreased was related to our high quality grain. We know this year that we will have sufficient quantities of low quality grain. Why have we not had an announcement of an increase in sales? What excuse does this government intend to give for failing to make such an announcement. We certainly have no shortage of low quality grain, so why is there a delay in finding markets?
We are always very conscious about creating savings for our farm community. It seems to me that a savings could be created by extending the use of Churchill for the shipment of grain. The minister is a strong advocate of the use of this port, and I am sure the farmers would be able to save money in this way.
I was interested the other day to hear the minister say, in replying to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, that a study was being conducted regarding the possible extension of the use of the port at Churchill. I asked today whether this was an interdepartmental study. Very often such studies are secret and one is never aware of the results. What has happened in the past is that interdepartmental studies are used to maintain the status quo and support what the government has been doing. What I am attempting to suggest now is that a commission should be set up to which all interested parties could make representation. It should hold public hearings to discuss why greater use is not being made of this port. Perhaps the reason relates to high interest rates, and if this could be determined perhaps a solution could be found. In any event the results of these studies should be brought out in the open so that we may all know what the trouble is. Surely there must be a solution, and various organizations such as the Hudson Bay Route Association have been hammering at this idea for a long time.
October 4, 1968

I am sure these organizations will be reasonable if a proper explanation is given, but they are not satisfied with this under-the-table and behind-the-curtain action.
I asked the Minister of Transport today whether there was going to be a report released on the study that has taken place, but he did not know. Not long ago he said, with a swelled chest, that this was one of the fine things this government was doing. Today he said he was not sure the results would be made public. Perhaps he has read the results and does not want to make them known.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister said that one of the objects of his government was to sell wheat. He referred to an estimate that over a period of three years we would sell 1,300,000,000 bushels of wheat.
I hope the government will show some leadership in this regard. Whether things will change as a result of the establishment of a grain council, I do not know. I am not sure that this council will do any more than has been done by the Wheat Board or the Department of Trade and Commerce. Perhaps we will see some results, but what can the grain council do that is not being done by the Wheat Board? What authority, power and management will that council have? I suspect it is a haven for has-beens. I suspect that this grain council has been established for the benefit of unsuccessful Liberal candidates and defeated Liberal members of parliament. If this is all window dressing, then we should know.
There has been a decrease in the total cash receipts, and according to the D.B.S. figures the decrease was due to a decrease in the sale of wheat on credit. On the other hand we read headlines in Canadian newspapers that Canada bread has hit an all time high. It is not easy to understand why bread has gone up two cents a loaf. There has been a suggestion made that the price of bread increase by two cents a loaf and that the domestic price for wheat should increase by $1. Perhaps it is time to put a task force to work to study this question.
Often we have heard the statement that the price of wheat should not be increased because the poor people who have children will suffer. This is a typical excuse. Let me make an alternative suggestion. If we are concerned about the situation, we can help these people with children by increasing the family allowance. Perhaps this would solve both problems. They would welcome the increase and they would be in a position to purchase more.
DEBATES	819
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Let me conclude by congratulating the minister. I hope there will be more farm legislation introduced in this house to the benefit of the farm community. We do not want more demonstrations like the one we witnessed this morning, but perhaps this is a time of protest and demonstration. I hope the government will introduce other legislation of the type we have before us today. I strongly recommend the adoption of this measure and I am happy the minister has had this opportunity to introduce it.


Mr. Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a moment or two about this measure. If I were the new Minister of Agriculture introducing my first bill in this house I would introduce a bill similar to this, because it really does not encourage a great deal of controversy. Let me say about this measure what I said about a similar one the other day, that by increasing the amount of loans to $6,000 the government seems to be emphasizing that the agriculture industry, particularly in western Canada, is now a commercial as opposed to a subsistence operation. This seems to be the view the government now takes: It is considering agriculture as a commercial operation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If this is the case, the government should recognize some other factors. They should recognize that this is a very competitive business, if we are now considering it in the business sense; that margins are narrow, good management is necessary, and volume is essential. Naturally, to have volume we must have sales. I would like to make a suggestion about a change in the act. I understand that in the old act there is a limit on borrowing. You can borrow only up to a six bushel quota. I wonder whether this might not be raised to an eight bushel quota. I believe this would be more realistic, in view of the costs involved in prairie agriculture today.
The government may very well say we will have trouble getting rid of six bushels, and this may be true. But if government money is invested in wheat it would take a load off the shoulders of the farmer and improve farm economy. It would assist the farmer and those depending on him, and it would tie up some government money in wheat, which would give the government a more direct interest in selling wheat. It would perhaps encourage them to hurry sales along.
The hon. member for Mackenzie, and I believe also the hon. member for Crowfoot,
October 4, 1968

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act suggested that the loans might be split into two. I do not know that I am particularly-opposed to this suggestion, but I wonder whether we should arrange our legislation so that farmers can avoid paying income tax.
I point out that those who take the advance, and particularly those who take it all in one lump sum this year, need to be careful. If they had a large grain payment last spring, have sold their six bushels and now get a $6,000 advance, it may present them with quite a problem in that next spring there will be no payment, or a small payment, on the grain. They will have 50 cents a bushel less on grain delivered next year, and they may have to pay some income tax. Taking this amount of money in one lump sum would present problems next spring. Farmers must take care and manage their businesses with a good deal of consideration. In the long run I think this program will work itself out, but to start with I would recommend that farmers be careful.
I would like to emphasize the short term nature of such an advance. If I as a farmer borrow money today, I have to pay it back by July of next year and perhaps I have sold no wheat in the meantime. It is a short term type of thing. It is a good thing as far as it goes, but it does not really do anything to solve the over-all problem. I noticed when checking the figures that the cash advanced in the past has gone from a high of 76,000 farmers one year to a low of 22,000 farmers in another year, and approximately 25 per cent of the farmers have taken advantage of the program.
I suggest that if sales had been larger there would have been less need for this change in the act. If markets had not been lost last year, this problem would not have arisen. However, due to the lack of activity of the government, or their turtle motion, last year we lost markets that should have been ours. The Canadian government should pay attention to what the United States and France are doing, to what the big kids are doing. We were left out in the cold when we woke up to the fact that these people were taking our markets away again. It might be said that this is in the past, but I suggest that we still have the wheat and the problems are still with our farmers.
In this connection I think of an advertisement put out by one of the car companies, "We have to try harder because we are only No. 2." I suggest to the government, and in particular to the Department of Trade and

Commerce, that we are less thcin No. 2; we are down to about No. 3 or No. 4 and it is high time they woke up and paid attention to what is happening in this area.
I should like to suggest that the government pay serious attention to these problems. We have all this wheat and the problems are with us. The government should consider the problem as being here. We might start, for example, by offering long term credit to countries who need grain or flour. When I say long term, I mean at least five years. It could be more for some countries. We might consider taking soft currency, which is of course in the form of a loan. We might consider changing our trade policies even if we have to accept some element of bartering. This question has been discussed in the prairies for a considerable length of time. It was mentioned in part by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, but I should like to deal with it by giving this illustration.
Since coming to Ottawa I have been renting a television set. Looking at colour television sets, I went into a store which was having a sale, and the fellow in the store was anxious to sell me a set. I asked him, "Where was this television set made?" and he replied "This was made in Chicago." I have nothing against the people of Chicago, and nothing against television sets, but I do object to mortgaging a piece of the country by buying an American TV set when I have wheat which I cannot sell on my farm because Japan cannot export their television sets. This does not seem reasonable to me and I think it is high time we took a different look at our trade policies. We might invite other countries, Japan in particular, to carry out some industrial construction here. With their brains and ingenuity they could do this and it might pay for some of the things they purchase from us, particularly grain.
I should like to make a brief comment about the grains council, although I am not yet sure of its intent, its construction or what it is to do. I suggest, however, that if it is another idea group-and I have nothing against ideas-an intellectual group solving a problem is no good unless you have a man of action. I suggest to the Minister without Portfolio that it is high time he and the government were prepared to take some action with respect to whatever ideas might be put forward.
There is a story told about an old farmer who was informed by an agricultural
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
representative that he should take an extension course to improve his method of farming. The old farmer replied, "There is no point in my taking this course because I am not farming as well as I know how now." This is my opinion with regard to the trade policies of the government and their selling of wheat; I do not think they are doing as well as they know how now.


