1968-10-28

FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs presented to the house on Thursday, October 24, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the freshwater fish marketing corporation; to provide that the corporation shall conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis without appropriations therefor by parliament; to provide that the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Finance, under certain terms and conditions, to guarantee repayment of loans by banks to the corporation and to make loans to the corporation, the aggregate outstanding of amounts borrowed or loaned not to exceed five million dollars; to provide also for grants to the corporation, out of the consolidated revenue fund, not exceeding in the
Coffee-1 lb. vacuum packed tin Tea-60 tea bags, top quality Tea-1 lb. top quality Flour-25 lb. sack Cigarettes-20's regular Cigarette tobacco-\ lb. tin
2.	Sealskins range greatly in value depending on size, quality and season. The average price paid at this time for sealskins is $7.50
aggregate of one hundred thousand dollars to enable the corporation to meet initial operating and establishment expenses; and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Matie: Has the government taken any steps to settle the Rossillon Affair and, if so, what steps were taken?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement in the House of Commons on September 16, the government has taken steps to make its position known to the French authorities, through the appropriate diplomatic channels, on the issues raised by Mr. Rossillon's visit.


HUDSON BAY COMPANY PRICES
Mr. Dumont: 1.	What is the price paid by Eskimos at Hudson Bay Company stores, at Fort Chimo, Cape Dorset and Arctic Bay, for tea, coffee, flour, cigarettes and cigarette tobacco?
2.	What is the price paid by this Company to the Eskimos of the same areas for sealskins?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
Fort	Cape	ArcticChimo	Dorset	Bay$1.00	$1.08	$1.09.79	1.40	1.423.35	3.40	3.80.55	.47	.472.25	1.90	2.00
each. It should be noted that non-Eskimos pay the same prices for food and are paid the same prices for sealskins as are Eskimos.

October 28, 1968
Questions
POST OFFICE EXTENSION, AMHERST, N.S.	'C.B.C. SERIES "QUENTIN DURGENS, M.P."


Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date does the government intend to call tenders for the extension of the Post Office Building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	What will be the extent of the extension to the present post office, will it require the purchasing of additional land and have steps been taken to acquire this land and, if so, from whom?
3.	If additional land has already been purchased, from whom was it purchased and what was the amount or amounts paid for the land in question?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No firm date is yet established because a requirements study is under way.
2 and 3. As planning is not yet completed the need for additional land is still unknown. Property has already been purchased from A. A. Leslie for $16,773 as reported in reply to Question 602, November 13, 1967 (Hansard page 4177).


FEDERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date does the government intend to call tenders for the construction of a new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the initial date on which the government indicated tenders would be called for the construction of this federal building and why have delays been occasioned in calling for tenders?


Arthur Laing: 1. Unknown, at this time, in view of changing space requirements.
2.	It was tentatively set for the summer of 1968 but due to changes in the space requirements of client departments that date could not be met.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROJECTS IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Comeau: What amounts are earmarked by Atlantic Development Board for projects to be undertaken in the counties of Digby, Annapolis, Yarmouth and Shel-bourne, Nova Scotia in the calendar years 1968 and 1969?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Anticipated expenditures for projects approved (not for those under consideration) are:
Digby
Annapolis
Yarmouth
Shelbourne
1968	1969

750.000	-
130.000	50,000
208.000	200,000
410,000	891,000


Mr. McCleave: What percentage of the cost of producing and telecasting each episode of Quentin Durgens, M.P., is paid by the sponsor?


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: It has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to disclose details of contractual arrangements between the corporation and sponsors of programs. Such information, if made public, would adversely affect the C.B.C. in the competitive business in which it is engaged.


CANCELLATION OF RADIO LICENCE, VANCOUVER
Mr. Valade: 1.	Did the B.B.G. transmit to the new RadioTelevision Commission, its Executive Committee or any one of its members, the enquiry report which led to the dismissal of Pat Burns, the radio commentator, and to the suspension of the licence of the radio station in Vancouver which employed him?
2.	In what year was this report requested?
3.	What reasons were given for cancelling the operating licence of the radio station in question; what was the date of cancellation of the licence and what were the station's call letters?
4.	Have any of the owners or principal shareholders of the station which had its licence cancelled, since obtained another operating licence and, if so, in whose name has such licence been issued?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. The BBG files are available to the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission.
2 and 3. The Board of Broadcast Governors held its forty-third public hearing in Vancouver, B.C. on March 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1965. The agenda included an application from CJOR Limited to operate station CJOR, Vancouver after March 31, 1965.
On April 8, 1965, the Board of Broadcast Governors announced its decisions which included the following: Vancouver, B.C.: Application by CJOR Limited for a licence to operate broadcasting station CJOR, Vancouver, B.C., after March 31, 1965.
Recommendation: (a) For Denial, (b) The board further recommends that the Minister of Transport grant a temporary authority,
October 28, 1968

which authority shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 5 of section 12 of the Broadcasting Act, to CJOR Limited to continue operating a broadcasting station on the frequency of 600 Kc/s with a power of 10,000 watts for a period not extending beyond October 31, 1965, and that in the interim the Minister of Transport accept applications from other persons for a licence to operate a broadcasting station, which would serve the city of Vancouver, B.C., using the frequency of 600 Kc/s.
Reasons: The board, having examined the record of performance, is not satisfied with the past operation of the station by CJOR Limited. The board has no confidence that CJOR Limited can as a licensee exercise sufficient supervision and direction of the station to ensure its operation in the public interest or compliance with the policy now proposed by CJOR Limited.
4. No.


NATIONAL PARK FOR QUEBEC
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the government negotiating with the Province of Quebec with a view to establishing a National Park in that Province and, if so, what area is under consideration?
2.	When is it expected that an agreement will be reached?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. The location of national parks, if there is agreement, forms part of the negotiations.
2. The negotiations are continuing at this time and we hope that the results will be unveiled very shortly.


BRIDGE REPAIRS, PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to effect repairs to the bridge leading to the breakwater at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, and, if so, when will these repairs be carried out?


Arthur Laing: No plans have been made to repair the bridge since an alternative route provides access.


TENDERS FOR CAMP MUSKWA, ALASKA HIGHWAY
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What is the name, address and amount bid by each person who tendered for the buildings and
Questions
equipment comprising the former Department of Public Works property known as Camp Muskwa at Mile 295 on the Alaska Highway?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Insofar as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: Northern Equipment & Supply Company, c/o Mr. E. Pechet, 10625 Jasper Ave., Edmonton, Alberta, $177,100; Fort Nelson Lumber Co. Ltd., Fort Nelson, B.C., $151,900; Harbour Motor Sales Ltd., 4006 Dundas St. W., Toronto, Ontario, $121,121.21; Mr. E. Strieker, 2111-8th Ave. N.E., Calgary, Alta., $109,909; Skene Holdings Ltd., Ste. 103, 4595-Imperial St., Burnaby, B.C. Attn: Mr. J. Skene, $102,500; Edmonton Truck Parts & Eqpt. Co., 10356-61 Avenue, Edmonton, Alta. Attn: Wm. Smayda, $78,880; Fortier & Associates Services Ltd., 14410118th Ave., Edmonton, Alta., $76,000; Sakun-diak Farm Eqpt. Ltd., Rowatt, Sask. Attn: Mr. P. Sakundiak, $62,550; Mr. Don Cote, Box 151, Falher, Alta. Attn: Mr. Don Cote, $35,053.


PENAL STATISTICS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total inmate population in all federal penal institutions in Canada at the present time and what was the total population in each of the years 1960-67, inclusive?
2.	How many former inmates of federal penal institutions have been paroled in each of the years 1960-67, inclusive, and of the total number, how many (a) have broken parole (b) been returned to penal institutions, for each of the years involved?
3.	What is the estimated annual cost of (a) maintaining an inmate in a federal penal institution (b) supervising a parolee?
4.	Is there any difference in the estimated cost of maintaining an inmate in a maximum, medium and minimum penal institution and, if so, what is the difference in the cost for each type of institution?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1.
As of Date March 31, 1960 March 31, 1961 March 31, 1962 March 31, 1963 March 31, 1964 March 31, 1965 March 31, 1966 March 31, 1967 March 31, 1968 October 8, 1968
Inmate Population 6,344 6,738 7,156 7,219 7,651 7,518 7,444 7,185 7,057 6,817
Questions

October 28. 1968
Year	Federal Paroles Granted
1960	1,192
1961	1,005
1962	885
1963	663
1964	751
1965	1,127
1966	1,114
1967	1,328
^Figures represent total numbers of parole violations and total numbers returned to custody in the years 1960-61 and 62. Statistics are not available for those years to show separately from the total figures the breakdown for inmates from federal institutions.
3.	For fiscal year 1967-68: (a) $5,300.00 approximately; (b) $750.00 approximately.
4.	Yes. For fiscal year 1967-68: Maximum security institution, $4,630 approximately; Medium security institution, $6,900 approximately; Minimum security institution, $4,390 approximately.


WORK DAYS LOST
Mr. Harding: For the calendar years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 to June 30th, how many recorded workdays and what percentage of the total were lost due to (a) unemployment (b) sickness (c) strikes or lockouts?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Labour, Manpower and Immigration, National Health and Welfare, Trade and Commerce and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: (a) and (b) Information not available.
(c)	Man-days lost due to strikes
and lockouts
	Number	As a percentage of estimated working time of non-agricultural paid workers
1963	917,140	0.071964	1,580,550	0.111965	2,349,870	0.171966	5,178,170	0.341967	4,045,060	0.261968 January	2,760,220	0.35
to June
Federal Paroles	Returned
Violated	to Custody
238*	191*
286*	256*
251*	211*
229	185
176	146
261	215
258	202
328	243


TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDER PENSION PLANS
Mr. Ritchie: 1.	Has the Minister of National Revenue issued a directive within the last ten days declining to accept for registration pension plans primarily for the benefit of shareholders and their families?
2.	Will the Minister advise the House why this new policy has been inaugurated under which traditionally exempt pension plans would now be subject to taxation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. A statement along the lines of the one in question was included in a set of guide lines issued recently by the director, review and registration division, compliance branch, Department of National Revenue, taxation.
2.	The guide line in question reinstates, in part, the administrative practice which prevailed until 1959, which denied registration to a pension plan covering only shareholder employees, the executive group or those in the higher earning brackets. The absence of this rule has facilitated tax avoidance. The guide line reflects the considered opinion of the departmental officials responsible for the registration of pension plans that a plan which primarily benefits the controlling shareholder and excludes other employees of a corporation cannot properly be regarded as an employees' pension plan for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.


FEDERAL PARTICIPATION, PANARCTIC OIL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the Canadian Government's participation in Pan Arctic Oil Limited?
2.	How many directors are appointed by the government and what is the name of each?
3.	Does this private-public corporation report to Parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Panarctic's initial financing involves $20,050,000, if which the government will provide a total
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
October 28, 1968

grant of $9,022,500 to be paid in fractional amounts over a minimum period of three years and for which the government has received a 45 per cent equity. Involved are
900,000	preferred shares at $10 par, purchased for $9,000,000 and 225,000 common shares at 10 cents each, issued for $22,500.
2.	The government has appointed one director to the board of Panarctic Oils Ltd. The director representing the government is Mr. John A. MacDonald, deputy minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The board of Panarctic Oils Ltd. consisting of 14 directors, is composed of one director essentially in respect of each million dollars subscribed by an industry participant or participant group, one director representing all farmers having agreements with Panarctic, and the government's director. Panarctic's shareholders agreement provides that at the government's behest, the board shall be increased to 20 members and the government may increase its representation on the board to nine members, in accordance with its grant to Panarctic being 9/20th of the initial financing.
3.	No. The management of Panarctic is responsible to its board of directors. Government control, as may be required, is effected by its representation on that board.


INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many cases were heard by the Income Tax Appeal Board for each of the past three years?
2.	For each of the past three years, how many appeals were lodged with the Exchequer Court (a) by the minister (b) by taxpayers?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to implement recommendations of the Carter Commission concerning the reform of the Income Tax Appeal Board and legal processes in matters of taxation?


Yves Forest: I am informed	by the Departments	of	NationalRevenue	and Finance as	follows: 1965 1966	19671.	268	254	2722. (a)	27	13	13(b)	Direct appeals	100	67	200From decisions of the Tax Appeal Board	57	51	61
3. All recommendations of the royal commission on taxation are receiving careful
Questions
consideration. The intentions of the government concerning particular recommendations of the commission will be made known when the government places its proposals for tax reform before parliament.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Who are the members of the Immigration Appeal Board and what is the salary of each?
2.	Since its establishment in 1967, how many appeals were lodged with the Board and, of these appeals (a) how many were rejected (b) how many were allowed?
3.	Of the decisions of the Board, how many were appealed to (a) the Exchequer Court (b) the Supreme Court?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The members of the Immigration Appeal Board are: Miss J. V. Scott, Chairman; Mr, J. C. A. Campbell, Vice-Chairman; Mr. J. P. Geoffroy, Vice-Chairman; Mr. J. A. Byrne, Member; Mr. J. P. Houle, Member; Mr. G. Legare, Member; Mr. U. Benedetti, Member; Mr. F. Glogowski, Member; Mr. A. B. Weselak, Member.
The salaries fixed by the Governor in Council are as follows: Chairman, $22,000; Vice-Chairman, $21,000; Members, $19,000.
2.	Since the Board commenced its functions on November 13, 1967 to the end of September 1968, a total of 994 appeals have been lodged with the Board.
The disposition of these appeals is as follows: Appeals Dismissed and To Deport, 355; Appeals Allowed, 23; Grant of landing directed, 12; Orders Quashed, 19; Execution of Order Stayed, 284; Decisions Pending, 32; Appeals to be Heard, 222; Appeals Withdrawn or Not Yet under the Board's Jurisdiction, 47; Total, 994.
3.	Decisions of the Board are not appealed to the Exchequer Court. To-date one decision of the Board has been appealed and heard by the Supreme Court.


SALE OF BRIDGE, NOTRE DAME DU NORD, QUE.
Mr. Caouelte: Has the government entered into negotiations for the sale of the bridge at Notre Dame du Nord, Que. and (a) if so, what stage has been reached in these negotiations, and with whom are they being conducted (b) if not, does the government intend to carry out the necessary repairs soon, or to replace the old bridge with a new one?

October 28. 1968
Questions


Arthur Laing: (a) Negotiations are presently underway with the Government of Quebec for the transfer of this bridge to the province. The province is presently studying the terms of the proposal to effect this transfer, (b) Not applicable.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR FLYING INSTRUCTION
Mr. Roberts: 1.	Has the government announced that it will not recognize the cost of solo flying time, mandatory for a commercial flying licence, as an educational expense for Income Tax purposes and, if so, when was this announcement made?
2.	Have representations been received from pilot associations and flying club associations on this subject?
3.	Is this decision under review and, if so, when will the results of the review be announced?
4.	Are the expenses of accompanied flying instruction recognized as an educational expense for Income Tax purposes?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. No. The costs of ground school training and flying training (dual and solo) incurred while a student is under instruction and enrolled in a course leading to a commercial pilot's license at a flying club or school which has been certified by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to be an educational institution, constitute tuition fees which are deductible in computing income for purposes of the Income Tax Act. However, the costs of solo flying while the student is not under instruction but is gaining experience to meet the minimum number of hours necessary to obtain a commercial pilot's license are not considered to be "tuition fees" within the meaning of the act.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. See Item 1 above.


ARDA PROJECTS, QUEBEC CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	During the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 (a) what projects were undertaken under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in the constituencies of Hull, Gatineau, Pontiac and Labelle (b) what are the projects and where are they located (c) what is the total cost of each of them and the share of the costs assumed by the federal and provincial governments respectively?
2.	Did the Quebec government submit requests on behalf of one or more of the above-mentioned
[Mr. Caouette.)
constituencies for other projects under the ARDA programme, for the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 and (a) which of these projects were approved (b) which were rejected (c) which are still under study?
fTranslation]


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. (a) None, (b) Does not apply, (c) Does not apply.
2. Yes. (a) None, (b) 1965-66, None. 196667, Pontiac-Study of Indians related to Community Development. 1967-68, Pontiac

 Park Development program in eight counties throughout Quebec. 1968-69, None to date, (c) 1965-66, None. 1966-67, None. 1967-68, Gatineau-Park Development of six provincial parks in various locations in Quebec. 1968-69, Pontiac-Park development including La Verendrye Park.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: What capital public works projects does the federal government intend to carry out in the constituency of Richmond during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970?


Arthur Laing: Location and description
Bromptonville
Addition to Post Office
Disraeli
Improvements to Federal Building
Ham Nord
Construction of Post Office Building
Richmond
Federal Building-Improvements to lighting and air treatment
St. Adolphe de Dudswell
Construction of Post Office Building
Windsor
Federal Building-Air treatment and electrical improvements
Weedon
Fencing

21,200
6,200
5,200
35,700
16,100
12,100

20,000
3,000
October 28, 1968


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Clermont: What amounts were paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act, in each province, in 1967 and what was the balance in the Unemployment Insurance Fund on December 31, 1967?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises:
UIC Benefit Payments in Dollars By Province Calendar Year 1967
Nfld.	19,664,041
P.E.I.	3,162,665
N.S.	18,152,170
N.B.	17,387,518
Que.	111,970,648
Ont.	108,050,960
Man.	11,537,924
Sask.	8,809,612
Alta.	13,195,769
B.C.	40,714,012
Total	352,645,319
Balance in Fund	on 31 December, 1967


$369,641,146.33.   FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Carter: What is the total number of applications received from Newfoundland fishermen for assistance under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act since its inception and how many loans were actually made?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Application for these loans is made to a chartered bank or credit union. The lender determines, within the act and regulations, whether a loan may be granted. Refusal of applications is not reported to the federal authorities and hence data on the number of applications which have been made are not available to the federal government. A total of 18 loans for $23,003 have been made under the act to Newfoundland fishermen since its inception to August 31, 1968.


WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARIES
Mr. Yewchuk: Are active negotiations underway between the federal and the Alberta governments concerning the Wood Buffalo Park boundaries and is an agreement imminent?
Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, however, it is anticipated that discussions with the province of Alberta will be resumed in the near future. It is not possible to state when agreement will be reached at this time.


COMMEMORATIVE MARKER, LITTLE BRAS D'OR, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The: Sydneys):
1.	Has land been acquired as yet for the erection of a marker at Little Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia to commorate Count de la Boularderie and, if so, where will such a marker be located?
2.	When will such a marker be unveiled?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Acquisition of land for erection of a marker to the Boularderie's at Little Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia, has not yet been consummated. Satisfactory completion of negotiations now in progress will determine the location.
2. This answer depends on the date of completion of the land acquisition.


FEDERAL BUILDING, DARTMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to construct a new federal building in Dartmouth?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such a building including cost of land and where is the intended location?
3.	When will tenders be called?


Arthur Laing: 1, 2 and 3. Planning for the construction of a new federal building in Dartmouth has commenced but is not yet developed to the point where dates or location can be given. Estimated costs could not be revealed even if they were known at this time because it is not customary to give these costs before tenders are called and a contract awarded.


MAINTENANCE OF MOUNT KOBAU FACILITIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 491.-Mr. Anderson:
Are the facilities on Mt. Kobau, in particular the site testing equipment and the access road, being maintained and, if so (a) how many men are employed on this maintenance (b) what are the qualifications of these men?
[Stage Direction]
October 28, 1968
Questions
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes. (a) Four, (b) One man was responsible for supervising the road construction and the installation of the sitetesting equipment. He has been involved in the project since its inception and is now responsible for the maintenance in both areas. Two men are labourers who have been trained under him and the fourth is a skilled mechanic with years of experience as an astronomical observer.


EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dionne: What is the amount of excess contributions deducted from Canadian citizens since the Canada Pension Plan came into force and what amounts have been reimbursed to date?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The amount of excess contributions deducted from Canadian citizens since the Canada Pension Plan came into force is not available. Refunds totalling $23,776,479.18 had been made as at September 11, 1968.


BUD WORM INFESTATION, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Flemming: Referring to Question 326, has the Government of Canada had their attention drawn, by any interested person, corporation, Crown corporation or any source whatsoever in New Brunswick, to the serious danger of another large scale bud worm infestation developing in the forests of New Brunswick with consequent serious damage, unless spraying operations are carried out during the spring of 1969, preparations for which must be made during the winter of 1968-69?


Mr. E. J. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Yes.


PFRA PAYMENTS, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Horner: 1.	How much money was spent on PFRA in the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in the fiscal years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68?
2.	How much money does the department propose to spend on the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in the fiscal year 1968-69 in PFRA payments and will these expenditures be more or less than that amount spent in any one of the previous years?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1.
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta

2.	1968-69
(estimated)


$7,122,400 $10,192,600 $2,732,000 FLYING ACCIDENTS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary): 1.	From January 1, 1958, to date (a) how many aircraft have been the subject of search operations in that part of southern British Columbia bounded by the 49th parallel of latitude and a parallel line through the City of Vernon, British Columbia (b) how many lives have been lost in these flying accidents and how many persons have been rescued (c) how much has the Government of Canada spent on such searches through the Air Sea Rescue Service and as financial assistance to civilian search craft (d) what loss of life or injuries have been sustained by search personnel?
2.	What is the cost of the most recently designed homing beacon device (such as SARAH) ?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. From
January 1, 1958 to August 31, 1968 (a) 44;
(b)	92 persons were involved of whom 43 definitely are known to have lost their lives, 26 were rescued and 23 still are missing;
(c)	as order in council P.C. 1962-13/653, dated 2 May, 1962, stipulates that no fee will be charged for humanitarian assistance, specifically search and rescue, no record of costs of individual searches are maintained; (d) one person has been killed and three slightly injured.
2. There are numerous homing beacon devices on the market ranging in price from approximately $150 for portable survivor operated beacons to several thousand dollars for more sophisticated crash position indicators which are attached to the aircraft and

October 28, 1968

operate automatically on impact in the event of a crash.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard (Skeena): Since January 1, 1963 have any charges been laid for infractions of the Combines Investigation Act and, if so, by name and address of the person, organization, company or group so charged what was (a) the nature of the charge (b) decision of the courts (c) the current position of each case (d) the amount of any fines levied (e) the term of any jail sentence imposed?
Return tabled.


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS, CROWN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fortin: In each of the Proprietary Crown Corporations, what is the number of employees (a) who speak French only (b) who speak English only (c) who are bilingual?
Return tabled.


TOTAL UNEMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED STUDENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of unemployed in each province of Canada in May, June, July, August of
1966,	1967, 1968?
2.	What was the number of High School and University students unemployed in each province of Canada in May, June, July and August of 1966,
1967,	1968?
Return tabled.


ARDA PROJECTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Harding: 1.	What projects have been undertaken under
the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in (a) the Province of British Columbia (b) the federal constituency of Kootenay West for the fiscal years 1965-66, 1966-67,	1967-68, 1968-69 and
what was the contribution towards these projects by the federal government and the provincial government?
2.	Have requests been received from the Province of British Columbia on behalf of some areas in the constituency of Kootenay West to undertake further projects and, if so, (a) when will these projects be carried out (b) what type of project will be involved in each program (c) how much money will be appropriated for each of these projects and (d) how will it be shared?
Return tabled.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council would inquire why it is taking so long to get an answer to question No. 4, having to do with the pensions of retired civil servants.


Yves Forest: I will, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I ask it at the risk of sounding like a pious bleeding heart, which is a classification the Prime Minister now has made. Will the right hon. gentleman check whether a condition of Canada accepting a place on the observer team in Nigeria, that of being able to make its own decisions about what it wanted to see and what route the team would take to get there, is being adhered to?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Will the Prime Minister agree that the attempt by the observer team to seek the village where 500 died was a legitimate objective of the team, and will Canada seek assurance from Nigeria that our representative on the team is not subject to the threat of a whipping by Colonel Adekunle?


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is probably argumentative. The second question is in order.


Mr. Trudeau:: I was about to say yes to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the second part, I think it is partly facetious. The part about whipping certainly is not a serious question.


EXTERNAL AID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of an offer by Pacific Western Airlines
October 28, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry to dispatch that company's Hercules planes to assist in the delivery of supplies to Biafra? If so, what is the government doing to encourage and assist this company in giving its aid in this way?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am not aware of this offer, but I recall having said several weeks ago that there were other Hercules planes apart from those under Canadian government colours, and that if the churches or the Red Cross could charter these I would consider it to be a very welcome step.


David Lewis: In view of reports that our Hercules planes are now ready to fly from Fernando Po into Biafra with supplies, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether our planes have landed at Fernando Po and will be able to take off, in view of some information that there may be a strike of air traffic controllers on the island?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With regard to the last part of the question concerning labour troubles in Fernando Po, I must say that I have no information. I do know, however-and I believe the house has learned of this over the week end-that we have finally had clearance from the Guinean authorities and will be able to land at and fly from Fernando Po. We sent an external affairs official from one of our European posts to Fernando Po. He will be there to clear up any matter that might involve government information or decision. He is there now. One plane has actually landed there. It was brought in I believe from Ascension island, and has been made operationally ready to fly.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house whether among the supplies carried by the Hercules there is self contained ground control radar equipment which is badly needed at the airstrip at Uli? If not, would he be prepared to have such dispatched to the airstrip so it could be used to assist in the landing of planes there.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I do not know whether such a unit was on board the supply plane. I will check to find out whether this is necessary. If it is, surely we can supply it.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a further supplementary question. If necessary the minister may take this as notice. I wonder whether he can advise the house now if it is a

fact that the Hercules aircraft are equipped to make a drop of supplies in Biafra and could quite effectively do so.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, of course they are equipped to make a drop, but the purpose of the operation is not to make a drop but to land and get down with something like 20 tons each trip.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what cargoes are contemplated for the return flights once the food cargoes are permitted into Nigeria. Has there been any consideration as to cargoes for return flights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been no consideration of which I know. I do not know whether the hon. member has anything in mind, but I suppose if any Canadian families or church groups were to volunteer to adopt Nigerian children, that might be contemplated.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the government had considered flying Biafran children out of the areas of hostility and establishing areas for the treatment of malnutrition outside these hostile areas of Biafra.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is another suggested purpose for which I suppose the government would be prepared to use the planes if they were being flown out without any cargo, but this is the kind of initiative that perhaps churches or individual Canadians might want to take.


NATIONAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with a United States revolutionary who spoke at the University of British Columbia. I refer to Jerry Rubin. Has the minister or the mounted police, who are subject to his direction, endeavoured to ascertain why it was that this individual appeared on the C.B.C. on October 23 and stated, among other things, that he not only wore the Viet Nam flag around his neck but crossed into Canada carrying live machine gun ammunition? Furthermore, I should point out that he said he recommended that Canadians remove this government and overthrow it.
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
I should like to know how such a person gets through immigration and comes into Canada. Everybody knows his record in endeavouring to foment revolution, or, in any event, dissension which will lead to revolution. What has the minister done about this, and would it be possible to communicate with the C.B.C. to ascertain whether such a person should be denied the free publicity which the C.B.C. provides?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, without in any way treating the matter frivolously, the right hon. gentleman has asked me questions which apply to three or four departments. In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, we have received no communication from the attorney general of British Columbia on the subject. If the right hon. gentleman wants to pursue the question as it relates to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, my colleague the Solicitor General is in his place. I might say in terms of revolutions, we had a very successful one on June 25.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not a revolution; it was a catastrophe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, let me
direct my question to the next minister who is here in an endeavour to obtain his views regarding this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the right hon. gentleman is not only asking for the minister's views. He should be asking for whatever information the minister can give at this time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to take the question as notice, because as it is posed it is really a statement giving a lot of information certain parts of which I did not have before. I will be glad to look at the whole form of the question and bring forward an answer on the part of it which relates to this department.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is always very explicit.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In the statement he made on the week end he
DEBATES	2085
Inquiries of the Ministry spoke about the amendment to the Criminal Code with reference to birth control. Is the government now contemplating dividing and separating the omnibus bill with reference to amendments to the Criminal Code?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would consider Bill S-22 of the last session, which contained the amendment in question, he will find that this was not in the omnibus Criminal Code bill but was in what was then known as the omnibus health bill. I expect that the bill will be introduced in the other place some time this week.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. When will the amendments to the Criminal Code be brought in? Will it be before the Christmas recess?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


RESEARCH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Arising out of a question asked previously in the house and statements by ministers to the effect that the matter was under consideration, would the Prime Minister say whether a decision has yet been made as to the tabling of the study on the Queen Elizabeth telescope project?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would ask that question when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in the house.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, notice of which I have given him. I would like to ask the minister whether he is giving consideration to criticism of the R.C.M.P. made in Winnipeg by Mr. Justice Freedman concerning the case of Mr. Arthur Percy Leon Ballegeer, in which the judge said that an R.C.M.P. constable had succeeded in "wilfully... frustrating the due process of
October 28, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry law. What the constable did was wrong and unjustifiable."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question could be placed on the order paper, unless there is in it an aspect of urgency which is not apparent to me at the present time.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CULTURAL AID TO FRENCH SPEAKING CANADIANS OUTSIDE QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In the light of the statement made last week by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), could we know whether the proposed special government program to give cultural assistance to the French-speaking minorities in Canada will require the passing of new legislation?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply to that question; we are in the process of considering the ways in which this assistance to the minorities can be efficient. It may be that we will require special legislation, under the terms of existing legislation. One thing is sure: we certainly do not want to go about it in a way which could be considered as tampering with the constitution.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Prime Minister.
Have all the interested provinces been consulted in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, will a similar program be established for English language groups which are in a minority position in the various bilingual districts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a program which will not necessarily be tied to the concept of bilingual districts. It is something the Secretary of State is exploring on his own. That is why I answered to the previous question that it may be done independently of any legislation. If it can be done under present agencies or present arrangements, it might be done in that way.
[Mr. Orlikow.l


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister express the hope that the province of Manitoba would participate in an imminent meeting of the Canada-France joint cultural commission, and has the government of Canada consulted with the government of Manitoba regarding participation by that province in this meeting of the cultural commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this particular meeting I would have to find out, Mr. Speaker. I know it has been the declared policy of this government, and it was stated quite clearly in our white paper published last February, that when we do have commissions or delegations which are dealing with subjects that are partly of concern to the provinces, we try to get representatives from the provinces to assist as members of the Canadian delegation. In the Manitoba case I will have to inquire.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Was the Minister without Portfolio stating government policy over the week end when he stated in effect that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should get out of the way of self determination of the Indian people?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, this aspect of government policy has not been defined as yet, but I would say that if this is what the minister said it sounds like a very nice idea.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would he encourage an investigation of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by a committee of Indians, as was suggested by an Indian spokesman over the week end?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My apologies to the hon. member, but would he please ask the question again?