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldl):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank hon. members for their comments and questions in connection with the resolution before us. I see that there is, as I had expected, general agreement about the purport of the resolution, but I should like to deal with several of the questions which have been raised. In a general way I say first of all that I would like to assure the hon. member for Crowfoot and other hon. members about the conscientious nature of the minister with whom I have the honour to be associated in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I pledge on my own behalf a bit of conscience, and indicate to hon. members that we recognize that today's changes are by no means the whole solution, nor do we put them forward in any way as the whole solution to our agriculture problems.
Let me say to hon. members that we are determined to put forth every effort in connection with sales, and that we quite appreciate how important this is in terms of the present prairie conditions. We will look at every avenue to obtain this objective, and I appreciate the advice of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley in this regard. It was stated by the present government during the course of the recent election campaign that greater use of credit would be one of the means used to assure better sales of wheat. We are legislating on one today. I think every suggestion put forward is worth examining closely.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
With regard to some specific points raised,
I would like to say first that I am not sure the hon. member for Crowfoot understood my comment about repayment, and that the repayment schedule will in fact remain unchanged in the new legislation. This means that it will continue to be 50 per cent of the initial price, rather than the one dollar which I thought he referred to.
Some hon. members have commented on the advantage to the farmer of being able to make more than one application. Serious thought was given to this whole question. It
DEBATES	821
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act would be much more difficult administratively to adopt this procedure. I think here the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley put the matter quite well. The hon. member for Mackenzie suggested it was obvious that having only one application was apt to be a greater charge on the treasury than having two. The truth is that, even though that is true, it will be considered more economical to have the larger advances on the basis of one application than to have two applications and the administrative difficulties that are involved. We must be particularly careful that people who are not most in need of advances might conceivably use it for objectives which are not envisaged by the legislation if two applications are involved. This is what I think the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley has referred to in discussing the income tax position and the difficulties that might be involved there.
We also took a hard look at the difficulties producers have when they are renting land, because of the requirement that the landlord's signature be a part of the application. There seemed to be no legal way out of this dilemma, in view of the provincial law which applies in most cases and which in most cases makes the grain a part of the property of the landlord jointly with the tenant. It would really require a change in that provincial law before a change in the present federal legislation could be made. I do not want to give offhand legal advice in this respect, but it may well be possible for tenants to obtain appropriate consents in leases to deal with this matter in the future if they were so advised.
I think those were the main matters which were germane to the resolution before us. A number of references were made to the grains council and its implications for the future. I may simply say, because these matters were raised, that it seems to me there is adequate room for a grains council, even for some of the purposes to which hon. members opposite referred, such as the whole question of research, and the question of making the best use of the best means of transportation, which are matters related to the sale of grain but are not entirely within the scope of the Wheat Board as presently constituted.
Finally, what has been said frequently before, may I emphasize again, that nothing that is done in favour of a grains council is intended to interfere with or impair in any way the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, which has had such a successful history.
October 4, 1968

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three points which I should like to make with regard to this resolution, one of which I do not believe has been put forward. First, however, I wish to add my congratulations to those expressed by the hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley to the Minister without Portfolio upon bringing in such a good measure. It certainly merits support from all sides of this house.
I should like to say, in recalling the history of the great battle for cash advances which began in 1949 and took until 1957, that it is rewarding and satisfying to a number of hon. members to welcome the conversion of many people on the other side of the house. I would also like to say that I hope this will destroy the myth which was perpetrated in those days, and for the first year or two after cash advances were put into effect, that you could not trust the farmers, that if you paid them for some of the wheat which was in their granaries there was danger they might default on hauling to the grain elevators. The fact is that out of $450 million advanced in 11 years something in the neighbourhood of $45,000 was all that was short in terms of repayment. I submit that this record is unequalled in any section of our economy in the dealings of the people with their own government. People in the farm industry have always enjoyed a good reputation, and now they have established this good record which I think probably some other segments of our society could emulate.
One thing which I would hope all hon. members in all parties from areas other than the prairie provinces would tell the people in their respective constituencies is that cash advances on farmers' grain is not a subsidy or a gift. In too many urban centres, even in the odd place in the prairies and certainly in other parts of Canada, some people believe or have been given to understand that this is some sort of gift or subsidy to the agricultural industry. It most certainly is not. All it represents is an advance on the farmers' wages and earnings. No one in any other occupation would agree to receiving his pay once, twice or three times a year. I am sure that if members of this house were to get their indemnity cheques at Christmastime, next spring and when the house adjourned for the summer holidays, they would object loudly and would not stand for it.
Prior to the time of cash advances farmers had to put up with a lack of funds. This is not a subsidy, they are just getting what is rightly their due for their production. This 
provides them with an opportunity to get an advance, and when they finally deliver the wheat they receive the balance of the money that is due them after the cash advance has been deducted. As long as export grain sales are inadequate, as long as storage facilities both in the country and at the terminals are congested, and as long as railroads do not provide adequate rolling stock when there is space for grain movement, cash advances will be necessary under the law.
May I add to the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie in support of the greater use of the Hudson Bay route to the port of Churchill, that although his party had the unique opportunity of being the government of this country for six years and had the chance to implement the vision and use its imagination to really do something there, it passed up that chance. I do not think there is anyone in any political party in the three prairie provinces who does not favour and support the greater use of the Hudson Bay route.
It seems to me that here again is a matter which requires from a government, vision, imagination and courage the like of which no national government has yet shown. It will require a new roadbed, double tracking, centralized traffic control systems, new terminal elevators, one or two atomic powered icebreakers, and a huge increase in the capacity of the terminal space at Churchill. It may also mean that the federal government will have to get into the marine insurance field, if that is the only thing that is holding us up from getting larger exports out of the port of Churchill. It will mean building a city and putting the city under a roof, if necessary. This is the kind of imagination and effort that is going to be required if we are going to make use of the northern resource facilities that are there.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in its drive for justice and in its expressed agreement with the new politics, however that is interpreted, the government will give consideration to these things. They may sound like dreams or visions, but it seems to me these are the kinds of things that lead to great achievements. I hope that all members here will give consideration to this kind of imaginative proposal. I hope members on the government side will put pressure on the government to help support these measures. I know that I, personally, and the members of my party wholeheartedly support this resolution. I want to compliment the minister on being the one
October 4, 1968

who introduced it, and let us hope that before too many years have passed the export of grain has so improved that cash advances will no longer be needed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to direct a question to the minister. Did I hear him correctly that repayments would be at the rate of 50 per cent of the price of the grain? Supposing a farmer is selling his grain at $1.37, say it is No. 3 at the delivery point, he would only have 50 per cent deducted to pay back the cash advance? Am I clear about that?


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is right; there is no change in the act in this regard at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he borrows on grain at a dollar a bushel, he is going to have to have a surplus in order to make up the difference. If he sells grain at $1.37 a bushel and the rate of repayment is 70 cents per bushel or less, then he is not going to be able to take full advantage of the dollar per bushel cash advance because he would have to have a surplus in order to qualify at that rate of repayment. Either that, or the government or the elevator company will be out money.


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. member has put his finger on a point of real advantage to the farmer under the new proposal. In any year in which deliveries were low, there would not be repayment but he would be carrying it all over for the new year. I think this is an advantage under the new act, but I think that advantage will become clearer when the bill is before the hon. member. However, I will be glad to discuss the point during the clause by clause discussion.


Richard Russell Southam: I would be remiss in my duty this afternoon if I did not add a few comments in this debate on the resolution amending the legislation to provide interest free cash advances on farm stored grain. This is, in fact, emergency legislation and has been a very important factor in improving economic conditions of farmers. It will be recalled that ten years ago we had a very great pile-up of grain in our terminals, in elevators, in farmers' bins and even in skating rinks in western Canada. At that time we thought it was necessary to introduce legislation to relieve the cash shortage. I can remember, too, that some hon. member sitting opposite felt it was not possible to have such a measure, but it has turned out to be one of the most effective pieces of emergency legislation ever brought into this house.
DEBATES	823
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Interestingly enough, and it has been emphasized here many times, the record of repayment in connection with these advances has been excellent. I do not believe, therefore, hon. members will have any qualms about supporting this measure. As a matter of interest, too, the situation which existed ten years ago exists today in even more exaggerated form. At that time we had over 700 million bushels of grain piled up in storage. We find the same situation existing today, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot in this remarks this afternoon. This condition has resulted from the lapsing of the international wheat agreement. Again, I believe, the present government and hon. members opposite can be taken to task for allowing this situation to arise. Debates on this subject have taken place before, and there will be more heard about it when the Kennedy round agreements are debated because western agriculture in particular was sold down the river when the international wheat agreement was allowed to lapse for 11 months. This fact brought about the present emergency conditions in western Canada. As hon. members know, this international wheat agreement was the farmers' Magna Charta or Bill or Rights. This international wheat agreement was of benefit not only to exporters in Canada, Australia and New Zealand but to many importers as well.
The farmers of Canada have been asking why something which worked so effectively for 18 years was allowed to lapse for 11 months, and create this emergency situation in so far as Canadian grain exports are concerned. We are now in a situation where we have to reinstate this legislation to help us out of the emergency which has developed in our agricultural economy. It is only right that we should be asking for an increase in the amount of money available because, in the intervening ten years, production costs have gone up. Taxes are higher, machinery prices have doubled, repair bills have doubled and, in some cases, the cost of living has almost doubled. The result is that the $3,000 which was made available under this legislation ten years ago is inadequate today.
I am very happy to support this proposal, Mr. Chairman. I must congratulate the Minister without Portfolio, who has had the honour of introducing these amendments. He comes from the same province as I do, and therefore fully realizes the emergency conditions which exist there. I want to assure him that I am wholeheartedly behind the principles involved. I believe the records of the
October 4, 1968
824	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act house will indicate that when it became evident last September the farmers of western Canada would be short of cash, I urged consideration of this measure.
I can recall one night on the "late show" having Hon. Robert Winters, then minister of trade and commerce, listening to my case. I was not too happy with an answer he had given earlier concerning this legislation. At that time I was advocating that we should bring this legislation back into the house in order to double the cash advances available to meet this emergency with which the farmers were faced. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to support this measure. I am glad the government has seen fit to take the advice of the opposition, and to give this measure priority. When the session first opened, I mentioned this measure should have priority. The agricultural industry in my area is in dire need of cash at the moment because farmers have to pay their taxes and the penalty for late payment varies anywhere from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. They have machinery bills and repair bills to pay, as well as other overhead expenses. A number of things have hindered the movement of grain, such as the lapse of the international wheat agreement, the St. Lawrence seaway strike and the strike of terminal elevator employees which was settled a few weeks ago. This will be one step forward in helping to alleviate this problem. As I said a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation wholeheartedly and hope to see it on the books as soon as possible.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. I know he indicated that this was a legal matter, but has he looked at the possibility of providing several permit books for the landlords and tenants? Could there be one book for the landlord and one for the tenant?


Daniel Aiken Lang: The difficulty here, Mr. Chairman, lies in the ownership of the wheat. If the wheat is owned by both jointly, then without the consent of the owner of part of the wheat it is difficult to do anything.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder whether I could ask the minister a question. Is the government not changing the amount available on a quota basis? I understand that cash advances are now made on the basis of a six bushel quota. If the government is increasing the total amount available from $3,000 to $6,000, and is
[Mr. Southam.l

not changing the quota, then is the government not just helping the big farmers with a big acreage? In other words, you would have to farm 1,000 acres and have 6,000 bushels of wheat in storage in order to take full advantage of this $6,000.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that raising the maximum is only relevant to those who are close to the maximum now in terms of their deliveries. Since the amount which may be advanced per bushel is doubled, then even the farmer with very few bushels may receive $1 a bushel on his wheat, whereas now he receives 50 cents a bushel. This is of crucial help to him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize that, Mr. Chairman; but take, for example, the irrigated area in my constituency where there is not a huge acreage but there is high yield. Some area farmers are straight grain farmers and this legislation will not be a big help to them, really, because they will not have the delivery quota base that the government requires them to have.
I wholeheartedly agree, Mr. Chairman, that the delivery quota should be increased from six to possibly eight or nine bushels so as to give some benefit to the small farmer who is intensifying his yield by means of fertilization, water irrigation and so on. We have to provide for these people too. We must also recognize and encourage technological advance. Some farmers make better use of the up to date advances that are becoming available. However, in drafting the bill I think the government should consider very seriously moving these farmers from a six bushel quota to possibly eight or nine bushels in any case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the point that has been raised is one that has certainly had cogent arguments advanced by the hon. member for Crowfoot. What would be the objection to increasing the quota for the purpose of determining the amount that might be advanced to any one farmer from six to nine bushels? If that were done, Mr. Chairman, then the small farmer would be in a position to receive a reasonable amount.
As far as the general plan is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I remember the circumstances under which it came into being. As soon as I became prime minister I asked forthwith that action be taken in this regard and that advances be made on farm stored wheat. We had asked for that for several years prior to 1957, and the answer in every case was that
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
those who had an understanding of the operation had come to the conclusion that there would be very large losses in connection with giving loans on farm stored wheat. However, I asked that it be done, and the civil servants went to work and produced a plan.
I ask this for information purposes, Mr. Chairman, because the argument that has been advanced is most appealing and, on the face of it, worthy of serious consideration. The wheat will be there whether the quota is three bushels, six bushels or nine bushels; it is in storage. What we are trying to do is to provide an extra amount over and above that now provided for, so that the average farmer will have the necessary funds available to meet his expenses because he is unable to sell his wheat. Would the minister not give reconsideration to this, what I think is a very thoughtful suggestion, one that could not by any chance cause losses to the treasury, while at the same time increasing the value of the legislation?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, it is particularly delightful for me to rise after the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, with whom I feel closely associated, if he allows me to say so. He is a very distinguished graduate of the law school with which I had some connection. He also gained a great deal of affection in years gone by in my own province, among others, for speaking about a proposal similar to the one we are talking about today.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I really did not mean to ignore a similar comment from the hon. member for Crowfoot, but in the discussion we had a moment before I was trying to explain that the truth of the matter was that, in terms of the repayment schedule under the new legislation, effectively the small farmer is in the position of having a nine bushel quota, or rather an 8-point-something bushel quota.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, an examination of the situation in Saskatchewan, with which I am most familiar, would reveal that the smaller farmers do not frequently have on hand grain in excess of the amount envisaged in the new act. It then becomes a matter of delicate judgment whether any additional help we might give should be given more in this fashion or in some other fashion.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, may I follow up something that I raised earlier. Would the minister explain for my benefit where this additional cost might be? Where would
DEBATES	825
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act the additional cost arise in perhaps giving the farmer two advances?


Otto Emil Lang: It would be in administering the scheme, in dealing with two applications per farmer rather than one application per farmer.


Stanley James Korchinski: I understand the Wheat Board uses a computer, and I should not think there is anything to putting another card into the I.B.M. machine.