Richard Russell Southam: Would the Prime Minister encourage an investigation of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by a committee of Indians, as was suggested by an Indian spokesman over the week end?
October 28, 1968	COMMONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East
Richmond): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister accepted the statement made by the minister as probably being a good idea, and since the latter is one of the ministers in charge of that particular department, why does the Prime Minister not ensure that the minister gets the department out of the way and lets self determination take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Yewchuk: I had a supplementary question also intended for the right hon. Prime Minister, but since Mr. Speaker ruled the previous question out of order I will not put it.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask the right hon. gentleman whether his hint in Halifax of solicitude for the rich in a reduction of the income tax constitutes a cabinet leak, and if so what disciplinary action will he take against himself?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it does not constitute a cabinet leak because there has been no decision on that matter in the cabinet, but I do like to throw out ideas for discussion.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. While his colleagues are pursuing their arduous and difficult explorations in the south, is it his intention to issue a third edition of this unmentionable document to fill in the blank spaces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am glad the hon. member has found the document so useful. I appreciate his acceptance of the general technique involved, and I will be glad to assist him in any way with necessary changes.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a supplementary question?
DEBATES	2087
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: No, a related one.


Mr. Speaker:: I would rather hear a supplementary question than a related question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence in view of the statement by the chairman of the Defence Research Board to the effect that the board may have to close some of its eight research stations, and in light of the fact that research projects sponsored by the board during the last number of years have resulted in a great many valuable contracts for Canada. Can the minister assure the house that this penny wise and pound foolish course will not be followed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that this is an urgent matter. It seems to me that it could be placed on the order paper.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question which I would like to address to the Prime Minister in the same general field. 1 did not want to say it was a supplementary question, sir, because you cast some doubt on the validity of my first question.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he or one of his ministers would be prepared to make a statement on the very important policy question concerning the future of Canadian scientific research, in the light of the rather disturbing evidence that was given in the Senate committee on science on this matter.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is a very important subject and we are working on it very actively. It is a matter of seeing in what way the cabinet secretariat or the Privy Council office can be reorganized to help us formulate a more efficient science policy and to make sure that we can work hand in hand with the science council. I have had meetings with the president and vice president of the science council, and I am having another meeting today. The hon. member will be pleased to hear that a new report of the science council will be given to me today and will be made public in the very near future.
October 28, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement to a startled and crestfallen meeting of his party in Halifax on Saturday to the effect that patronage is now dead so far as his government is concerned, does the government intend to adhere to this very fine principle when making the appointment of the president of Air Canada in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister might wish to reply to the question without referring to the introductory remarks of the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: I will skip the introductory remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I can understand the hon. member's concern. I would say the audience was startled; they were not crestfallen but startled, because this is not usual in Nova Scotia.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since this very unexpected but welcome turn of events has taken place, may we now expect appointments to be made to the Senate from parties other than the Prime Minister's?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a supplementary question but it is a related question.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are a great many people in the country who would like to hear the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might place the question on the order paper.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he is not in a position to make a statement concerning the appointment of the president of Air Canada can he at least inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to divide the executive function between a president and a chairman of the board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think it would be proper for me to make this announcement.


This is something that will be considered with the board itself, and will be considered in the light of the names that will be recommended by the board for appointment. I can say to the house now what I have said before, that I have been very actively engaged in seeing possible candidates, not all of them Liberals, for such an appointment. We expect to be able to act very soon, and the action we will take on the names will be related to the action we take on the restructuring of the executive and the board itself.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question. Was that the reason for the long line-up in front of the Prime Minister's office this morning?


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: I have another question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, which arises from the right hon. gentleman's answer to a question asked on Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister said that in due course he would reply to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada indicating whether he would grant an interview. Can the Prime Minister give a firm undertaking today that he will grant this delegation an opportunity to discuss the problems raised in their letter?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: In my answer last week I indicated I would study the first part of the question after I had heard from the various governmental departments that seem to be implicated in the letter. I have had no such reply yet.


Gerald William Baldwin: Does the Prime Minister not feel that in view of the fact this organization represents some 12,500 public servants, his reluctance to meet them might be destructive of morale in the public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think so. In view of the fact the letter was sent to me one day and appeared in the press the next day, I thought perhaps the president of the institute was merely trying to make a point. If he made it, then I am in the process of finding out whether the point was well made or not.
October 28, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. It is a follow-up to one on which he gave a partial answer about two weeks ago. Has the Department of Justice resolved the problem relating to Judge Parker's chairmanship of the mediation commission in British Columbia? If so, what has been the outcome?


John Napier Turner: have asked Judge Parker to tell me what he intends to do, whether he intends to accept the chairmanship of the mediation commission in British Columbia or whether he intends to remain a judge of the Yukon territorial court. I expect to have an answer.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald MacInnis: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister investigated the breakdown in cabinet secrecy which has resulted in the publication of discussions held in cabinet prior to the presentation of the budget, concerning the ceiling placed on the 2 per cent social development tax?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: What makes the hon. member think anything that actually happened was leaked, Mr. Speaker?


Donald MacInnis: I would call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have the roles reversed. I do not believe that the government can ask questions of the opposition.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Prime Minister has forgotten that it was he who mentioned it, not I. Since the report was widely publicized that cabinet ministers reacted against the $120 ceiling, I would ask the Prime Minister who amongst his cabinet are the reform minded ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is not in order.
2089
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to advise that the hon. gentleman is on our daily roster.



RECOGNITION OF ACHIEVEMENTS OF CANADIAN TEAM AT OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I wonder if I could address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Having in mind the achievements under difficulties of Canada's Olympic team, will he consider making some gesture of recognition to them for their efforts?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Well, I am very pleased today to make at least the gesture which is suggested by the hon. member and say that the Canadians who performed down there did a very good job, the best they could to represent Canada. As to any further recognition, I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the many representations I have received from the voters in my riding, could the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell the house whether he intends to raise the indemnity given to married people enrolled in retraining courses according to the number of dependents they have?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question could be put on the order paper and, if it is urgent, the hon. member could give me notice of the question, if he wishes to discuss it on the adjournment debate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE VATICAN On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether an appointment to the Vatican having ambassador status or the equivalent is imminent?
October 28, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: There is a lot of static on my machine. Could I hear the question again?


Robert Muir: May
I ask the Prime Minister whether an appointment to the Vatican, having ambassador status or the equivalent, is imminent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is part of our review of external affairs, Mr. Speaker. It is an idea that we have been considering, but there is no imminent announcement to be made in connection with the matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, I gave the Prime Minister a list of countries and asked if the Canadian government had been consulting them about possible action in the United Nations. I wonder if the Prime Minister has an answer. I might add at this point that after very careful consideration I am no longer interested in the reply of the government of the Gold Coast.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has cleared up the matter of his antiquated geography. With regard to the other states, there have been discussions between representatives of these countries and representatives of Canada at the United Nations. We now learn from them that the position is that they are not recommending any action in this regard. Apparently some of the officials at the UN representing other countries might have said at one point that they thought something should be done by way of a cease fire. However, my information now is that none of these countries, excepting of course those who recognize Biafra, are recommending that we propose a cease fire in the United Nations.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government of Canada considering taking action through the third committee of the United Nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Under what heading, Mr. Speaker?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question asked of the Prime Minister earlier, may I ask him whether the representatives of Canada at the United Nations are discussing with representa-


tives of other nations the possibility of raising the Nigerian-Biafran tragedy through the means of the third committee, which is concerned, as I am sure he knows, with social, humanitarian and cultural affairs. The question could be raised under any heading like the suffering of children, the death of children, and related conditions that are now a fact in Nigeria and Biafra.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question?


David Lewis: I did, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman suggested earlier that he did not know how the matter could arise in the third committee, and in my question 1 thought I would indicate how easily it could arise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Robson Muir: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he anything further to report on the question asked by the hon. member for Churchill on October 17, in connection with negotiations between the Manitoba government and the federal government concerning the development of a townsite at Churchill, Manitoba?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have something to report on that. I am not sure whether it is a repetition of something I said a few days ago, but in any event I will say it now in this place.
After having met the premier of Manitoba, there was an exchange of correspondence. I wrote to him indicating that certain proposals that had been made by him were under review by us. If in the meantime he wanted to communicate with anyone in the federal government, I gave him the channels through which there might be further discussion.
I do want to make it clear that the ball is now in our court and that the cabinet will be receiving from the Minister of Public Works, very soon according to my information, proposals about measures that can be taken with regard to the city of Churchill.
I hope nothing in my previous answer left the impression that we were waiting for the government of Manitoba to act. I want to make it clear we hope to come forth with some proposal very soon.
October 28, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRENCH AND CANADIAN AGENCIES On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making public the non-secret portions of the agreement concerning exchange of nuclear power information between Canada and France? If not, could a statement be made about the reason for non-publication of the agreement?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with several days ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will ask him whether he has anything further to add.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer, and I will debate the matter at ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the President of the Privy Council in his position as house leader. Is it the intention of the minister to refer the last two reports of the Auditor General and the public accounts of Canada to the standing committee on public accounts?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member on his re-election as chairman of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope to be in a
position to make an announcement in the house in a few days with regard to the proposed business for the committee.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to 29180-1321
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. As the urgent concern of all Canadians is presently directed to Biafra, and as no evidence to my knowledge has been' presented by the official observation team or the self-styled experts indicating starvation among the members of the Biafran army, can the secretary of state or the Prime Minister assure this house and the Canadian public that Canadian food being airlifted to Biafra in Canadian armed services aircraft will be supplied only to the starving civilian population and not commandeered by the army to be used to further the war effort?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as very important notice to the minister for external affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has been explaining some of the confusion that arose in Halifax, could he tell the house whether it was a cabinet leak when he allegedly asked, in answer to a request from a group that waylaid him-and I am not in any way approving of that-whether they would in fact have supported the sending of food supplies to Nazis who were starving during the war at Stalingrad? May I ask the Prime Minister what was the nature of the philosophic consideration that brought forth that emission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question I can assure the hon. gentleman that it had nothing to do with a cabinet leak. 1 am happy to hear that the right hon. member wants to hear my philosophic considerations, because in his usual spirit of fair play he does not want to be misled either by editorials or by headlines.
In my discussions with these students and young people, who in no way waylaid me but were protesting peacefully, and with whom I was very glad to have an exchange of views,
I made the point that intervention in wars by third parties sometimes had larger consequences than the third parties had contemplated at the outset. I gave various examples of such situations. Apart from the Vietnamese I gave several examples, such as the Russians being surrounded at Leningrad, the Nazis being surrounded at Stalingrad, the French being surrounded at Dienbienphu, and probably 1 would have cited Custer's last stand had I thought of it.
I gave several such examples and said that for a third party to intervene in some way to help ambushed or beleaguered defenders in
October 28. 1988

Inquiries of the Ministry some part of the globe might entail involvement in a civil war, and I was asking them to reflect on that. There was no intention in my mind, as the right hon. gentleman realizes, of comparing them to the Nazis, to the Soviets, or to the French at Dienbienphu.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the Prime Minister admits that it was in fact an ill timed and ill considered comparison?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I think what was ill timed was the headline, and I merely suggest that if the right hon. member is interested in speed reading he should not stop at the headlines.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -I read the statement that was made, and no amount of weaseling on the part of the Prime Minister can explain it away.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald MacXnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the same remarks made in Halifax and his reference to feeding Nazi troops around Stalingrad, does the Prime Minister not realize that Canada was involved in a war at the time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, is now a member of the task force on housing; and could he tell us how that minister was able this morning to participate as a member of the task force and to question the briefs that were being presented?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio has been requested to assist the Minister of

Transport in every way the Minister of Transport sees fit.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this include sitting as a regular member of the task force, or is it to be the practice that Liberal members in various cities will be made in some way ad hoc members of the task force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention that there be such ad hoc members. The task force has been set up on a basis that would permit it to proceed as efficiently as possible on this question of housing in order to reach its conclusions as quickly as possible. The Minister of Transport has taken initiatives that I think are aimed at that end.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister call the Minister of Transport off this housing trip and see that he is present here on Wednesday to answer questions about his personal conduct-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: -which has been challenged in and out of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HAMILTON, ONT.-HEARING OF BRIEFS BY TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I did ask a question of the Minister of Transport on Friday of last week which in his absence was handled by the Minister without Portfolio. However, in view of the urgency of the matter I will have to direct my question to the Prime Minister. All Hamilton is waiting for the answer. Perhaps the Prime Minister could advise the house whether in fact any studies took place over the week end to determine if the task force is or is not going to visit Hamilton, Ontario.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: In accordance with a series of instructions I gave my colleagues, including the Minister of Transport, I do not think there will be a minister here to answer for that department except on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. I wonder whether the city of Hamilton could possibly wait until Wednesday to hear this answer.
October 28, 1968	COMMONS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the statement the right hon. gentleman has made, I wonder whether he would undertake to see to it that an answer is given, preferably a favourable answer, for the benefit of all Hamilton on Wednesday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister's department have any special programs designed to help alleviate the heavy burden of increased unemployment in the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think what the hon. member is requesting is a statement, which should be made, if at all, on motions.


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes. I was really asking for a yes or no answer. My supplementary question was to be this. Will the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions in view of the fact that on Thursday he made reference to Ontario and Quebec in connection with the work of his department?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I do not think it will be necessary to make a statement on motions to cover this point.


John Howard Lundrigan: On Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the minister did refer to a considerable increase in departmental expenditures for Quebec and Ontario. I think it would be in order for the minister to advise the house what is in store for the Atlantic region, bearing in mind the heavy burden of unemployment there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question asked last week had reference to the cancellation of the municipal winter works program. As the hon. member knows, a very minor proportion of the total expenditure under that program was spent in the Atlantic provinces. Over the years we have concentrated our expenditures in the Atlantic provinces on occupational training and retraining, especially of the unemployed. The program undertaken this year certainly represents much greater expenditures than could possibly be made, or have been made, under the municipal works program.
DEBATES	2093
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises as a result of your reaction to the original question asked by my hon. friend from Gan-der-Twillingate. I should like to point out that for a number of years we sat in this house and heard hon. members by the names of Pearson, Martin, Pickersgill and Chevrier putting the same type of question day after day after day.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly make his point of order?


Robert Muir: My
point of order is that there are many precedents for the type of question which was posed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. Why, at this late date, after so many precedents have been set in the house by distinguished members who are no longer here-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a late date. It is a new date.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Can the minister say whether the regulations under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code have yet been put into effect? In particular, can he say when the provisions of this legislation will be operative in the province of Manitoba?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not wish to mislead the hon. gentleman. I should like to take this question as notice and give him detailed information on Wednesday.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a question for the Prime Minister. On Thursday the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertook to check whether NATO secrets or other information essential to national security have been compromised in the security scandal recently revealed in west Germany. In the light of the serious developments over the week end, will the Prime Minister now report to this house whether our national security has been compromised in this connection?
October 28, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have no report to make as yet. I expect the appropriate minister will make it as soon as he has the information.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: think it was on October 16 that the hon. member for Red Deer asked the Prime Minister whether the report of the royal commission on security had been received. I believe the right hon. gentleman told us he had not received it. I wonder whether he will now tell the house whether he has received this report and, if so, when it will be tabled.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Later this week I am to meet with the members of this royal commission, and I expect them to submit either a final or an interim report; and, if questioned, I shall be glad to let the house know what happened.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the Prime Minister explain to the house, if he is in a position to do so at this time, how it came about that a London daily paper was apparently able to print facts about the report of the commission on security and make reflections on the R.C.M.P., before the report has been tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question was asked on October 16. I told the house at that time that I was not yet in a position to control what appeared in London newspapers.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that many farm areas have experienced successive crop failures as a result of frost, snow and poor harvesting conditions, may I ask whether consideration is being given to placing a moratorium on interest payments particularly in connection with machinery and land purchases?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. member would mind addressing that question to the Minister of Agriculture.