Daniel Aiken Lang: If these machines ran free, or even on flour, I think that would be true.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue the discussion about the small farmer. An I correct that the minister said that in the bill provision will be made for the small farmer to pay back faster than the large farmer? If so, will there be an acreage differential, or did I misunderstand the minister when he said provision will be made in the bill for the small farmer to pay back on the basis of a nine bushel quota? I did not understand what the minister meant by that. I do not see why the quote basis in the bill could not be moved up to eight or nine bushels, because this would certainly be of more benefit to the small farmer. Would the minister clarify that point?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It is in the
bill as amended, Mr. Chairman, in the sense that it is in the mathematics. Eligibility is still tied to six bushels in determining the maximum amount available. However, since the repayment schedule is in fact slower than the lending schedule, the quota works out to more than six bushels.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is referring to the 50 per cent repayment, and wheat is not worth $2 a bushel. As I tried to point out, we are going to lend the farmers $6,000 based on $1 per bushel. I contend that increasing the total amount available helps only those who farm 1,000 acres of land. It does not particularly help the small farmer.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Many farmers in my area are irrigating their land and cultivating their land extensively, and in the next 20 years you will see an increasing use of irrigation. It seems to me that this legislation will not be of too much benefit to the farmer with a smaller holding who cultivates that holding, using all the technical know-how, fertilizer, and so on that is available; it will be of greater benefit to the farmer who farms a larger unit. The
October 4, 1968

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act farmer who operates a small, high yield farm will be penalized, it seems to me. A farmer farming a small acreage from which he obtains a high yield will have a greater amount of grain to store than one who operates a similar sized farm which is not intensively cultivated, and this factor ought to be taken into consideration when drafting the bill. I submit that the initial advance ought to be based on a nine bushel quota so that the small farmer who utilizes all the latest technical know-how in his operation is not penalized.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I think the difficulty between the hon. member and myself is one of language. When the term "small farmer" is used I think of the farmer whose production and income are low. The hon. member obviously is speaking of a farmer whose acreage, regardless of his production and income, is small.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This resolution deals with acreage.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member, then, is raising the entire question of the quota available to that small acreage, high yield farm. That does not have application to the present matter; the quota system, itself, would have to be changed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree, to a certain extent, but the minister is not completely right. I am not completely right either, and the minister should not ignore my argument entirely. Nothing is ever totally white or totally black; most arguments are in a gray area. This legislation, on the face of it, will be of greater benefit to one who farms, say, 1,000 acres than one who farms 300 acres, and that is the point of my argument. One farmer may farm 300 acres intensively whereas another farmer who owns 1,000 acres may only farm 500, allowing the other 500 to he fallow.
The point is that the man who cultivates his 200 or 300 acres intensively has not as large a quota base as the man with the larger farm. This ought to be taken into consideration when considering the concept of cash advances. If you want to reward the small farmer for using all the technological aids available to him you ought to increase his initial quota to eight, nine or ten bushels. Perhaps there should be one quota for farms of under 500 acres and another for farms of over 1,000 acres.
I think the minister ought to give consideration to these ideas, because if he does not the farmers who are making the greatest

strides in the use of technological advances will not be rewarded properly. I should regret to think that a minister coming from Saskatchewan, a minister who is reputed to have some knowledge of agriculture, should be instrumental in having a piece of legislation enacted in this house that would fail to reward those who are making the greatest technical strides in our agricultural sector, those who try to obtain the greatest yield from a small acreage.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the minister how this will work out in practice? Freight rates in any given area vary, depending on how close one is to Winnipeg or to the Rockies. For the sake of argument let us assume that the rate runs at $1.40. This rate, of course, depends on the grade of grain. This year our grain will be down to grades 4 and 5; I hope it is no worse. The point is this: The farmer who has taken an advance against his crop has to pay money back. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that he may be receiving from 25 cents to 35 cents per bushel. That farmer will be in a tight spot because one may assume that he has already spent his advance to pay for taxes and other obligations. Is the minister contemplating, by any chance, raising the quota to eight or nine bushels? Raising the quota would help a great many farmers carry their financial loads. It would be a good idea if the minister could guarantee that the quotas be set at a minimum of eight bushels; probably the figure ought to be nine. I say this because our farmers will have to make large repayments.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the changes in the proposed resolution do not include in themselves any such guarantee. So far as the complicated mathematics of the receipts and returns are concerned, it would be better, as I said before, if that were dealt with at a later stage when the bill is in the hands of hon. members.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Did I hear the minister say just now that the mathematics would not be complicated? If the farmer borrows $1 and then pays back $1 per bushel, surely there is nothing complicated in the mathematics. Was the minister thinking of advances as related to the value of a bushel of wheat or as related to the actual value of a farmer's acreage? The difficulty, as I see it, is that farmers will not be able to sell enough wheat to pay off the money they have borrowed. That is the complication.
October 4, 1968


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Referring to the point the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar raised

and we still have about ten minutes remaining-may I ask the minister whether it will be possible for a person to carry a debt from one year into another and then, in a subsequent year, pay back an advance on his quota. Is that contemplated?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is a sort of perpetual mortgage.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Yes, that would be possible under the present situation. He can either carry his debt into the new year and have his subsequent deliveries count against it, or he can take a larger advance against his existing grain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is logical to assume, then, that over a period of years the farmer will be increasing his cash advances until he reaches the maximum of $6,000, at which time the act will be no good to him. He will have absorbed all the benefits of the act.


Otto Emil Lang: Not quite. The farmer's first duty is the repayment of outstanding advances. So the maximum amount of the advance is $6,000, the actual amount varying according to wheat on hand. It does mean there will be a carry-forward, if he is to take the maximum in years when the quota does not go above six.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us suppose you are going to lend at $1 a bushel and he is going to pay back at approximately 75 cents a bushel. If he can carry one debt over into the next year, will not the debt pile up until it is above $6,000? I do not see how it will ever be repaid completely.


Otto Emil Lang: If he still owes $1,000 from the preceding year he will only get $5,000. The next year, if he still owes $1,000, he would only get $5,000.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If you carry $1,000 from last year and borrow an additional $5,000 he may carry over $2,000 or $3,000 and still maintain the maximum of $6,000, each year borrowing a little less and carrying over a little more.


Otto Emil Lang: I will undertake to deliver a sheet of complicated calculations to the hon. member for Crowfoot. I might say for the time being that the amount carried over is absorbed in the new year so that it is dealt with immediately at the be-
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act ginning of the new year. Whatever position a farmer is in, in the first year of the plan, is the position in which he will remain forever-he could never carry any more than that portion which would have been required to pay the advance which he was not able to deliver.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: So
that in effect he could never be in default.


Otto Emil Lang: He could be in default if he failed to deliver when the quota opened. That is true now and will be true then. He will not be in default any more than he is now by carrying a cash advance into the new year if he has not failed to live up to his obligation about delivery. If he takes a new cash advance the amount still owing on a previous cash advance is taken into consideration in calculating the advance at that point.


An hon. Member:: Would that not jam up the I.B.M. machine quite a bit more?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I shall only take a minute, so the hon. gentleman need not be nervous. I hope the minister will give serious thought to one suggestion, which I think is a good one. I have some knowledge of the way in which this system works in practice. Where there are smaller holdings, where there is diversification making for greater concentration and a higher yield, special consideration should be shown to the farmers concerned. I hope the minister will carry this suggestion back to the government, and think about it. Obviously where there is diversification and a concentration of yield one can expect a greater return per acre.
There is a trend in Saskatchewan and Alberta for farms to get larger and larger as the smaller farmers sell out and older people leave their holdings. In some parts of the prairie provinces farms are becoming big wheat mines. If special consideration were given in the circumstances I have mentioned the minister would, I think, be following the formula suggested by some of the farm unions themselves. This is the point which my hon. friend from Crowfoot was making, and I think it is an excellent one. I hope the minister will try to sell this idea to the cabinet. Its adoption would not mean a great deal, financially, to the treasury, but it would be an expression of a good philosophy on the part of the government, and I should like to see such a formula perfected. That is all I wish to say at this point.
October 4, 1968
828	COMMONS
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act


Daniel Aiken Lang: I did not
mean to suggest that the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot was not deserving of consideration, but this is a matter which is related to the whole quota system, rather than to this particular resolution, and it is in the general context that it would have to be considered.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that changes in the quota system were being considered?


Daniel Aiken Lang: No, you
did not.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pepin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-113, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, pursuant to special order made this day the house will now proceed to business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.



BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: the second reading of Bill C-7, to repeal the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before continuing with this bill I should say this: I believe the hon. member for Skeena is aware that there are some possible procedural difficulties here. The suggestion has been made that this is, perhaps, a money bill, and for two reasons, first that it seeks to dispose of the public revenue of the Crown,-on this point I realize there is some doubt, because the hon. member for Skeena would argue that we are not disposing of the revenues of the Crown but of those of the Indian people. The second objection is that the measure affects the property interests of the Crown, requiring that consent of the Crown be obtained. However, consent cannot be obtained by a private member of the House of Commons.
Even with these limitations, however, I feel there is a considerable measure of doubt as to whether the objections are valid and I think hon. members might agree that it would serve a better purpose to allow the hon. member for Skeena to proceed, and have the house consider this bill during the present private members hour.
[Mr. Woolliams.l

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Frank Howard: That is extremely kind, Mr. Speaker. I wonder with respect if, apropos of your remarks, I might argue with you that we are not dealing with revenues of the Crown or with lands of the Crown, because both the revenues and the lands referred to in the particular statute which I seek to repeal are held in trust, and I put those in a different class than being held directly. In any event, I am quite sure that even if the bill were one of those which fell within the class of being a money bill the government, with its tremendous concern for the rights and welfare of peoples, would have immediately come to my rescue, adopted it, and preceded it with the appropriate resolution.
However, I think that is all unnecessary, because if I remember the reading I did earlier about the history of the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act itself, the original bill in 1943 was not preceded by a resolution that dealt directly with the bill. In any event the house has been gracious enough to go along with your suggestion that we proceed without any argument about the formalities.
The year 1943, as I said earlier, was the year in which the parliament of Canada passed this law, and I suggest it was done in a relatively secret way and by collusion. I mean collusion in its worst sense, collusion between the then Liberal government here in Ottawa and the Liberal dominated coalition government in the province of British Columbia, because both governments were involved in working out an agreement which brought about the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act, which effectively removed from the native Indian people in B.C. the control that they might and would have otherwise have had of mineral resources whether upon or beneath Indian reserve land. This was done without any consultation with the native people, and done without their knowledge. I have asked many of the older people on reserves about this and none of them recall hearing anything at all, even about the passage of the law itself in 1943.
The origin of this question, I think, comes from the time when British Columbia entered confederation. One of the terms of the entering of my province was the building of a railroad, the C.P.R., and that railroad obtained a right of way some 40 miles in width. There can be great controversy and conversation about the propriety of having
October 4, 1968

done that, and about some of the subsequent changes, but nevertheless as a result of the C.P.R. obtaining a 40 mile swath of land along the length of the railway, as one of the considerations for its building the railroad, when gold was discovered in 1884 there came with it the question of the legislative or political control over the gold itself. In other words, was the proprietary ownership over the gold in the hands of the provincial government or in the hands of the then dominion government? As a consequence of this disagreement the matter went to litigation and subsequently ended up in the hands of the Privy Council who, in 1889, made a decision in effect that the precious metals on that particular land, which was railway right of way land, were declared to belong beneficially to the province.
In 1943 the then minister of mines and resources, hon. Mr. Crerar, introduced into parliament the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act, and I submit that he, for what reason I do not know, either misunderstood the decision of the Privy Council or misinterpreted it, and in effect made a court decision of the Privy Council, which was originally applied to land which had been given to a railway, apply to Indian reserve land. He added that because the Privy Council had made this decision with respect to the C.P.R. land, therefore we, the parliament of Canada, should have to pass a law endorsing in a legislative way the agreement between the British Columbia government and the Canadian government about mineral resources on Indian reserves.
I submit that there are two different questions involved here. I say that Mr. Crerar misapplied the finding of the Privy Council, and in effect by misapplying it, by misinterpreting it, in concert with the provincial government effectively took away-as has been the case in so many instances in the past- something more from the native Indian people of the province of British Columbia, namely the control over the mineral resources that might be on their lands.
Perhaps in this regard I might be permitted to quote from part of the decision of the Privy Council, which is to be found at page 306 of the Law Reports, Appeal Cases, 1889:
Their Lordships are for these reasons of the opinion that the judgment appealed from-
I might point out that the courts in Canada had made a decision in favour of the federal government or federal parliament.
-must be reversed, and that it ought to be declared that the precious metals within the rail-29180-53
DEBATES	829
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act way belt are vested in the crown, subject to the control and disposal of the government of British Columbia, and they will humbly advise Her Majesty to that effect.
The key words were "the precious metals within the railway belt." This is what the Privy Council was dealing with. They were not dealing with precious metals on Indian reserves, and I submit that this should clearly show that, to be gracious about it, at the very least there was great misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about the full effect of that decision, and that it should not have been applied to the precious metals on Indian reserves. This injustice has remained there ever since 1943, for the last 25 years, without any great or in any event successful attempt being made to correct the situation.
In 1966, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill with respect to this matter identical with that which is now before the house. In passing I might add that I think Your Honour was our presiding officer at that time, and no thoughts were expressed about the bill's being in order at that time. In any event, for 25 years now there has been this statutory injustice resting on the law books of Canada and on the books of the legislature in the province of British Columbia. This was done without consultation, without advice from or without considering any of the native people-in other words just a complete disregard for what we all fervently in our hearts believe to be a fundamental right of people, the right to be advised of what is taking place with regard to their respective rights.
I submit that in three instances the schedule to the act contains misleading information. Again, to substantiate what I say, that the government in 1943 consciously took action of a misleading nature to remove some of the fundamental rights of the Indian people, I point out that in a preliminary part the schedule reads as follows:
Whereas from time to time treaties have been made with the Indians for the surrender for various considerations of their personal and usufructury rights to territories now included in the province of British Columbia, such considerations including the setting apart for the exclusive use of the Indians of certain definite areas of land known as Indian reserves;
I submit that this was misleading because it contains within it the reference that "from time to time treaties have been made-"
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I submit this is misleading because it has reference to treaties that had been made from
830	COMMONS DEBATES	October 4, 1968
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act time to time. With one or two minor exceptions, notably in the Peace River district of British Columbia and in respect of a few treaties before confederation, in British Columbia there are no treaties with the Indian people of that province. That is the crux of the British Columbia land question. This was something that hon. Mr. Crerar knew about in 1943, and it was something that the government of that day knew about, because this B.C. land question has been before the parliament of Canada in one way or another as far back as the turn of the century. This was not new to the government.
I submit that parts of the preamble indicate that the government knew this was misleading. Another part of the preamble states:
And whereas the said Indian reserves were conveyed to the dominion government as trustee for the Indians under the terms and conditions set forth in an agreement dated the 24th day of September, 1912, between the dominion government and the province of British Columbia;-
It is a well known fact, certainly to the Indian people and the government of that day, and the government of this day, that the native Indian people never at any time accepted the agreement of 1912 as a solution to the land problem. Nobody at that time accepted the finding of the McKenna-McBride royal commission which considered this question, and no one at any time accepted the decision of the Indian Land Settlement Acts that were passed by the legislature of British Columbia; and the native peoples have never signed any treaty. This in itself leaves the impression that the Indian people have agreed with this when in fact they have not. The third "whereas" which is misleading reads:
And whereas the precious metals in, upon, or under the lands comprising such reserves are not incidents of such lands but belong beneficially to the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia with the result that the development of all the minerals in, upon or under such lands is at present impractical since the precious and base metals are closely associated and cannot be mined separately.
As I pointed out earlier, this is misleading because the decision of the Privy Council on this matter of precious metals had nothing whatever to do with the Indian lands in British Columbia, but dealt with lands ceded to the C.P.R. It should have been confined to that and not extended to take away the rights of our native people.
In 1965, three years ago, the Indian affairs branch submitted a directive which dealt with the matter of developing mineral