Stanley James Korchinski: Might I ask, as a supplementary question, whether consideration is being given by the government to providing cash advances with respect to crops lying in swath?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that legislation is being introduced in the Quebec legislature to set up a department of immigration with stated policies, can the minister advise the house whether there has been consultation between either himself and his opposite number in the Quebec government, or between corresponding officials, to see that the policies of the two departments do not work so as to counter one another, but rather that they dovetail?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had no consultation with any Quebec minister on this subject nor, I believe, have any of my officials had consultations, recently at least. I understand there is a desire to have such consultation, and I look forward to having it.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mark Willson Rose: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. The hon. gentleman is not here today but perhaps his parliamentary secretary could answer it. Does the recent proposal to make loans and grants available to British Columbia Indians for the construction of more fishing vessels conflict in any way with the minister's intention to limit the number of salmon fishing boats on the Pacific coast?


Eugene Whelan: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



SALT COD-INQUIRY AS TO DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: In
the absence of the Minister of Fisheries perhaps the Prime Minister could answer this question. Is it the government's intention to propose a deficiency payment in connection with salt cod this year, in light of the fact that fishermen are receiving less than 50 per cent of the price they received last year?
[Mr. Woolliams.l
October 28, 1968


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe that questions on matters concerning the Department of Fisheries will be answered tomorrow in the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the
minister is here.


John Howard Lundrigan: As a supplementary question may I ask the government of Canada to stop codding around with the Atlantic cod.



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have the advisory councils on manpower and immigration, which were to be established under the new legislation, been appointed yet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the new manpower advisory council and the boards have not yet been named. I am currently working on this problem, and I hope we will have the council in operation at the earliest possible date.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are now at the final stage of this legislation so far as this house is concerned. I realize too that it is not very often that a bill which has passed all previous stages is defeated on third reading, but it can happen. However, the make-up of this parliament is slightly different from that of the last one so that defeat of this measure at this stage is perhaps too much to hope for. But it does seem to me it is still appropriate to ask the government to give further consideration to some of the objectionable features of Bill C-116.
I hope we have made it clear that we support many of the provisions of this legislation. As a matter of fact, the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) is actually implementing some of the suggestions we have made about second, third and fourth class mail paying
Post Office Act
their own way. However, it is still felt by many of us that it is unfair to eliminate Saturday delivery in urban residential areas. We also feel that even if the government wants to establish one rate for first class letters, whether they are drop letters or carried across the country, that rate might be 5 cents instead of 6 cents. Furthermore, with respect to some of those changes of which we approve we think there is a case for considering further some of the details, particularly the times when some of the changes are to come into effect.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, even during the week end since the approval of the bill in committee stage many, perhaps all of us, have been receiving communications by mail and telegraph urging further consideration of the measure. We are still appealing to the minister to make the particular changes that we suggested. We do not like its provisions for increased charges and reduced service. Therefore the least the house might do is to put off the passing of this bill until a later date and so I move as an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather):
That Bill C-116 be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I say very briefly that we intend to support this amendment. We are not satisfied that the minister and the government have made a case. We are not satisfied they have answered the questions put from this side of the house during presentation of the case for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, both on second reading and in committee of the whole.
They have not answered the questions with regard to the archaic method of tendering. They have not, despite our questioning, established the basis upon which the figures were arrived at that were presented by the minister and the government in order to substantiate his proposals. They have not met the direct challenge put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on Friday, by which the statements of the minister were met head on and refuted.
They have not answered the clear case made by members on this side of the house that the increases in the rates will in effect constitute a form of indirect taxation, not a charge falling upon corporations but an indirect form of taxation falling upon a great many individuals, which of course will add

October 28, 1968
Division
substantially to the high cost of living. They have failed dismally and completely to make a case for the changes, and we propose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
The house divided on the main motion (Mr.	
Kierans) which was agreed to on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Allmand	Forget
Anderson	Foster
Andras	Francis
Badanai	Gervais
Barrett	Gillespie
Basford	Givens
Bechard	Gray
Benson	Groos
Blouin	Guay (Levis)
Boulanger	Guilbault
Breau	Haidasz
Buchanan	Hopkins
Caccia	Howard (Okanagan
Cadieux (Labelle)	Boundary)
Cafik	Hymmen
Cantin	Isabelle
Chappell	Jamieson
Chretien	Kierans
Clermont	Laing (Vancouver South)
Corbin	Lang (Saskatoon-
C6te (Richelieu)	Humboldt)
Cullen	Langlois
Cyr	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Danson	Lefebvre
Deachman	Legault
Deakon	Lessard (LaSalle)
Drury	Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Duquet	Lind
Durante	Loiselle
Ethier	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Forest	MacEachen
October 28, 1968

MacGuigan	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Mackasey	Stafford
McBride	Stanbury
Mcllraith	Stewart (Cochrane)
McNulty	Stewart (Okanagan -
Marceau	Kootenay)
Marchand (Kamloops-	* St. Pierre
Cariboo)	Sulatycky
Mongrain	Sullivan
O'Connell	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Olson	Tolmie
Ouellet	Trudeau
Penner	Trudel
Pilon	Turner (London East)
Portelance	Turner (Ottawa-
Pringle	Carleton)
Reid	Wahn
Richard	Walker
Rock	Watson
Roy (Laval)	Whelan
Ryan	Whiting-100.
Sharp	NAYS
	Messrs:
Aiken	MacEwan
Alexander	Maclnnis (Cape Breton-
Baldwin	East Richmond)
Beaudoin	MacLean
Bell	MacRae
Brewin	McCutcheon
Broadbent	McGrath
Burton	McIntosh
Carter	McKinley
Comeau	McQuaid
Crouse	Mather
Danforth	Matte
Diefenbaker	Mazankowski
Dionne	Monteith
Fairweather	Moores
Flemming	Muir (Cape Breton -
Fortin	The Sydneys)
Gauthier	Muir (Lisgar)
Gilbert	Noble
Gleave	Nowlan
Godin	Nystrom
Gundlock	Orlikow
Hales	Peddle
Harding	Peters
Harkness	Ricard
Hees	Rose
Horner	Saltsman
Howe	Schreyer
Knowles (Winnipeg	Scott
North Centre)	Skoberg
Korchinski	Southam
Lambert (Edmonton	Tetrault
West)	Thomson (Battleford-
Laprise	Kindersley)
Lewis	Woolliams
Lundrigan	Yewchuk-67.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out the very obvious violation of the rules by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The violation may have been obvious to the hon. member 29180-133
Division
but unfortunately my attention was obviously attracted somewhere else and I did not see the violation. I suspect that the hon. member is referring to the fact that hon. members should not come inside the house or move outside the house while a vote is being taken. This may be the violation to which the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is referring.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I deny there was any violation. I voted from my seat.


Donald MacInnis: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, possibly the Secretary of State for External Affairs would like a thorough explanation of what the rules are concerning a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that they cannot move from one seat to another while the vote is being taken. Perhaps that is the point the hon. member is making. I would point out to hon. members that two hon. members were involved, one from each side of the house, ft was not too conspicuous and I did not bring it to the attention of hon. members. The point of order raised by the hon. member gives me an opportunity to remind all hon. members of the standing order on this point.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-110, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act-the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kent-Essex on a point of order.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is to respectfully request once more that the government give consideration to bringing forward at this time a non-controversial bill on agriculture, namely, Bill C-113, in order that we may deal with it at this time.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much that this is a point of order. The hon. member will have to refer me to the standing orders indicating where and in what way this can be construed

October 28, 1968
Farm Credit Act
as a point of order. It is a question which I assume might be legitimately asked of the government house leader, and he may want to reply to it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to bring forward at eight o'clock this evening the bill amending the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Bechard in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please.
House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act. When the committee rose on Tuesday, October 15, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 1-"Farmer."


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with this bill at the present time and to bring to the attention of hon. members what I consider is a very grave problem, particularly so far as the agricultural industry is concerned, concerning the manner in which legislation is presented.
There was no doubt from the very outset that Bill C-110 would be controversial because some principles are involved on which we wish to question the minister rather closely. An attempt is being made by the government through this piece of legislation to broaden the base on which farmers can borrow money, and to increase the amounts. Some of these provisions we consider very commendable. However, there is also a principle involved here in that the government by the order of business it has set is creating a definite hardship to the agricultural community of this country.
We have asked on many occasions that a change be made in the government program to allow Bill C-113, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, to be considered. However, on every occasion the government has indicated that it is prepared to deal with that bill only if the opposition will allow Bill C-110 dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation to pass through all its stages. I fail to see why the welfare and the economic well-being of farmers should be tied up by an attempt by the government to force its will on parliament. I fail to see, as a member sitting on this side of the house, any great advantage that the government can derive from forcing these bills through the house in

the order it has indicated it wishes to proceed with them.
It is a very serious proposition for a farmer in the west faced with the hardship of muddy fields and grain so wet that it is not fit to be harvested. It is lying on the ground and there is so much mud that the heavy machines cannot harvest the crop. He wonders where the money is going to come from to pay his obligations to the bank, to the machinery companies and to the government, and where he will find the money to feed and clothe his family during the winter months. Surely we who sit here in parliament represent the people of Canada, and when we observe the tactics which the government has employed in regard to this legislation we realize it is certainly not serving the farmers of this nation.
I see no great difficulties involved in changing the order of these bills on the government program. We could have had Bill No. C-113 out of the way and have dealt at length with Bill C-110. We consider the action of the government nothing less than blackmail. What it said to us in effect was: If you wish to deal with Bill C-113 you must deal first with Bill C-110 in all its stages. May I assure you, Mr. Chairman, and through you the members of this house that we are not too concerned about whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage to the government. What we on this side of the house are concerned about is the welfare of the farmers whom we hope to serve. I feel that we are doing Canadian farmers and Canadians as a whole no service when we hold up solutions to economic hardship because of the jockeying for position which takes place in parliament.
So I wish at this time to place on the record of this house the opinion of the opposition that the government is doing no service to the farmers of this country when it takes action to prevent them from obtaining the monetary assistance they so desperately need.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very wrong indeed for me to accept the remarks of my hon. friend who in fact said that the amendments to Bill No. C-110 are not important.


Harold Warren Danforth: I did not say they were not important.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member did not say exactly that but his words were to the effect that some kind of blackmail was going on so far as the government is concerned with respect to the order in which these bills are coming forward. I would like to remind hon.
October 28, 1968

gentlemen opposite, in the most charitable terms at my command, that we regard the amendments to the Farm Credit Act in Bill C-110 to be of the greatest importance to the farmers of Canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver island. There is no particular magic in putting this bill ahead of any other bill because it is very difficult to ascertain the relative importance of these bills. Their importance depends on where in Canada one lives and what one's status is with respect to the provision of loans. I think it would be pretty hard to argue with a farmer in Nova Scotia, eastern Quebec, British Columbia or anywhere else, who has been waiting for his loan from the Farm Credit Corporation to be approved, that it is more important that legislation on cash advances on farm stored grain be approved first when he is waiting for increased capitalization. This is the situation that we face today.
The argument of hon. gentlemen opposite that the government has not given top priority to farm legislation is in complete contradiction of the facts. The facts are that until Tuesday, October 14, apart from the time required for the budget speech and for supply, which hon. gentlemen know is mandatory, all the time was used for debates on farm legislation. There is no logical reason why hon. gentlemen could not have made their arguments once. However, some hon. gentlemen opposite spoke four or five times on clause 1. They could have made their arguments and then let the house decide whether or not to pass the amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation legislation. These amendments could have been passed long before now.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I want to say that no wrong tactics, no blackmail and no pressure at all are involved. In case hon. gentlemen did not know it, I point out that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for agriculture all over Canada and not simply in the prairie provinces. We want all of these bills passed. We think it is essential. I know that hundreds of applications to the Farm Credit Corporation are now pending. We know now that the capitalization of the corporation, which is $40 million, will have expired before we can transfer funds that will permit us to approve these applications.


Mr. Horner:: It has not yet.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It will if we accept these applications. We cannot proceed, in view of 29180-1334
Farm Credit Act
what has been done in the past, until we have this increase in capitalization. Today the capitalization is $40 million and under the act we are not allowed to commit any more than 25 times that capitalization or $1 billion. More than that would be committed if the applications we have right now were approved.
There is certainly no intention on my part or on the part of the government to cause any delay. We had thought that long before now these amendments and the farm cash advances legislation would have been passed. However, the situation is such now that it is unfair to suggest any wrong motives are involved in trying to get these Farm Credit Corporation amendments passed. We need them. I have tried to explain; I have pleaded with the opposition that we need them. In any event, the house leader has said that at eight o'clock tonight we will deal with Bill C-113. Then hon. members will have an opportunity to debate it. I want to say that even if that bill were passed tonight it would not in any way change the fact that the Farm Credit Corporation amendments are extremely important to the farming community in Canada. We do not have any more money to make commitments until parliament approves the bill.
There are many other important amendments, changes in the rules, the criteria and the qualifications, that are also improvements in this legislation. The opposition will have to take the responsibility for holding up these improvements. I believe the opposition will also have to assume responsibility for one other factor, namely, that after the government has given top priority to the farm legislation the government cannot go on with it. If hon. gentlemen opposite are not willing to pass this legislation, that is up to them. They will have to take responsibility for it. There are other essential pieces of legislation dealing with other departments with which we have to deal. Hon. gentlemen must know that the budget has been presented and the budget debate is to begin soon. They should know too that there are important changes in various pieces of legislation related to the budget.


Mr, Horner:: You are not filibustering your own legislation now, are you?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All these measures ought to be passed. We are willing to do everything we can to get this legislation through. We have to remember that top priority has been given these measures in so far as the time of this house is concerned and those who hold them up should take responsibility for doing so.

Oclober 28, 1968
Farm Credit Act


Mr. Peters:: I should like to ask the minister a question. He referred to the capitalization of the Farm Credit Corporation. There is a capitalization of $40 million and the corporation is allowed to commit 25 times that amount. Since the Farm Credit Corporation has now been in operation for a number of years and farmers have been repaying loans to the corporation, can the minister say if these payments go into a revolving fund or are they made to the Receiver General of Canada to go into general revenues? When this act was passed originally, was there a time limit on when the government would have to put more money into the capitalization of the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Several questions have been asked, Mr. Chairman. It is a fact that the payments on loans that have been made in the past have been made to the corporation. Of course, the corporation has payments to make on loans from the Minister of Finance. If I understand the situation correctly, there is a steady increase in the amount of the assets of the corporation from the earnings on these loans that have been made.


William Arnold Peters: Am I correct in assuming then that the Farm Credit Corporation really has a revolving fund from which it makes loans and that this fund is increased when payments are made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have been trying to listen to the questions and get advice on the precise techniques, which makes it a little difficult. What the hon. member is saying is true in part. It is a revolving fund because payments come back into it and a large portion of these payments is available for further loans. Of course, the fact is that applications for new loans far exceed the repayment of loans outstanding.