resources, which said that the only minerals that could be developed on reserves were those minerals that had been surrendered. It indicated that the minerals must be surrendered, and there is no equivocation about that. There is no maybe: They must be surrendered by the Indian people. In other words, the native Indian people, because of this British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act and the Indian Act, cannot participate in the development of resources on a reserve unless they first give them away, surrender them and relinquish all their rights and interests in them, in this instance to the Crown or the federal government.
In the first place this bill was an imposition as a result of some collusive agreement based upon a misinterpretation of the court decision. It was an imposition, and is a denial of fundamental rights of our Canadian native people to direct their own affairs and destinies. It is a denial of their right to local government in respect of their land and well being, and I suggest this should not be permitted to remain on the statute books of this nation. That is why I seek to repeal it.
Apart from the fundamentals, the directive to which I made reference earlier contained the reference that there has been increasing interest in mineral development in recent years, and certainly increasing interest in mineral development that might take place on Indian reserves. This British Columbia Indian Mineral Reserves Resources Act holds back or deters any such potential development because the native people are fed up to the teeth with having to give up their rights every time they want to obtain something. They are fed up with the concept of surrendering things. They are fed up with having to relinquish their authority and the control over reserve lands before anything can be developed. As a consequence they are not surrendering anything more, even though it might mean more income as a result of mineral development.
As I understand it, there are some agreements in the prairie provinces, the Maritime provinces and in Ontario which give to the native Indian people in those areas 100 per cent of the benefits resulting from any development of mineral resources on reserve land. With the concept of equality we should be moving toward this position and providing agreements of this type to the Canadian native Indians of British Columbia.
I do not know what the potential is in that province, or if anyone is able to determine
October 4, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	831
that, but if we look at the mineral production in British Columbia in the last two years and try to relate what this amounts to in terms of dollars we come up with a fairly close figure. If the full potential mineral resource was developed in British Columbia, taking the relationship of the mineral resources developed in the province, this results in terms of $1 or more per acre of land. There are some 750,000 or 800,000 acres of reserve land in British Columbia. On this ratio that would mean $750,000 for mineral production.
This is not the total amount that would accrue to the reserves, but is the production value. A great deal of this would accrue to the Indian people and we should keep that in mind. I know there are some who might argue at this juncture that the repeal of the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act may not be the right way to correct this situation, but my purpose at this time is to keep this matter alive and to foster a greater understanding of the injustice that was perpetrated and has remained uncorrected. In view of the government's desire to make our committees function to a greater extent I hope that the appropriate minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), will concern themselves with this matter and refer it to a committee for study. Neither of those hon. gentlemen are here, so perhaps the house leader would give this idea his blessing so that this bill or the subject matter might be referred to a committee for discussion. In this way the Canadian native Indian people could be given the opportunity to present their ideas. They could be consulted and their feelings could be ascertained in respect of this particular act.
Many consultations are taking place in this country with the native Indian people about the Indian Act. I do not think these consultations can be extended to cover this situation because the guide lines for the consultations now taking place, contained in a booklet entitled "Choosing the Path", have reference to a series of questions other than this relating to the Indian Act itself. This is a special subject.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Let me say to the house leader, in closing, that this matter is serious and of extreme importance to our native people. We are now in an era in which even the most reluctant of our house leaders agrees that consultation is the order of the day. This is true in respect of 29180-532
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act the Indian people and their problems. I suggest to him that perhaps he may assist our native people to find a way out of this difficulty in which they are, and may assist us as well in correcting this long-standing injustice by referring the subject matter of this bill to a house committee for an appropriate examination and a report. I suggest to him that he may assist the Indian people in finding a way out of the difficulty in which they are at the moment. He may be able to assist us in finding a solution and correcting this long standing injustice, by agreeing to refer the subject matter to a house committee for appropriate examination and to report upon it later.
I know what will occur with the bill if this is not done. We will reach six o'clock, we will still be debating it at that time, it will go to the bottom of the list of I do not know how many public bills on the order paper, and we will see neither hide nor hair of it again this session. I think to use the talking out process in respect of this bill, to hide it in that way would be an extreme disservice to the rights of the Indian people and the possibilities regarding mineral resources on their reserves.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to go into the merits of the hon. gentleman's suggestion. Because I am not in a position to go into the merits I cannot act at once on his suggestion. I will, however, undertake to discuss with my colleague responsible directly with this question the merits of the measure put forward and the hon. gentleman's remarks of today, and be prepared to talk about it on another occasion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this matter will be taken to the level of immediately active advisement rather than just the immediate advisement stage. We are beginning to learn that there are differentiations in the government's approach to problems. We hope this bill will receive the urgent treatment which it deserves.
I certainly support the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in his proposals. I was a member of the Indian affairs committee some years ago when this matter, amongst others, was raised. I have some recollection of it and I have here the act which the hon. member seeks to have repealed. I might say in passing that the hon. member for Skeena referred to the fact that this was a case where there was no consultation with the
October 4, 1968
832	COMMONS
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Indians. It is a sad commentary on the government of this country that for a period of 25 years we see the same course of action pursued.
This house was agitated, as it properly should have been, last week, and to some extent it has been this week, by charges made, and never refuted, that the Indian people of this country were not consulted on a very, very important reorganization of the Indian affairs department with regard to a matter in which the Indians were involved and definitely concerned. The only occasion I can recall when there was a real measure of consultation was during the course of the administration of the Conservative government from 1957 to 1963.
The Indian affairs committee was set up. One hundred witnesses were called, including a very large number of representatives of the Indian people from all over Canada. These people were brought here and gave evidence which was uninhibited in any respect. We received a great deal of very useful information. The committee made recommendations. Some of them were initiated before the Conservative government fell, but have not been dealt with since. I must say in passing that here we are, 25 years later, and the same charges are still being made against the government by the same people. These charges are of the same political nature, namely that they are not being consulted when they should be.
I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. Reading the act, I agree with the hon. member that there are three assumptions drawn in the preamble which I think are incorrect. It is in fact a creation of a statutory image, a statutory illusion, not based on truth and not based on the facts. I shall deal with only the first of these assumptions. The following words are to be found in the preamble:
-from time to time treaties have been made with the Indians for the surrender for various considerations of their personal and usufructury rights-
This has been repeated over and over again. A number of treaties were entered into with Indian people and Indian bands by which it was sought to acquire the title of the Indian people to practically all the lands between the Great Lakes and the Rocky mountains and extending into the Northwest Territories. These treaties were similar to the one to which the hon. member for Skeena has referred. They were based on certain considerations. Letters were executed by the commissioners who drew up these treaties. The