George Robson Muir: We on this side, Mr. Chairman, are glad to see that the minister has finally come to the point where he is showing a little co-operation with the opposition. Had this been done earlier I am sure these two bills would have been passed long since.
The legislation we are considering today, a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act, while of the utmost importance to the farming industry in providing credit to establish and equip necessary economic units, does little to assist our farmers out of the dilemma in which they now find themselves. There is
I Mr. Olsen. 1
hardly any segment of the agricultural economy today that is not plagued with rising costs, lower prices and lack of markets. In addition to all this, farmers have been forced to meet competition that is either government subsidized or the result of overproduction of many agricultural commodities produced by other nations. In so far as grain is concerned, we see the corn producers of Ontario turning to the government in desperation and asking the government to do something about the importation of surplus corn from the United States. So far as I know, these farmers have had no reply to date.
In so far as wheat and other grains grown in the prairie region are concerned, we have the opinion of the president of one of the leading grain companies in the west that there is little likelihood of the crop delivery quotas for this crop year exceeding five bushels per specified acre. Mr. Runciman, president of the United Grain Growers, also predicted that the best western farmers could hope for by way of income from grain sales until May of 1969 is $10 per acre. When one considers the cost of working the land, seed, fertilizer and harvesting, one hardly needs to mention that this amount falls far short of the cost of production. Yet somehow the farmer is expected to pay his living costs, interest and capital payments on land and machinery, taxes, repairs and other expenses too numerous to mention out of this inadequate income.
If the farmers are forced either to sell their grain for feed at fire sale prices or turn to the production of beef, pork or poultry to supplement this meagre income, one need not be an agricultural expert to predict what will happen to the whole agricultural industry in the coming years. Under these circumstances there will simply be overproduction of every farm commodity, in the depression years the farmers had to grow more for less in order just to survive.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The proposed amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, which I am pleased to see the government has finally agreed to bring in at eight o'clock this evening, could be of some immediate assistance but certainly they are not a long range solution to our agricultural problems. The fact that the government has consistently refused to announce what will be the interest rate on farm credit loans or to give the house and the country any inkling as to what formula the governor in council will use under section
October 28, 1968

16A of the act in setting the interest rate leads one to believe that the interest rate for long term credit will be a fluctuating one. It also leads us to believe that it is not the government's intention to hold the rate at a level that our farmers can afford, but to squeeze the last possible dollar out of an industry that at the present time is fighting for its very survival.
I believe it is important to Canada that the agricultural communities in our country prosper along with other segments of our economy. To enable them to do so the government can play its part by continuing to make long term loans at 5 per cent interest.
We believe-and I think the minister will generally agree-that our farmers are among the most efficient in the world. However, I would point out to the minister that they are being forced to compete with producers in other countries whose governments have accepted farm subsidies as permanent policy. I would also point out that the interest that the government will be negotiating with the banks under the Farm Improvement Loans Act has no relation whatsoever to the interest that the government on its own should be charging the farmers for long term loans under the Farm Credit Act.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not too much to ask the government to maintain a 5 per cent interest rate for long term loans to farmers. This would average out over the years at very little, if any, cost to the government. Action of this kind could be a very vital factor in helping the industry achieve stability and the necessary economic well-being.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take a great deal of time but I should like to make one or two points. The first is that I think the minister should have referred the bill to the standing committee. This would have presented an opportunity to review the effect of the bill upon our farmers who find themselves in a rapidly changing agricultural economy. Some of the farm organizations could have been asked to appear before the committee to outline the needs of our farmers today, giving the picture, as it were, from the other side of the fence.
I do not in any way question the administrative ability of those who have been in charge of our farm credit programs, but it is well on occasion to get the point of view of those who are participating in such programs, those who, one might say, have to carry the load and pay the bills. They should be given
Farm Credit Act
the opportunity to outline the good points and the points that require changing.
At the present time some of our farmers who have formed themselves into groups require tremendous amounts of credit which were unheard of a few years ago. At the same time, single farmers who are just starting operations require credit on different terms; they require supervision and money lent to them at a lower rate of interest.
Another point that concerns me about this bill is that from now on the interest rates will be set by the governor in council. This decision is going to be taken away from parliament, from those who sit in this house representing farmers. In this regard I take away nothing from the minister who, like me, represents the farmers in his constituency.
The farmer has made a very considerable contribution to the economy of Canada. I have in front of me a news letter published by the Department of Agriculture which goes to great length to detail what the farmers of Canada have done for the country as a whole. I was president of the Farmers Union and could not have done a better job in putting the case for the farmer. However, when one reads what the Department of Agriculture says the farmers have done for Canada and compares it with what the Department of Agriculture and the government propose to do to the farmers in the terms of this bill, one wonders whether hon. gentlemen opposite are sitting in the same seat. According to this newsletter the department has this to say:
To put it another way, an average hour's earnings by a worker in the manufacturing sector in 1946 bought 1.9 pounds of pork chops. In 1967 the same hour of work bought 2.8 pounds. Creamery butter (the number of pounds that can be purchased with an hour's wages), over the same period jumped from 1.7 to 3.4 pounds; eggs 1.4 dozen in 1946 to 4.4 dozen in 1967; milk 5.8 quarts to 8.3 quarts; potatoes 21 pounds to 43 pounds; and sugar from 8.3 pounds to 25.7 pounds. But at the same time the percentage of the consumer's dollar accruing to the farmer declined from 57 in 1950 to an average of 42 in the 1960's.
The newsletter goes on to say:
The non-farm sectors of Canada must be reminded that it is in their financial interests to promote the prosperity of the farmer.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, it is in "their" financial interests, not in the interests of the farmers. It goes on to tell our farmers:
You have become bigger and you have gone into debt to equip yourselves to do a proper job in the industry which you know best and which you alone can operate.

October 28. 1968
Farm Credit Act
So, Mr. Chairman, we are looking to the farmers. Nevertheless we propose to increase the interest rates on the money the farmers have to borrow to continue to do these wonderful things for the consumers. The newsletter goes on to relate that our agricultural exports average about $1.8 billion a year and our imports about $1 billion, leaving a net trade balance in our favour of about $800 million. It concludes:
If agriculture is to take its rightful place we must have deeper mutual understanding between our rural and urban peoples, and this means greater appreciation of each other's strivings and achievements.
e (4:40 p.m.)
It is a wonderful document. I could go on to say more about it. It tells of the goods and services which farmers buy, the purchasing power that they channel into the industrial and manufacturing community of Canada. In these circumstances one would think that in a bill such as this our objective would be not only to make more money available but to make sure that it is available at rates which the industry could afford. One would judge by the statements made in this pamphlet that the industry which it describes cannot afford to pay high interest rates. That is the only conclusion one can reach. This legislation gives us an opportunity to bring some real, long term aid to farming, if the government wishes to take it.
Those who borrow money under this act will be paying it back for a long time, most of a working lifetime. If a load is placed on them they will be carrying it for a long time. They have no other way out. I think we have not gone far enough in establishing a coordinated credit policy in our approach to this problem.
We read here that total farm productivity has increased by some 67 per cent in the last 24 years. Capitalization has increased by 50 per cent. Thirty years ago, 63 per cent of the input of farmers was represented by labour costs. Today that figure is only 25 per cent. These are some of the things we should be taking into account when we begin planning a credit program for agriculture, and that is what we are doing here. My concern is that the provisions set out in the present bill do not meet the requirements of the industry and that a credit program is not being planned and developed in a manner which will keep the industry in a healthy condition. We are facing tremendous changes not only in the size of holdings but in the type of production. The industry will need money with
[Mr. Gleave.l
which to recapitalize. If we place the interest rate too high we shall be putting our farmers in difficulty; we are not doing them a big favour.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak again on clause 1 of the bill but after the severe scolding and lecture the minister gave members on this side of the house, I think the record ought to be cleared up. At the resolution stage, I asked the minister to agree to this bill being referred to the committee on agriculture. He did not assent to this course and his defence was that there were other and more important pieces of legislation before the house which had to be cleared up. He had to give way to the post office legislation.
If the hon. gentleman had referred this bill to the committee two weeks ago a lot of the information we require could have been obtained. Oh, I know the minister is about to rise to tell us that the committee had not been constituted.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman, I-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I listened patiently to the hon. gentleman and now I should like him to listen patiently to me. He may speak after I have finished, if he wishes to do so.
It is the duty of the minister to listen to what opposition speakers say and to take their advice into account. Instead, the hon. gentleman lectured us and told us to be good boys. He thought this legislation was needed, and we had to pass it. If we had allowed the government to pass farm legislation increasing interest rates by as much as 2 per cent, what would the farmers have said to us when we went home? They would have said: Why did you not advise the Minister of Agriculture that this is wrong and detrimental to the industry?
The minister gave a perfect example of what I mean by skating around the question when he replied to the hon. member for Timiskaming. He was asked whether the Farm Credit Corporation was set up on the basis of a revolving fund. Well, said the hon. gentleman, it was in part. Why did he not say yes or no? We have had the same kind of answers all along so far as farm legislation is concerned-hum and ho. How does the minister expect us to do our jobs when we are given that kind of assistance?
We are not attempting to hold up this legislation. At the beginning of the session we urged that the bill be sent to the standing
October 28, 1968

committee but the minister would not agree. It was said that the money was urgently needed, but when the question was asked whether the fund was on a revolving basis the minister told us that it was in part. He did not say how this affected the interest or how it affected the capital. He did not say yes or no. If he wishes to speed up the passage of legislation he would do much better to encourage and inform members of the opposition rather than scold and lecture them.
No one is more concerned about the agricultural industry than the members of this party or, indeed, all members of the opposition. The minister has it in his power to do something for the agricultural industry. We have hopes that with our assistance he will indeed help that industry. He must understand that we are here to help him, that we are here to encourage his department to do those things which agriculture needs, to assist him in his battles with cabinet colleagues over high interest rates, to strengthen his hand in his talks with the leader of the house as to the importance of this legislation and the need to place it before the house with some degree of continuity.
All last week the post office bill was debated in this chamber. It was discussed continuously until it was finished. The last time this subject was debated, clause 1 was ready to go through. Now we have spent another hour during which we have listened to a lecture by the minister in connection with who was holding up what. For a while, in fact, I thought he was filibustering his own bill. Now the question has arisen: which bill is of greater importance? The hon. gentleman knows that the cash advance legislation is of immediate importance to farmers. But the measure before us concerns long term credit and we would be doing less than our duty if we did not thoroughly examine any proposals affecting long term credit brought forward by this or any government. This is what we have attempted to do.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In his news letters the minister has described the grave conditions facing agriculture all across Canada. We are well aware of the fact that every day small farmers are going out of business and that the family farm is slowly disappearing. We have to examine this bill to see what it provides to stabilize the small farm, to halt the continual drift from the small farm to vertical integration.
The minister has not really aided us in our concern with this problem. He could have
Farm Credit Act
done so by sending the bill to a committee. He has not aided us with regard to the interest rates. More than two weeks ago we passed the farm improvement loans bill and since then have been waiting patiently for the interest rates and the formula governing them to be announced. The other day the Minister of Finance said he thought that bill had been passed by the Senate, but the Senate is still discussing it and the interest rates will not be announced until the act is proclaimed.
What are they waiting for in the Senate? They are waiting for the former hon. member for Assiniboia to make one of his roaring speeches in defence of the farmers. When I made inquiries they told me they were waiting for him to get back from the west to make a speech on that bill.
We have been given no real set of regulations. That legislation is practically following the same pattern of previous legislation. During the June election we were told that that legislation was supposed to have been dealt with last February, that the banks had agreed to an interest rate last February, and that everything was copacetic. But two weeks after the passage of that bill by this house no formula has been announced for the interest rates.
We are going to have to deal again with the question of interest rates on clause 5 of this bill. I can tell the minister right now that he will have a stormy session on clause 5 unless he is prepared to enlighten us to some degree on what the interest rates will be with respect to the other bill. Surely he does not want us to buy two pigs in a poke and then go back home and say, "We did the best we could but we did not know what we were passing and what the minister was asking for.". I would like the minister to clarify his "in part" statement with regard to the revolving fund and how he expects that this bill, particularly with the high interest rates he has in mind, will maintain small farms in existence. I would also like him to explain what is meant by the phrase in the regulations defining an economic unit. Again I ask the minister to explain his words "in part" with regard to the revolving fund.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Charman, it is somewhat analogous to a revolving fund. I want to be precise in the answers I give. It is not exactly like a revolving fund because the act sets out the maximum amount which the corporation may have outstanding at any time with the Minister of Finance. At the present time that

October 28. 1968
Farm Credit Act
amount is $1 billion, 25 times $40 million, which is the capitalization of the corporation.
This money is borrowed by the corporation on specific repayment terms. Loans are made to farmers on specific repayment terms and their repayments are used by the corporation to repay the Minister of Finance. However, the amount of the principal recovered from the farmers is much less than the amount of funds being lent so that the ceiling of $1 billion has now been reached. So it is true that in part-I have to say that to be accurate-some of this money can be used as a revolving fund whereby repayments that are made are available to be lent to other farmers. But my hon. friend will have to bear in mind that that is not exactly right because we have specific commitments to the Minister of Finance as well, and of course the amount of money that comes back from the farmers and is used for those specific commitments does not form part of a revolving fund from which new loans can be made. One cannot repay the Minister of Finance and lend that same money again, and so the answer I gave was absolutely correct.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, if it was correct it was understood by nobody but the minister himself. Will the minister clarify this point? If the ceiling has not been reached is the amount recovered from farmers immediately plowed back into other farm loans?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Any money that comes back from the farmers is used immediately to lend to other farmers unless-and this is the point my hon. friend missed-we need that money or a portion of it to meet a specific commitment to the Minister of Finance to pay off a loan from him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have the report here but I cannot find the table at the moment. For example, in 1951 and 1952 the government borrowed money at 3 per cent to be lent under the Farm Credit Act. I presume that a large amount of that money is now coming back to the government. If no loans had to be repaid to the Minister of Finance, am I correct in assuming that this money could be lent again to farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am advised that the $15 million which the corporation borrowed from the Minister of Finance in 1951-52 is repayable to the Minister of Finance in full in 1970, but all of the other loans that the hon. member will see listed on page 24 of the report are amortized loans. We pay a portion back each year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does the corporation receive an amount back from the farmers that is relatively close to the amortization due each year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These loans are amortized on different terms and so it is difficult for me to give a precise answer, but my hon. friend can be assured that whatever money the corporation has in excess of its commitments to the Minister of Finance is available for further loans to farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now we are getting to the crux of the problem. How then can the minister say it is a revolving fund? In essence the government has not set up 25 times $40 million solely as a revolving fund from which money can be lent to the agricultural industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is why I had to qualify the answer I gave. It is analogous to a revolving fund but not precisely because of other commitments which the corporation has to meet. The request now is to raise the ceiling from $40 million to $56 million, which will increase the maximum amount to $1,400 million. As long as this is authorized by parliament as capitalization, when the corporation pays back whatever amount it happens to owe the Minister of Finance it will immediately have that much additional authorization. It may not have the money. It may have to go back to the Minister of Finance and borrow it again, but each time we raise the ceiling this raises the amount of capital authorized to the corporation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In that case we are by this bill raising the capital authorization by $400 million. Am I correct in assuming that all loans-I am referring to page 24-borrowed from 1953-54 onward, after this ceiling is in effect, would not necessarily have to be paid back at the new rate of amortization?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry; I do not quite follow the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words, could this be applied as part of the increased capitalization?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, as I explained, the corporation is required to pay to the Minister of Finance a portion on each loan. We can obtain that information for you. The important thing is that they are amortized so that a portion is paid back each year from the time
October 28, 1968

they are taken out. But the paying back of any portion does not alter the new authorized limit which, hopefully, will be $1,400 million. That is there. We will have to go back to the Minister of Finance from time to time if we wish to have the maximum amount of money available for lending to farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What I have been trying to entice the minister into telling us is what part of the available money lent under the act is in fact that portion that is revolving. I hope he will correct me is I am wrong, but I can only assume that about 98 per cent or 99 per cent of the money lent is not revolving and that perhaps 1 per cent or 2 per cent would be.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think we must first of all agree on what we mean by revolving.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I mean a situation in which the Farm Credit Corporation does not find it necessary to obtain another loan from the Minister of Finance. It took the money it borrowed at 3 per cent, 3.2 per cent or 3.25 per cent, and so on down the line, 15 years ago. What portion of that is revolving? Is it 50 per cent? I said 2 per cent. I believe it is very important that the committee should know what portion of that money really is revolving so that we will have that information when we deal with clause 5 of this bill.
If the Farm Credit Corporation borrowed this money from the government at one time at a rate of 3 per cent, 3.2 per cent or so on down the line and has that money for its use-and I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo will agree with me in this regard-I would not think the corporation would attempt to milk the farmers with this money. I would not think the Minister of Agriculture or the officials of his department would charge an exorbitant rate of interest on this money.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe the hon. gentleman has overlooked the fact that the corporation owes the Minister of Finance very nearly $1 billion. In fact, all the money we have borrowed from the Minister of Finance has either been repaid or is outstanding. The money that comes back from loans from time to time is there for the corporation to use before a repayment is due. In respect of the corporation having any earnings, increased capital or surplus in excess of operating costs, there may be a little but it is so little that it cannot be relied on as canital to be lent again to farmers.
Farm Credit Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It would appear I was quite correct in assuming that a figure of about 2 per cent is in fact the percentage in respect of the revolving fund. Now the minister brings in the question of administrative costs. At page 20 of the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation for the year 1968, dealing with interest rates on money lent to farmers it shows $43,202,515 as the amount of interest earned on mortgage loans to farmers. Then it shows that an amount of nearly $42 million in interest on loans from the government of Canada is deducted. Then we come to the crux of the problem. If the amount of interest paid to the corporation by the farmers is greater than the interest paid to the government, then we have the problem of whether the government should finance the corporation in respect of the administration costs.
We understand that the government finances the operating costs of the eastern feed board that was established a couple of years ago. Last year this board had operating costs something in the order of $500,000. A new Canada grains council is to be established in respect of which the government is to pick up the operating costs. The national dairy commission is another body in respect of which the government picks up the operating costs. In respect of crop insurance the government pays 25 per cent of the administration costs. I am very gratified that the government is picking up these costs in respect of other boards. Nothing is so important today as farm credit and therefore I would certainly like to think that in respect of this most important corporation the government would not shrink from its duty of picking up the administration costs of that board also. I would certainly recommend this to the minister. If this is done, then I see no real necessity for an increase in the interest rates as provided by this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, may I refer the hon. gentleman to a line slightly farther down on that page where it states that the net operating loss provided for by the Department of Agriculture under vote 70 is $3,809,176.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am quite aware of that figure. But we were talking about money. In answer to the hon. member for Timiskaming the minister said that this in part is a revolving fund. At that time I was aware that it was a very small part, but I wanted to draw this from the minister. Surely it is a very small part indeed. I said 2 per cent and no one denied that. I think I am being generous in saying it is that much. The minister's last

October 28. 1968
Farm Credit Act
remarks on the question of money were to the effect that the corporation owes the Department of Finance nearly $1 billion which must be paid back but that it can obtain further loans from the Department of Finance. Then I brought up the matter of interest. I did not deny that there would be expenses in respect of salaries, employee benefits, pension plans, travelling expenses, office accommodation and so on. This is all included in the figure of $3 million which the Minister read.
I mentioned five different agricultural programs which the government now assists with regard to their operating costs. Surely the government is prepared to finance the operating costs of this board which is much more important than the other five. I hope the minister will enlighten me in this regard. I will be content if the minister will say that the government believes it can finance the operating costs of the Farm Credit Corporation. If the government would say it has always felt that it should pick up the operating costs of the Farm Credit Corporation I would be satisfied. If the minister would say that I would no longer be concerned about the interest rates that he, through the governor in council, is going to attempt to charge. Before this measure carries perhaps the minister would comment and indicate whether the government is prepared to pick up the operating costs of this corporation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As the hon. gentleman knows, any deficit that the corporation incurs is picked up by the Department of Agriculture. In 1958 it was $3,809,176.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I had the principle of this matter in mind, I realize that the Farm Credit Corporation is in effect a child of the federal government and as such the government has to pick up the losses. I wanted the minister to enunciate his policy in respect of the principle. Will the government pick up the operating costs of the dairy commission, the eastern feed board and part of the crop insurance program? Does it now or will it pick up the operating costs of the new grains council which the minister referred to as a hallmark in the history of agriculture last week in Winnipeg? I am not sure that is exactly what he said, but he made some such grandiose statement as to the purpose it would serve.
Let me say that the Farm Credit Corporation and its employees have done a tremendous job. It is far more important than the

other five boards put together. In respect of the future of the agricultural industry today, the question of available capital is of utmost importance. All I want the minister to say is that he believes in the principle of the matter. I would even agree to his adding the word "if", because I am in a congenial mood today. Will the minister say that he firmly believes that if the government has to it will pick up the operating costs of the Farm Credit Corporation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will go further than that, Mr. Chairman. I will say that this has been done ever since the F.C.C. has been in existence. Whenever there is a loss it is picked up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fine. I will accept that.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, when Bill No. C-110 was first discussed, I had considered it my duty to point out the unfairness of the preferential treatment granted to some companies last year under Bill No. C-191, because we know that the bill exempted them from the excise tax of 12 per cent when buying trucks, tractors and various equipment for forestry and mining operations, as well as when buying pipes and other articles needed to install and operate natural gas or oil wells.
However, Canadian farmers are still paying 12 per cent on the full purchase price of a truck and they also pay 12 per cent in hidden taxes on several farm machinery, whatever type of operation they have. Whether they are poultry farmers, pork producers, cattle breeders, they need appropriate buildings to operate adequately.
The farmer is still subject to the famous 12 per cent tax for all materials used for the construction and maintenance of these buildings.
There was a time when it was possible to disguise favours. Now, with mass media, farmers are well informed and know what to believe. In the present case, farmers in the riding of Portneuf which I represent are disgusted, because they are fully aware that Bill No. C-110 which the government is about to introduce is more or less a legislation that will fleece them. They are afraid of the consequences of the bill before us which will enable a few individuals to set up rates of interest.
Farmers realize that the Farm Credit Corporation, which has rendered many services in the past, is becoming a collection agency.
October 28, 1968

Mr. Chairman, we all know that since Bill No. C-222 was adopted on March 21, 1967, the ceiling has been removed on interest rates on bank loans. By removing that ceiling, the government allowed the banks to do what they did, that is to lend at rates of 7, 8 and 9 per cent; and there is nothing to keep them from going up to 12 or 13 per cent.
Strangely enough, this bill singularly resembles Bill No. C-222. As you will recall, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) found that bill objectionable at that time. Allow me to quote a few of his statements. We all remember how good a parliamentarian he was and how he made himself heard quite often on this side of the house. The present Minister of Agriculture said, on March 17, 1967, as reported on page 14125, and I quote:
There Is only one aspect of this Bill No. C-222, Mr. Chairman, that I want to discuss, and that is the lifting of the statutory interest limit on bank loans. I was not a member of the committee, but I know this matter was discussed in the committee and I know some of the reasons advanced for authorizing the banks to go above the 6 per cent.
Now, we do not know what rate of interest will be charged to the farmers, that is left to the discretion of the minister.
And the hon. minister continued:
It was suggested that all chartered banks in the country would then be able to provide a far wider range of credit requirements to Canadian citizens.
The minister added:
I do not accept that contention-
-and a bit further, the minister continued in the same vein.
It seems to me that all that is going to happen or the practical application will be that the banks will be charging

-a higher interest rate-
-for all the loans they have out now at the statutory limit of 6 per cent. One effect of this move is simply going to be to raise the cost of living, the cost of operating at the manufacturing level and the wholesalers' level, so the ultimate result will be an increase in the price structure.
The honourable minister continues further as given on page 14128:
I suggest that many people seeking loans will pay more than 6 per cent on them after this bill becomes law.
The minister really knew what he was saying, he was really aware of what was coming up.
And I quote again:
The minister means that will not necessarily happen.
Farm Credit Act
He was speaking of the then minister of finance.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am not naive enough to think that loans to entities of the kinds I have mentioned will remain at 6 per cent after this bill becomes law.
I close with the quotation of a statement made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture who said again at the time, as shown on page 14126 of Hansard:
If you include this increase in the cost of manufacturing operations and throughout the whole distributive system, then I suggest there will be a significant increase in the cost of living as a result. I think this is one of our primary responsibilities and something we need to be concerned about.
Mr. Chairman, will the bill now under consideration not contribute to an increase in the cost of living? We may wonder, after listening to the quotations which I have just read, if the ambition of the minister would not have impaired his judgment a little, in view of the fact that for the province of Quebec in particular, the net income per farm unit which amounted to $1,941 in 1951 decreased to $1,600 in 1967, because the price of the goods used by the farmers increased by 60 per cent, while the farm revenues increased by only 17 per cent.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is hardly the time to raise the interest rate ceiling on the price of farm machinery, and, at this stage, I should like to remind the hon. Minister of Agriculture of the tremendous difference between eastern and western farming. In my opinion, the results seem better and easier to get in the west. Perhaps is it because of the type of breeding, the size of the farms? It may be the climate which helps tremendously.
At any rate, during my last trip to Alberta, I learned that the hon. Minister of Agriculture owned 250 heads of cattle. Since that has happened more than a year ago, it is possible that this number has increased. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, but I should like to remind him that the situation in which the eastern farmers find themselves, specially those who demonstrated on parliament hill a year ago, has grown even worse.
It is true that 8,000 producers of fluid milk can make a go of it, but it is quite different for the 50,000 producers who sell their milk to the processing plants. As concerns those who have delegated representatives to the hill last year, as I say, the situation is always the same.

October 28, 1968
Farm Credit Act
Several of these farmers have succeeded in building a business for themselves, thanks to the word of their wives and children, a few have succeeded by working 18 to 20 hours a day, thus endangering their health.
Among those workers, we can mention the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote). Hon. members will remember that he was elected to this house in a by-election in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska and that he looked unwell when he arrived here; in fact, he hurt all over. He was very tired and his absences from the house proved that he had been hospitalized several times. He is completely well today. His health has improved because he did what most farmers want to do. He got rid of his business. When he saw that he could not sell his land, it took him just three weeks to get rid of all his livestock. Three weeks after his election to parliament, he had sold 30 milch cows as well as 45 other young livestock for a total of 75 heads of cattle. If my figures are incorrect, I hope I will be called to order.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like government members to make their comments because up to now, with a few exceptions, we have only heard the opposition. A while ago, I noticed the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) in his seat. He represents a rural constituency. I would like him to tell us about the impressions of farmers in his region.
I also noticed, a moment ago, the member for Levis (Mr. Guay). We know that Levis is now a designated area. With the excuse that the industries are in bad shape, the legislation adopted to that effect will be used to bring benefits to the industries, by way of tax reductions or low interest rates. Now, will the farmers of Levis have to pay higher interest rates to help for the industries of the same region to gain advantages?
Mr. Chairman, I would also like the hon member for Laval (Mr. Roy) to let us know his views. He is an agronomist or a rural economist, you may call him what you wish. He is still an employee of the Cooperative Federee.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I remind my hon. colleague that I am not an employee of the Cooperative Fdderee and I would ask him to withdraw his comments.


An hon. Member:: It is quite unfortunate.


Roland Godin: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. It is true that the hon. member for Laval is not a
[Mr. Godin.l
full-time employee of the Cooperative Federee, but as he was one formerly and his services have been retained to take in charge certains projects of the Cooperative Federee. I always consider him as a man who has excellent ideas to suggest to his fellow-citizens.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laval can communicate with 340 co-operative managers in the province of Quebec, who in turn, can communicate with their 40,000 members in a few days. I would also like the hon. member for Laval to let us know the general views of most of the farmers of the province of Quebec. Are the farmers asking an increase in interest rates on their loans? Since the hon. member for Laval has always been at the service of farmers, is he still in a position to render them a service by stating their opinions in this house?
Reference was made to a just society, Mr. Chairman, before the election. The Prime Minister is now considering the publication of a White Paper which will discuss the cost of living in Canada. Then we hear about inflation that must be stopped, about prices that must be stabilized. We also hear about stabilizing salaries but, in view of the situation, the Minister of Agriculture would have everything to gain by taking steps to prevent the farms from falling into the hands of financiers.
Before stabilizing salaries and profits in trade and industry, let us first stabilize the interest rates on the loans made to farmers. It is true that the government guarantees those loans, but it is also true that the government will not make any payments until the farmer has lost everything he owns.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, the Farm Credit Corporation has already rendered untold services, but today that same corporation is becoming a collection agency. That is why I ask the minister to reconsider his position and to amend the bill in such a way as to ensure the security of all those who will have to apply to the Farm Credit Corporation for help.
In short, Mr. Chairman, let us pay tribute to our dear departed, before election time, but in the meantime let us pass legislation to maintain the living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I might not have risen at this time to make a small contribution to the debate but for the fact that
October 28, 1968

for the last two or three weeks the minister and the house leader seemed to take advantage of every opportunity they had, as did the Minister of Finance on one occasion, to indicate to the house and the country that the real reason the farm legislation had not been passed was that the opposition was holding it up. I think this is also the impression the minister tried to convey to the house a few minutes ago. He did this on several occasions during his journeys to the west; he made statements to the press to this effect.
For the sake of the record I want to mention a few things that have gone on. I think the minister will have to agree that we are not dealing here with one piece of legislation. I believe there was agreement between the government and the opposition that the four agricultural bills would be discussed at the same time. In other words, what we have been discussing has been four pieces of legislation. We have just gone through a period-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is three pieces of legislation.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is the farm improvement loans bill, the Farm Credit Corporation bill, the farm machinery syndicates credit bill and the cash advances bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not the cash advances bill.


Stanley James Korchinski: This is exactly what has happened.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To make it perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, there was no understanding at all that the cash advances bill was to be included in the package of bills we were to put through at the same time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Immediately after.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, immediately after, and we have not yet reached the "after".


Stanley James Korchinski: Then I withdraw the statement that the cash advances legislation was included in the agreement. But the fact is that the cash advances legislation was discussed in the house. The minister is trying to lump together all the time we have spent discussing farm legislation in the house, and I think he is including that bill or is leaving the country with that impression.
We have had placed before us four items dealing with farm legislation. The minister knows, because he was chairman of the rules committee, that at the resolution stage there is an opportunity to take up to five hours to debate a resolution. For the sake of the record I want to indicate what has happened
Farm Credit Act
in this respect. On September 30 we spent two hours dealing with the resolution stage of the legislation concerning the Farm Credit Corporation. Shortly before six o'clock the next day debate on the resolution was resumed and after a total of three hours and forty minutes of debate the bill was introduced. On Wednesday, October 2, we spent one hour on amendments to the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. On Thursday we spent four hours and ten minutes on the resolution stage of the farm improvement loan legislation, and on Friday, October 4, we spent two hours on the cash advances legislation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
On October 7 we went on with second reading of the farm improvement loans legislation, followed by clause by clause debate the next day and the following day. We completed that on the third day by giving the bill third reading. On September 30 we spent two hours on farm legislation, on October 1 we spent two hours and forty minutes, on October 2, one hour, on October 3, four hours and ten minutes, on October 4, two hours, on October 7, two hours and ten minutes, on October 9, one hour, on October 10, four hours and twenty minutes and on October 15, three hours and twenty minutes. Out of the whole time spent in debate on these bills the minister took up four hours himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley James Korchinski: Yet the minister is trying to suggest to us that it is we who are holding up this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the minister only spent four hours on them? It seemed like ten.


Stanley James Korchinski: He was certainly longwind-ed. Yet he is trying to leave an. entirely different impression. May I point out that on many occasions we have tried to extract from the minister some sort of formula. If he had come out with it and had given us his own thinking on the matter-never mind what the banks have in their minds-if he had given us an idea in February and told us what the formula was prior to June 25, we might have saved a lot of time in this house. I say now that we are quite prepared to pass the cash advances legislation after a limited debate. There are perhaps one or two suggestions we may want to make to improve that legislation, and the same is true of the farm machinery syndicates credit bill.

October 28. 1968
Farm Credit Act
We would be quite prepared to pass these three items of legislation following the 24 hours of debate we have spent on them even though the minister took four hours of that time. If we divide the 20 remaining hours by the three items of legislation, we can say we have spent less than seven hours on each. Let us consider that there are three opposition parties, so each party got less than three hours. Surely we are entitled to that much time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Sock it to him.