letters detailed the circumstances under which the treaties were made. There is no question at all that, as in this case, the Indian people were led to believe that in surrendering their rights-the complete extent of which was probably not known to them-they would be given certain other considerations. Some very definite considerations were put forward to the Indian people as being given to them in exchange for their giving away these rights.
We all know the famous case which went before the Supreme Court of Canada. I refer to the lame duck case. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada held that because of the Migratory Birds Convention Act certain rights to which the Indian people felt they were entitled with regard to hunting, trapping and fishing, were not to be given to them because the federal government, one of the parties to the treaties with the Indians, was in direct violation of the undertaking in that the treaty entered into internationally imposed obligations upon the federal government which the Supreme Court of Canada held to have precedence over the treaties with the Indians.
There are a number of other cases of this type. There was the so-called medicine chest case. In a number of these treaties there was a provision that the government would provide certain medical and other services within the meaning of the words medicine chest, which to the Indian people at that time had a very specific and special connotation. This was another case where the federal government, through its counsel, intervened. But I do not think any real, conscious effort has been made by this government to in any way right the wrong that has been done to the Indian people by the violation of their treaty rights.
For these general reasons, in addition to the specific reasons to which the hon. member for Skeena has referred, I hope that this matter will be referred to a committee. I certainly hope that when the Indian claims commission legislation is introduced, this issue will be given the most serious thought.
We have done injustices to the Indian people. There is no use cataloguing the litany of evils, wrongs and misdemeanours which have been committed. This is now a matter of history. But there is now probably the last opportunity, through the medium of legislative proposals which I suppose this government will introduce, to widen the extent of
October 4, 1968	COMMONS
those proposals to include the kind of compensation to which the Indian people are entitled. This we must do if we are to hold up our heads and say we have kept the sacred obligations which previous governments entered into on behalf of the people of Canada.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) upon raising this subject, and I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I do not suppose anybody in this house is not in sympathy with the spirit behind the words of both hon. gentlemen. I hope no members of the house will be out of sympathy with the words I shall be using. I might as well state at the outset that I do not feel this bill should be dealt with as a separate and individual item. I think it is an excellent idea that it be referred to the committee, as a specific item to be looked at in the context of the whole question.
To arrive at that conclusion I think one has to realize that we are, in a sense, at the apex of 300 years of injustice which we and our forefathers have perpetrated on the Indians. We are just arriving at a time when a fundamental change can probably be made, and the Indians are just getting back their self confidence to a sufficient degree to be able to help themselves. When the white man first came to Canada he was prone to think of the Indians as mysterious creatures flitting around among the trees and in the distance, people whom no one understood. It has become more and more apparent, thanks to studies of historians such as Mclnnes and others, that the Indians had a viable, sensible and economic way of life supported by a good system of trade. If you look back at the efforts of the French pioneers, you will find that they did not do what later generations did, but that they tried to establish trading and leave the Indians basically undisturbed. Unfortunately their idea of trade included brandy, which did harm to many Indians, but that was not a deliberate policy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The Indians still staked off their own territory, the Algonquins in one place and the Iroquois in another. Some were farmers, some were traders and some were middlemen. All this change started taking place in Canada only a little more than 100 years ago. In the United States this was started a little earlier when people, actually, physically took possession of the land. I suggest this is where the trouble started which led to the situation
DEBATES	833
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act of the Indian today. Louis Riel saw this, and in drawing up and passing the Manitoba act he attempted to stop this from happening in Manitoba and in the west. However, the white people reneged on the deal they made with the natives in my province, and as a result the Indians and Metis were the ones to suffer. I am glad to see that the position of the Indians is now being seen in better perspective and that it is recognized that Louis Riel was trying to achieve something serious.
It was at that time that reserves were set aside to be administered by the Crown on behalf of the Indians, and 1,400,000 acres was made available to the Metis, But the Indians were unable to make a living off the reserve and the Metis lands were soon in the hands of speculators. So the Metis are in as much trouble as are the Indians, and I hope they will not be forgotten when the time comes.
Between 1871 and 1877, seven treaties were negotiated between Canada and the Indians of the new Northwest. It is quite obvious that the Indians thought, as the hon. member intimated, that they were making a perfectly genuine deal with a trustworthy partner. To prove this I would like to quote the words of the Lac Seul chief in connection with the signing of treaty No. 3. This is what he said:
We are the first that were planted here. We would ask you to assist us with every kind of implement to use for our benefit... a little of everything, and money. We would borrow your cattle; . .. the waters out of which you sometimes take food for yourselves, we wll lend you in return . . . The time may come when I will ask you to lend me one of your daughters and one of your sons to live with us; and in return I will lend you one of my daughters and one of my sons for you to teach what is good, and after they have learned, to teach us.
The key words there are obviously share, exchange and lend. That is what treaty No. 3 was all about so far as the Lac Seul chief knew. He found out differently later. I suggest that all the treaties were like this one. The last time that the Indians tried seriously to improve their lot was when they threw in their weight behind Louis Riel in 1885. This became a rebellion which was put down, and that was the end of that.
I suggest that the treaty to which the hon. member for Skeena referred was a little different. The spirit behind it, so far as the dominion government was concerned, was the same, and it proved to be just as much of a failure, but the mechanics were a little different because British Columbia came in as a separate colony.
October 4, 1968
834	COMMONS DEBATES
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act


Frank Howard: I wonder if my friend would permit me to ask him a question. It arises out of a misunderstanding because my friend must realize that in British Columbia there were no treaties made with the native people. I was not referring to a treaty.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This is what I was about to say. I thank the hon. member for making it clear that I am not being clear. British Columbia was a separate Crown colony. No treaties were made but there was a general indication that the same spirit prevailed because when British Columbia joined confederation it negotiated its own terms. Although the dominion took charge of Indian affairs, the province would have to give it whatever lands it required for reservations. That was part of the act under which that province came in.
It is clear from the terms of union that the federal authorities thought they were following through with the same pattern they had established toward Indians in the rest of western Canada. Land would be given to them to be held in trust, for the use and benefit of Indians in British Columbia. But when the time came to actually select this land, trouble occurred. Commissions had to be set up, either jointly or unilaterally, by the two governments involved. It was not until 1938 that by provincial order in council reserves were conveyed to the dominion, and a time span of 67 years had elapsed. So I think there is a very good indication that the spirit of the law was not lived up to.
Meanwhile, in 1889, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to which the hon. member referred ruled that precious metals were vested in the province. Later the province made claim for the administration of base metals. So they tried to get the whole lot. The British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act passed in 1943 was an attempt to regularize the situation. The administration, control and disposal of all minerals and mineral claims on Indian reserves in British Columbia was made subject to the laws of the province, and all revenues arising out of the sale or royalty agreements would be split henceforth between the federal and the provincial governments on a 50-50 basis. This settled nothing so far as the Indians were concerned, except to place the administration respecting precious and non-precious metals, under one roof. This might have been a good thing if there had been any will to do so for the benefit of the Indians.
Notwithstanding the foregoing arrangement, under the present act when a band approves a mineral surrender, which it still has to approve, the administrative responsibility is immediately split. The band has jurisdiction over the surface rights, the province has jurisdiction over the mineral rights, and no one has yet discovered how the devil one can get close to the minerals without disturbing the land rights. The jurisdiction is divided and diffuse. I suggest that this is a very good reason that there has been no significant development of the potential mines on British Columbia Indian land. Who would ever make a deal with anyone when they do not know how to get to the minerals, how to mine them and whom to negotiate the terms with?
Both the federal and the provincial authorities realize this is a poor arrangement. Through the years there have been discussions between the province and the federal government is respect of the interpretation or this act. These discussions have altered the conditions slightly in favour of the Indians, but have not resulted in serious exploration or development. As of this date the province has advised the federal government that changes in the act could not be considered.
So the Indians sit and wait for the white man to unscramble the mess. How is it possible to get at the treasures underground without disturbing the land above? How is it possible to find a sensible method of exploiting the riches of nature for the benefit of the Indians without setting the province and the federal authorities at loggerheads one with another? To the Indians, who so desperately need all the revenue they can lay their hands on, this must seem like a very sorry state of affairs. It would be funny if it were not so sad.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Now, having said this, I should like to submit that I have not cited an isolated case. This is an example of the shocking way in which we, as white men, have treated the Indians. I do believe that the climate is such this government is going to be forced to take a serious look at the situation and really open the way for the Indian to help himself. If this is the case, then I submit we should not consider this bill in isolation, but it should be referred to the committee and considered in the context of the whole problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: am going to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but there