Stanley James Korchinski: I see I have a good cheering section behind me. I think the minister was quite aware of the fact that we have introduced no less than three amendments on this side of the house hoping to be able to pin down the interest rate to something that the people would understand and not leaving it to the whim of the minister or of the banks. I think this is important.
I make no apologies to the house or to the country for taking some time in trying to keep down the rate of interest. We have made similar efforts with regard to farm credit corporation loans. One thing we know for sure is that interest rates will increase. Are we not to stand here and fight against it? Are we not to be able to make a presentation, as did the hon. member for Crowfoot a few minutes ago, to try to see whether the revolving fund could not be used to the advantage of the farming community? Surely we should have the right to do this. We know that prices of farm land will be inflated. This will be a natural consequence of the minister's action in placing a limit of $100,000 on farm credit corporation loans. Are we not to be able to stand in defence of the small farmers? Are we not to be able to say a few words in defence of retaining the old farming units which have been there for years and years? Surely we in the opposition must have that right. As a matter of fact, I am very surprised that no one on the government side seems to realize that these farm units will disappear. I think something is wrong there.
As the government takes over, the credibility gap is widening. For years the farming community did not always believe what was said by the Liberal party. I can remember the time when a former prime minister promised $2 for wheat in Saskatoon. Yet now we are only getting $1.20 for wheat in elevators. How can the minister and the house leader stand here and try to accuse the opposition of holding up the legislation when everyone

knows this is a falsehood? I say that the credibility gap is widening and it will continue to do so unless the minister tells us what are the actual facts.
I have every right to express my opinions when I see many United States corporations coming into this country and gobbling up much of our farm land. I wonder who will own this country in the end? It has been true for several years that corporations from the United States have been moving in. They have moved in as far north as my constituency. They are not too concerned about making money, or so it appears, because money is no object to them. They outbid everyone in the community and often they gobble up ten farms at a time. They hire entrepreneurs who operate the farms for them. At that point money is no object to them. What they are interested in is the final price of that land when they want to sell it. What the minister is doing by this piece of legislation is to let the land fall right into their hands.
At one time we were very concerned with trying to help the small farmers. The attitude of the Farm Credit Corporation was that when a farmer possessed more than a certain amount of land it was very difficult to get a loan from them. I also have had dealings with the corporation and I tell you that in its attitude it has gone back to the days when one used to have to prove to the old farm loan board that one did not need the money before being able to obtain it.
These United States corporations can write off any losses they suffer here against their operations in the United States. I do not know what is happening there and I have not gone into their books but I do think it is strange that these people can come here and operate with the type of equipment they have- money is no object to them-and yet their purpose is clear to the government. Their purpose is to wait for the time when the value of the land will go up when they will make a profit on it.
The minister cannot convince me that this will not happen under this bill. Have I not the right as a member of parliament to take some time in debating the bill? I think I have. I think the minister should speak to some of his own supporters who will tell him the same thing, as I have. I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia is well aware of what happened in his area long before it happened in mine. I do not know how many times the minister has made arrangements with the corporation, but I think everyone is making
October 28, 1968

deals with the idea that eventually he will obtain money from the Farm Credit Corporation. One makes a down payment and signs an agreement and the money will be paid in six or seven months time, whenever the Farm Credit Corporation is ready to advance it. This is the type of agreement that all the people I know have made. They have been advised by their lawyers to do so. So it is not a question of having to have the money by tomorrow.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We could have sent this bill to a committee of the house. We could have discovered the weaknesses in the bill and improved upon it. Everyone knows that as soon as the snow falls no more money is paid out because all the claims are being processed. There are no more surveys of the land; the assessors do not go out after the snow falls. Why is the impression being left that we are holding up this measure when we know that during the winter the corporation just does a clean-up job on the applications? The agreements are signed in October but the money does not come through until well into May. This is what has happened in the past. There is no rush for this legislation, and the minister knows it.
On one occasion I asked the minister how much money was left in the fund and when it would be depleted. I believe he said in two or three weeks. If the farmers realized that something good might come out of a committee study I am sure they would not mind waiting two or three weeks more. Surely we should make this study in the interests of the farm community. Instead, the minister lectures the opposition about holding up this measure. We are bad boys.
The minister is not breaking new ground with this measure. This is old legislation and we are only adding to it. We know what has happened. We warned the former minister of agriculture what would happen when he increased the capitalization, and now we are increasing it again. The minister has his eyes open on some occasions but he likes to talk to the newspapermen and leave the wrong impression. I feel the minister will have to admit on this occasion that this measure could have been sent to a committee without too much loss of time and that the whole bill could have been improved. It is a lot of nonsense to leave the impression that we are holding up the measure just for the sake of holding it up.
Farvi Credit Act


William Arnold Peters: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I can endorse many of the statements made by the member who has just spoken in so far as two points are concerned. The first one is that we should have sent the bill to a committee. Second, it is not really going to make that much difference to any farmer whether or not we pass the bill now or six months from now. The Farm Credit Corporation has a considerable rigamarole to go through, such as surveying the land and checking titles, and I have found that this sometimes takes a year. On some occasions it has taken two and a half years.
I am not particularly concerned whether or not we pass this measure now. I feel that the minister raised a number of very interesting problems this afternoon that should have been discussed in a committee. One of them relates to the capitalization of the Farm Credit Corporation. We are raising the capitalization from $40 million to $53 million, but I am not sure just what that means. I gather this is a little like setting up a bank. You put in some money and the bank can borrow against that. However, the corporation is not borrowing against that money because the corporation gets the money from the federal government; they do not borrow the money at all.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can help the hon. member by simply telling him the statute clearly sets out that we cannot owe the Minister of Finance more than 25 times the capital.


William Arnold Peters: I know that, but the $40 million is only a figure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is the amount parliament has approved and we are asking parliament to increase it; that is all.


William Arnold Peters: I still do not see what relationship the capitalization has. We might as well have operated by designating the corporation as an agency rather than passing an act. The corporation could have been an agency of the Minister of Finance. Then, when the corporation received money it would have been paid to the Receiver General of Canada. This bill will not really solve any problems except the one caused by the fact we have committed more than the $40 million.
Let me give the minister an example. Let us suppose the corporation has a billion dollars out which it has borrowed from the Minister of Finance under the act. Obviously the corporation has some payments coming in. Suppose the corporation paid the Minister of Finance the amount of money it borrowed,

October 28, 1968
Farm Credit Act
but the amount oi money coming back from the farmers was twice the amount it owed in that current period. What does it do with that extra money coming from the farmers on outstanding loans? It is my opinion that money would go into the consolidated revenue fund. We do not really have a revolving fund at all.
The minister said he was willing to pick up the costs of the corporation. We do not now pick up all the costs because the cost of the Farm Credit Corporation amounts to about $6 million. There is some profit on the money borrowed from the Minister of Finance, and that amounts to between $2 million and $3 million. The total assets will amount to about $3 million. All we are doing really is picking up half the operating costs.
If we had this bill before a committee we might consider, in the light of experience, changing the method of financing the Farm Credit Corporation. If we could establish a revolving fund, we might find we had done very well some years and less well other years. In looking over the amounts the corporation has borrowed from the Minister of Finance, I would say it did not do badly until about 1965. There have been periods when the corporation has borrowed at a greater rate than 5 per cent but most of the borrowing has been at a considerably lower rate than that. It was not until 1967 that the rate on the borrowing reached 6 per cent.
If the minister is not going to pick up all the operating costs but is going to pick up some through the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, he is going to be left with $3 million. This seems to be a fairly static figure in so far as the profits of the corporation are concerned. I am sure it would represent a little more than 1 per cent of the borrowings that will be made in the current year at more than 6 per cent. By using the profits of the corporation, we could reduce the rate to 5 per cent and we would not really be in need of this borrowing.
I think the crux of this bill hinges on the rate of 8 per cent. Some of my farm friends have said that it is really their business to decide how much they can pay for credit. I think it is not really their business because we have a responsibility not to pass legislation which will result in the elimination of many farmers. Since we made the Farm Credit Corporation fit in with the veterans farm legislation we have been working on a very close tolerance. If you look at the page of the corporation's report which indicates the age of the farmers applying for these loans,

you will find that things are not going to get any better and probably will get much worse. The number of loans made in the age group 35 to 54 has increased by almost 80 per cent. If the maximum period of the loans is 29 years, the borrower will be at least age 64 and at the most 84 years before repaying his loan. I suggest that this means we are skating very close to the line. 1 point out that 2.7 per cent of loans granted to farmers over 60 have a 30-year repayment period. This means that these farmers will be in their 90th year before they make their last payment.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We have made large loans to the farmers to enable them to increase productivity. I suggest we have been very fortunate during the last 20 years in sustaining a very small cost to the Canadian public in administering these loans. The cost of operating farm credit I would say is less than $40 million during the last 20 years, which works out to less than $2 million per year. Therefore I suggest that the cost borne by the taxpayer is very small indeed.
When we were amending the Bank Act we were asked to free the ceiling so that the interest rate on loans could come down to 4 per cent. At that time the minister was on this side of the house and he was skeptical of that statement. Many of us are still skeptical because we find interest rates considerably above 6 per cent. The increase in interest rates has forced many people to borrow money at rates they cannot possibly afford. Bankruptcies are taking place in the service industries in agricultural communities. Every time I return home at week ends I find auction sales taking place. Farmers are selling out.
There are two reasons for these sales. A farmer may be capitalizing on his investment over the years and is selling his land to make a capital gain. However, many farmers are selling out because they have reached the stage where they must either liquidate their holdings or expand their operations. I have talked to many people engaged in the manufactured milk industry, farmers who are in their 60's and they are now told that they must buy a bulk milk cooler and embark upon bulk handling. This involves an expenditure of $20,000, and it is impossible to borrow $20,000 from the Farm Credit Corporation at 5 per cent. If the rate were even 6 per cent this would more than double the number of farmers involved, the percentage being so close to the margin.
October 28, 1968


The Chairman:: Order. It being six o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Indian Affairs-request for reconsideration of Departmental reorganization; the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), Northern Development-inquiry concerning the fate of the replica of the Grande Hermine; the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), Nuclear Power Agreement-Canada-France.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on the order paper, namely, notices of motions.



SHIPPING


Thomas Miller Bell: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been on the order paper before and has been the subject of debate in the past. I have in mind the full development of an integrated merchant marine policy which would include the ownership, building and operation of ships in Canada. As I have indicated, we have discussed this subject on numerous occasions over the years. I pay tribute to Mr. Howard Green, a former member for Vancouver-Quadra, who was always an advocate of a Canadian-owned merchant marine and a full shipbuilding policy.
October 28, 1968

Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine
The current circumstances that bring this subject to the attention of the house are, first of all, the remarkable new concepts in transportation which are now becoming apparent. We envisage, as everyone knows, the shipping of bulk cargoes across continents and around the world on a land bridge basis. Western members have been talking about Roberts Bank. We have ideas about transportation and containerization in the east, and if we ever get the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in the house we have questions to ask about what he is planning on the east coast in this regard.
The second circumstance which makes an approach to this subject imperative is the acute difficulty that the shipbuilding industry is experiencing in Canada. The industry has always known trouble but now it is facing an extremely tough situation. The west coast yards are in the doldrums and every yard on the east coast is faced with serious decisions. I mention now a matter which arose during the last election campaign because I think it gives us the key to the problem today. The yards along the St. Lawrence were forced to lay off men because of their failure to obtain contracts and because of the lack of government business. The minister of manpower at that time was faced with serious embarrassment. He was put on the spot. The Montreal Star of June 17 last reported the minister's reaction as follows:
Manpower minister Jean Marchand says Canada made a mistake in selling its merchant marine after world war II and that he will do everything in his power to restore it.
And, later:
"I will strive with all my might", concluded Mr. Marchand, "to revive the merchant marine of Canada."
This is the first occasion on which both the owners and the shipbuilders are substantially united in an approach toward a fully integrated marine policy. The history is well known. We know that in the early days of this country Canada was a great seafaring nation, the fourth largest in the world. My home town of Saint John, the constituency I have the honour to represent, was in the forefront. We were proud of the ships and of the ship owners in that city as they made contact with the entire world. The trend which became apparent was that in years when there was some government assistance and times were good, the shipbuilding industry was healthy. But when the government was uninterested and when economic conditions were adverse,

the shipbuilding industry fell into the doldrums. The situation changed as the government's economic policies altered.
The story is best illustrated by an article which appeared in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of September 5. After recounting the history of Saint John the writer said:
It was a shift in the financial centre of gravity of Canada that moved shipbuilding inland with it, and in turn an evolution in trading patterns and national policies that virtually stripped Canada of its merchant marine.
A nation with one of the world's longest coastlines, more dependent than almost any other on foreign trade, has let both its shipbuilding and its shipping go by default to others.
One of the leading exponents of a creative policy in this regard is Mr. P. B. Papachris-tidis who is well known as a shipbuilder and operator. He outlined the problem when he spoke in Montreal on October 22, 1968, and I quote the following from his speech of that date:
What is needed in this respect is not the advise of experts. It is rather a profound soul-searching by our legislators, governmental officials, and the people of this country. We should ask ourselves: Is it possible for all other nations to be mistaken in their considerations of a national merchant marine? Or perhaps we Canadians are wrong? The investigation and the study of this problem are as simple as that.
In the course of another speech he said that Canada's difficulties in this area arose "because we do not have a maritime conscience." Another way of putting this would be to say we are a nation of landlubbers. The figures of employment in the shipyards reveal a desperate situation; they show a decline from 17,000 to about 9,000 now. The point has been reached at which Canada has a marine fleet smaller than that of Switzerland. Indeed, Mr. Onassis is operating more ships than the Canadian navy and merchant fleet combined.
I say that despite its recent announcement-and I realize that hon. members on the government side will be standing up in their places to talk about the extended study of the merchant marine question which is going on-the government is stalling once again in connection with this matter. They have had review after review. Two or three have been going on within the department. The transport commission has been studying the subject. And now they are to carry out yet another investigation.
As Mr. Papachristidis has said, this is not the time for experts. It is a time for the legislators to stand up and be counted. Another thing which annoys me in connection with
October 28, 1968