October 4, 1968	COMMONS
are a couple of things I should like to mention. First of all, I should like to congratulate the member who moved this bill. I agree with everything he has said and I want to incorporate it in my own argument. However, there are a couple of things I should like to mention. First of all, the treaties that were signed with the Indians in the early days have been largely ignored by parliament and legislatures, particularly in so far as the mineral rights were concerned. The Indians have not been consulted. The area of mineral rights is one from which much contentious litigation has arisen.
This brings me to the point I am going to make. No government has done anything for the Indians so far as their property rights are concerned. I should like to make the most non-partisan speech on this matter that I have ever made in my life. The only remedy the Indians have today, in so far as their property or mineral rights are concerned, is to go to the Exchequer Court of Canada. I have dealt with this court on other occasions when I was dealing with other problems.
In so far as the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada is concerned, it is limited to matters concerning the Crown. So far as I am concerned, an Indian or the average citizen of Canada cannot afford to litigate in the Exchequer Court. First of all, in order to get into the court he has to go to Ottawa, so he has to hire a lawyer in Ottawa, who is generally an agent of the legal firm of the place in which the person resides. For example, the Indians on the Blackfoot reserve have a claim in connection with their oil rights. They go to a lawyer in Calgary, and the Calgary lawyer communicates with a legal firm in Ottawa which, in turn, goes to the Exchequer Court. A poor man or an Indian cannot afford to do this. The state is all powerful; the state has all the money; the state has all the experts. The Crown says, no-and it does not matter which government is in power. I do not know how many years the claim of the Blackfoot reserve has been before the Exchequer Court, but I have those facts in my office. However, Chief Crowfoot and others have advised me that the documents pertaining to their treaty were handed to the department of Indian affairs and have been destroyed or lost-at least, they cannot be found.
These Indians do not have the money necessary to make the proper motion before the Exchequer Court to demand these documents. As a result, the claims of the Indians
DEBATES	835
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act on the Blackfoot reserve before the Exchequer Court of Canada in connection with their mineral rights have been long dormant. In my opinion, it is high time we stopped talking about setting up Indian claims commissions and had a commission that was not weighted in favour of the Crown. It is useless to set up a board that is weighted in favour of the Crown, because the people behind the executive of this or any other government will be people who will usurp, unintentionally of course, the rights of the Indian or the average man. They narrowly interpret the law; they narrowly interpret the procedure. After all, it is human nature when you are always representing one side of the fence to think as the people do on that side of the fence.
I should like now to talk about the streamlining of the procedures of the Exchequer Court of Canada. If the Exchequer Court is not prepared to streamline its procedures so the average man can afford to litigate, then I would hope this government would immediately take steps to set up a claims commission so that the rights of Indians can be protected. At the same time the federal administration should decide to pay for counsel, so the Indians can be properly represented before any tribunal, whether it be the Exchequer Court or a claims commission set up to deal with this particular subject. There is no point in setting up an institution in which litigation can take place if the Indians do not have the tools to go to the Exchequer Court or to a board. If one goes before such a body without properly trained counsel, it is like going to hospital to take out your own appendix. It is just as effective, because a man who is not trained does not know the procedures, does not know the technical points, and as a result he does not get justice. This is an example of what I have always maintained, that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor.
I say that the people who are in the house now must be interested in the affairs of the Indian people of Canada. There are not too many of them. At one point, Mr. Speaker, I counted and we were in a very precarious position. Let us decide unanimously now to send this bill, which has been brought forward by a member of parliament who has dedicated himself over the years since I have been here to the rights of Indians, to a committee, so that the matters which I mentioned and the matters which other members have mentioned can be discussed fully. Then let us
October 4, 1968
836	COMMONS
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act get on with the job. We have ten minutes left, so I will sit down and we can unanimously send this bill to a committee.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by complimenting the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) upon his very eloquent plea on behalf of the Indian people of Canada. In this one aspect at least, this hon. member and I share a great concern. It may be somewhat unusual for the member for Thunder Bay to rise to speak on a matter that concerns the Indian people of British Columbia; however, a great many of the constituents of Thunder Bay are native citizens of Canada. My interest in them and my concern for them leads me to be sympathetic toward Indian people, regardless of the corner of this land in which they happen to dwell.
It has been my privilege, Mr. Speaker, on at least one occasion to be present during the consultations the government has been having with the Indian people of Canada. I wish to testify to this house and to the people of Canada that these consultations with the Indian people were open, forthright confrontations. I should like to make it clear also that if any member of this house in any way casts suspicion upon the motives behind these consultations, he is doing a great disservice to the government and to the Indian people of Canada. The people attending these consultations have expressed their grievances well. It is the intention of the government, when all the data is available, to take the appropriate action, having listened carefully to what the Indian people have had to say.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
With reference to the situation in British Columbia, for many decades now there has been a great deal of concern as to who owns the minerals which reside under Indian reserves, and as to how they may best be developed. The real problem here is that there has been so little development and exploration of the minerals in these Indian reserves that it is to fog the issue for us to say that this act ought to be repealed. The real point is that the Indian people living on reserves in British Columbia have not profited economically from the resources which lie beneath the land on which they live.
It has been recommended, Mr. Speaker, that reference be made to the courts to determine ownership of these Indian resources. I suppose there are some pretty good legal arguments to suport the beneficial Indian right
[Mr. Woolliams.1

to precious metals, although a court judgment gives the ownership to the province. There is no justification for the provincial claim to ownership of base metals on Indian reserves.
Reference to the courts to determine ownership of British Columbia Indian resources will not contribute toward reaching an effective agreement on the development of minerals on Indian reserves. In the last analysis, we want some benefit to accrue to the Indian people. We do not want the matter to become bogged down in long legal haggles in the courts of Canada. There are some good legal arguments which can certainly be helpful in demonstrating to the province of British Columbia that there is a strong case for Indian ownership. The act of 1943 implies that the province acquires administration of the minerals on Indian lands, and 50 per cent of the revenues, on the basis of the provincial right to the gold and silver. This basis is no longer a valid one. Although in 1940 the value of gold and silver amounted to 43 per cent of the value of all metals produced in the province, by 1966 gold and silver had declined to only 6 per cent of the metal production. By giving up administrative control of the minerals on Indian reserves, loss in revenue to the province from fees for recording claims and assessment work would be negligible, and may be more than offset by reduced administrative costs.
Indians in British Columbia should have the very same benefits from the development of their minerals as those enjoyed by Indians in other provinces. Agreements in effect in the prairie provinces and the maritime provinces, and one now being concluded in Ontario, provide full benefit for the Indian bands from development under federal administration of the minerals on their reserves. Indian affairs policy now provides for the Indian band councils to retain a large measure of control over the development of their mineral resources and to participate in the management functions. Under present provincial administration and legislation in British Columbia, Indian band council control over the minerals is both indirect and ineffective. I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that strong representations be made by the federal government, with of course support from the Indians of British Columbia, to the government of British Columbia for a new agreement for development of mineral resources on Indian reserves. This new agreement, moreover, should be patterned after the agreement
October 4, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	837
B.C. Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act
now being concluded with Ontario and should contain the following provisions:
First, that British Columbia transfer to Canada control and administration of all mineral resources in Indian reserve lands or surrendered Indian lands, and the proceeds of the leases or other dispositions of the mineral resources be applied for the benefit of the Indians for whose use and benefit the said lands were set apart;
Second, that royalties paid for the benefit of Indians from minerals produced on the Indian lands shall, for the purposes of any provincial mining tax, be deductible from the income of the producer of the minerals;
Third, that the province agree to provide for technical surveys, safety measures and other similar services related to the exploitation of minerals on Indian lands that are normally provided for other lands in the province.
There would be a great deal of potential for the economic well-being of the Indian people of British Columbia if this policy were to be adopted, Mr. Speaker. For example, we know that there is an area of about 800,000 acres which is divided into 1,600 separate reserves spread over the province. The value of the minerals in this area is very difficult to assess, owing to their nature; the resources are hidden below the earth's surface.
Assuming for a moment that the average acre of Indian land has the same potential as the average acre of land within the province, the potential value of mineral production
from these lands may be estimated from the total mineral production of the province. The value of the metal production alone was worth over $200 million in 1966, or about $1 per acre. Applying this average to the 800,000 acres of Indian land, an annual production from the Indian lands of $800,000 may be expected. At the present time no metals are produced. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that economic benefits must accrue to the Indian people so that with their own resources they can develop a way of life suitable to them and that is designed particularly by them.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we admit that there are a great many difficulties in the present situation. Since the effective date of the act in 1943, mineral surrenders to only eight reserves out of a total of 1,600 reserves in British Columbia have been approved by Indian bands. Administrative responsibility for the use of the land resources is divided between the two governments, once a band has approved a mineral surrender. The mining or subsurface rights is administered by the British Columbia government, whereas the rights to use land surface for mining purposes are administered by the federal government, in consultation with the band council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member, as the hour assigned for the consideration of private membres business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
839
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 7, 1968