the Canadian Transport Commission is that they have their own expert staff-one of them is a former member of this house-yet immediately something crops up they engage the services of a group from Toronto to act as their experts on this subject. To me, this does not add up. I believe we should follow a fully integrated marine policy with owners, operators and workers sharing in it equally. There should be full consideration of the shipping, ship repairing and shipbuilding industries. We must consider the training of our seamen. We must adopt the full measures necessary to meet our navigational problems on the coast. I include in this marine policy the great lakes and deep sea problems.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The pilotage commission has made its report. Legislation of a piecemeal nature is forthcoming which I understand refers to the great lakes. While this is a help it will not do a complete job. As I mentioned, the Canada Shipping Act is under review, and an expansion is going to take place in our study of merchant marine matters. But when are we going to hear the results? I suggest it will be 1970 before these matters come up again. The workers in Quebec, the maritimes and on the west coast must have something more than reports, reviews, studies and research.
When the former minister of manpower and immigration was under pressure during the recent election campaign, when people were breathing down his neck and he became excited, he made certain promises. That was a horse of a different colour then. Now the Liberals have been returned to office and to take the pressure off they call everybody together and say, "We have the answer. We will simply expand the study now taking place. That will give us two or three more years of grace. Hopefully these shipyard workers will go to another industry and that will be the end of the matter."
I put forward five suggestions that could be considered. They have been proposed by others as well. First, I suggest that there be a concerted long term government policy. The shipping industry and the shipbuilders have to know where they fit, even if it is not the best place in their own interests.
Second, there must be full protection of their interests. The Canadian people involved in this segment of our economy must at least be placed in a competitive position with foreign interests. This applies to seamen, to pilots, to shipbuilders and to the difficulties now being experienced on the great lakes
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine with foreign interests, particularly iron ore companies who have moved in with their own vessels.
Third, we would require a new policy of strict nationalization so far as ship construction is concerned. We must have a greater appreciation of the difficulties of shipbuilding. Every effort must be made to ensure that all companies deriving income of any nature from our Canadian economy be required to build their ships in Canada. I take a hard line on this. I think that the C.P.R., Shell Oil, and other companies that are going outside Canada to have their ships constructed should be required to have their ships built in Canada. You may call this a restrictive policy if you like, but many of these companies are getting direct transportation subsidies and I think it should be incumbent upon them to build their new vessels in Canada.
Fourth, I think that a full policy of depreciation, perhaps upwards of 200 per cent, is one of the best answers in the interests of the shipbuilders. I understand that for the first time ship owners and shipbuilders are in substantial agreement that a depreciation policy would be in the long term inter-ets of both.
Fifth, I believe that low cost financing should be made available to those engaged in any sort of marine activity. Low cost money is available for many other segments of the economy. We are at present discussing bills to assist the agricultural economy. We are all in favour of them. I ask, why cannot shipbuilding and shipping operations have the same assistance through low cost financing, with government guarantees?
These are my suggestions. Hon. members will recall that I have placed them before the house previously because this subject is a particular interest of mine. In September of this year I read an interesting article in Ship-Shore News headed "Canada Should Build Our Own Merchant Fleet." It read in part:
During the second world war, Canada showed that it still had a maritime potential second to none. Its sailors earned the admiration of the world's navies.
There is no hidden "mystique" about the ocean that should give us any feeling of incompetence of the globe's trade routes.
Ail branches of shipbuilding, water-borne transportation and industry served by it, port authorities, and the fishing industry should unite to persuade Ottawa-where sits the government of the world's second largest country-to encourage the building of a Canadian merchant fleet.
I sum up by saying we must have a fully integrated marine policy. New concepts of
2116	COMMONS
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine transportation and the serious losses being experienced in our shipbuilding industry bring home this need more urgently than ever. The ship owners and shipbuilders are united, except perhaps on some details, with respect to an approach to the problem.
I have pointed out the history, the good times and the bad, the ups and the downs. I have said that a definite government assistance policy is needed. Our shipyards on the east and west coasts are in desperate shape. We simply cannot stand by and wait. I have put on the record the promise made in Quebec by the former minister of manpower and immigration during the heat of the election. His was one promise that was made clear during that campaign.
Expanding the present review with another commission and hiring another bunch of experts does not make sense to me. We do not need the experts. All we need are legislators, hon. members who will stand up here tonight and be counted on this matter. When government members get up to talk out this motion with their set speeches, as we know they will, as we know they have done for years, I suggest they should think twice, particularly those of them from Quebec who have an obligation to carry out what was said during the election campaign. I suggest that they should stand up and demand that this policy be referred to the transport committee where we can review the entire matter and make our recommendations in the proper way.


Mr. Lachance:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Georges-C. Lachance: In order to revive the Canadian merchant marine, does the hon. member favour a system of subsidies to Canadian ship owners instead of to the shipbuilding industry?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question because I know he is interested in this subject. I do not have the final details. I have been careful about that. I do not know whether we should put the figures in a computer and come up with something. I merely say, and I welcome this opportunity to repeat myself, that the ship owners and shipbuilders are for the first time in substantial agreement on a large term policy to meet the marine problems of this country. Whether they differ in detail or not, I think we should remember that many ship owners are also shipbuilders. This situation 
DEBATES	October 28, 1968
exists along the St. Lawrence and in the maritimes.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The details do not bother me. I think low cost money and some method of depreciation are the answer. I am not afraid of the subsidy that will be involved. All other nations subsidize their merchant navies. We will have to subsidize this industry. At present we are subsidizing practically every other industry in the country. It is ridiculous for us to require that our shipbuilding industry and shipping operations must stand on their own two feet.
I have taken the liberty of answering at length in the hope of being helpful to the hon. member.


Mr. Waller Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my submission I would indeed be lax if I did not commend the hon. member for presenting the motion which is before us. I understand he has brought forward similar motions on many other occasions, but obviously to no avail. I believe that finally his efforts shall bear fruit.
Canada's merchant fleet has had a long, shaky history, sometimes successful and many other times troubled. Initially wooden sailing ships were built in Canada by both the French and English settlers mainly for the purpose of fishing and for use in local trade because of the maritime policies of both the French and English regimes. When they were permitted to trade with foreign countries the merchant fleet increased more rapidly. The development of central Canada and settlement of both the western part of the United States and Canada, together with the construction of Canadian railway lines, helped stimulate shipping and ship construction especially on the great lakes.
The peak of Canadian shipping was reached in 1880. Since then there has been a constant decrease until at the present we have only one ocean-going vessel under Canadian registry. This has come about because of the present legislation whereby Canadian coastguard trade is open to vessels on the registries of all commonwealth countries on the same terms as vessels of Canadian registry. This has made it difficult for ships of Canadian register to compete. Because of the various subsidies, tax credits, and so on, the cost of operating a vessel of United Kingdom registry is substantially less than the cost of operating a similar vessel under Canadian registry. The difference in cost, as estimated by ship owners, is in the
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
vicinity of $100 million. This has discouraged Canadian registration. It has created chartered foreign flag shipping which has been a burden to our nation in the form of an adverse trade balance estimated to be $125 million annually. This is reported in the "Shipping Register and Shipbuilder" for 1963. This amount has increased in recent years.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, February 13, 1968, written by Ron Rose, Sun staff reporter. It reads as follows:
Advocates of a merchant marine say it costs Canada $150 million a year for outside carriers of our exports and imports.
They also say there are other compelling reasons for a merchant fleet: providing careers for young men attracted by the adventure of life at sea; the need for a sea-lift in combating brush-fire wars of the hydrogen bomb stalemate; and not least, the question of national prestige.
Even the emerging nations are busily building fleets of their own.
If these funds which I have stated are being lost to foreign trade were spent directly to subsidize Canadian ocean shipping lines, this would be a major stimulation in the bringing about of a healthy Canadian industry. The present policy represents a gift to foreign interests from which the Canadian economy derives no benefit.
Figures compiled from Lloyd's Statistical Register show that distribution of world shipbuilding has undergone some significant changes. Since 1938 Japan has increased its share from 14.6 per cent of the total to 22.7 per cent in 1961, a relative increase of 50 per cent. Sweden's share has increased from 5.5 per cent to 9.3 per cent, a 70 per cent relative increase. Britain, on the other hand, has dropped from its 1938 percentage of 34 per cent to 15 per cent in 1961. Germany has come close to regaining its prewar share of 15.8 per cent. Canada is not even listed.
At this time I should like to make some comment about the merchant fleet of the Soviet Union today. I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the Gazette of Monday, January 8, 1968. It reads as follows:
At present the Soviet merchant fleet includes 1,300 vessels with a total tonnage of over ten million tons. In the main, these are new ships- 80 per cent of them were built in the last decade. The U.S.S.R. fleet is the sixth in the world, and is steadily being replenished with new, technically improved ships. Its cargo carrying capacity is increasing by about a million tons a year.
An important role in the replenishment of the Soviet merchant fleet is played by home shipbuilding yards, which have of late built a large series of dry cargo ocean-going turbine ships.
DEBATES	2117
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine
We might compare that with what we are doing in this regard. The building of a merchant fleet I believe would be a big shot in the arm for the shipbuilding industry and all the allied industries that depend on it. It would provide for expansion of our share of world trade and would play a creative role in enlarging Canada's exports. It would permit opportunity for the technical renovation of an important sector of our heavy industry and provide useful and much needed employment for thousands of Canadians. We have all heard of the disparity in respect of the eastern seaboard. This would offset some of this. As previously mentioned, I submit that this would help liquidate our chronic deficit in our balance of international payments, one of our major economic problems.
Now I should like to refer to an article related to a statement made by Leonard McLaughlin, president of the S.I.U., which verifies the statement I have made. This appeared in the Gazette of Thursday, April 25, 1968, and reads as follows:
A number of Canadian companies were interested in bringing their ships under Canadian registry, and such a move would bring benefits in taxes, employment, gross national product and balance of payments.
"We think it is fantastic that a trading nation of our calibre ... has no ocean-going fleet at all."
Canada, which geographically is bounded by the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans, as well as having an inland network of lakes and rivers, needs a deep sea merchant marine of satisfactory tonnage at least sufficient to assure a more substantial transportation of its exports and imports.
I am happy to say that I believe our government is aware of this problem and, through the water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, has recently embarked upon a feasibility study of a deep sea merchant marine. This study was authorized by a cabinet decision and elaborated on in a press release of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) dated August 27, 1968. This study is not unlike corresponding studies proposed by the committee on shipping of the United Nations conference on trade and development; nor is it unlike the United States study which is currently under way and which is reported in the Journal of Commerce of Thursday, June 20, 1968.
In this study it is suggested that consultants be engaged to supply quantitative and qualitative information with regard to "in house" expertise on all aspects within their competence and likewise secure evidence of
2118	COMMONS
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine effective access to external expertise in so tar as this may be necessary. It is felt that probably external needs are most likely to arise in the practical commercial aspects of international shipping operations. Central to the whole project will be a cost-benefit study which would analyse the potential benefits accruing to Canada from the operation of a deep sea fleet in terms of tax revenue, employment both ashore and afloat, balance of payments, creation and preservation of technical and managerial skills, and evaluation of the benefits in relation to the cost to the nation in terms of possible financial assistance. In the course of the examination, the policies of foreign nations in respect of subsidization of ocean shipping by direct grants, preferential tax treatment and other forms of financial and commercial incentives shall be considered.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The terms of reference as set out are as follows:
The purpose of the study is to assist the Canadian Transport Commission in the discharge of its statutory responsibility to:-
"inquire into and recommend to the minister from time to time such economic policies and measures as it considers necessary and desirable relating to the operation of the Canadian merchant marine commensurate with Canadian maritime needs;"
Its essential requirements are:-
(a)	To measure the competitive potential of a privately owned Canadian flag merchant fleet in Canadian ocean trades.
(b)	To estimate the public cost of practicable means of encouraging development of such a fleet to different levels of participation.
(c)	To evaluate the resultant benefits to the Canadian economy of any such development.
It is in five parts, Mr. Speaker. First, there is a cargo flow study; second, a vessel type study; third, a cost study which is divided into two sections, namely a private sector and a public sector. The fourth part is a carrying capacity study, and the fifth is a cost-benefit study, which is the focal point of this whole series.
Communications on this subject, for my hon. friend's information, should be in the hands of the water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission by not later than November 15.
It is regrettable that this proposed study does not include, as part of its subject matter, an inquiry into ship construction. I have inquired about the reason for this and have been informed that in view of the water transport committee such a study would be

DEBATES	October 28, 1968
outside the scope of the section of the National Transportation Act in pursuance of which the study is being conducted. I refer especially to section 15(1) (f).


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think we have a quorum in the house at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I shall have to seek instruction.
For the edification of the house, and more particularly for the hon. member who has the floor, I should like to read citation 60(1) from Beauchesne's fourth edition as follows:
Any member may direct the Speaker's attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present. The Speaker will proceed at once to count the house, and if there are not 20 members present, including himself, the Clerk will take down the names, and the Speaker will then adjourn the house without question first put until the usual hour on the next sitting day.
I now direct the Clerk to take a count.
And on the count being made, more than 20 members were declared to be present.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for High Park to continue.


Walter Cyril Deakon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I was interrupted I was referring to section 15(l)(f) of the National Transportation Act which states:
(f) inquire into and recommend to the minister from time to time such economic policies and measures as it considers necessary and desirable relating to the operation of the Canadian merchant marine, commensurate with Canadian maritime needs:
The counterpart of this provision appeared in the former Canadian Maritime Commission Act, which included a reference to the shipbuilding industry. It should be noted that in its re-enactment in the National Transportation Act, all reference to shipbuilding was omitted. The effect of this omission was to remove from the Canadian Transport Commission the direct statutory responsibility for shipbuilding.
I respectfully submit, nevertheless, that notwithstanding this statutory handicap, steps should be taken by the government to enable the proper authority to inquire into ship construction in Canada. If this were done, together with the present study by the water transport committee and the recent initiation by the federal government of a thorough study of Canadian maritime laws, we would be able to revive the Canadian merchant
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
marine; protect Canadian interests and be reinstated in our righftul position as one of the world's major users of shipping.
Hon, Hugh John Flemming (Carleion-Char-lotte): Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to speak on the motion which has been presented to the house with considerable eloquence and conviction by my colleague the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). I feel there should be no difference in opinion on the part of hon. members of this house in respect of the advisability of passing this motion, which simply calls upon the government to consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine. Surely no one would argue that this is in any way an indication of an opinion that would be embarrassing to the government.
As an hon. member who represents a constituency in an Atlantic province, partially located on the Atlantic ocean, I have a great interest in the general well-being of the shipping industry and the seafaring industry. If there is any doubt as to whether we are qualified as a seafaring nation so far as the Pacific and Atlantic are concerned, the minute we consider our inland waterways, the St. Lawrence river and the Great Lakes that doubt must immediately disappear. Surely then we become a seafaring nation at least in our own estimation.
If I am correct in this assumption there should be no question in the mind of anyone, or any doubt about the desirability of the government's obtaining the opinion from this house. Surely there should be no question about the necessity of talking this motion out, so as to avoid a vote. Two members of the administration are listening at this time to the expressed opinions of hon. members. I should think this would be something the government would desire, rather than not wanting an opinion on the subject.
There is one other point upon which I am sure we can agree, and that is that we are an exporting nation. A large portion of our exports from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts must of necessity be moved by sea. Since these goods must be transported by the sea, surely a consideration of the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine is a matter in respect of which we can all find agreement.
The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster spoke with great knowledge about this subject, as he has done before and likewise, the hon. member who spoke immediately before me indicated that he has done his homework. He knows his subject and is supporting the
DEBATES	2119
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine resolution. It seems to me we should forget the fact that this is a private member's motion and realize that there is no necessity, as suggested by an hon. member, to talk it out.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I appeal to the members of the government who are listening tonight to let this matter come to a vote. Surely to goodness they are not going to allow this motion to be talked out, when-in my opinion-there is no need for any difference of opinion in this respect. If hon. members opposite would examine the resolution, they would find that it simply calls for the government to consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine. What is wrong with considering the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine? I have great respect for the two members of the government within sound of my voice tonight, and I hope they will be glad to take back to their colleagues the message from the house that the government should consider the advisability of doing something that in my opinion could not help but be in the interests of all Canada.
It is not my intention to delay the house and speak at length on the details of what might be done in this regard. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster has gone into the details, as have previous speakers. The principle involved is one on which there should be unanimous agreement in the house, namely, that it is advisable to consider the reviving of the Canadian merchant marine.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat?


Mr. Flemming:: Of course.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a quandary, and perhaps the hon. member can assist me. While I recognize the merits of his proposal, I know there are certain viewpoints on this side of the house that favour his point of view, and I also know that a number of hon. members wish to express their views on this question. The hon. member does not wish me to cut them off, does he?


Hugh John Flemming: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not have that in mind. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster seemed to be of the opinion that the resolution of necessity must be talked out. It seemed to me that we should by mutual consent decide that it would not be talked out. The house leader for the government is here, and he is a gentleman of great
October 28, 1968
2120	COMMONS
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine influence, although sometimes his influence on this side of the chamber is not as great as it is over there. There is of course a variation in the degree of influence he exerts.
I see no reason why we should not take a vote on this motion. Why is it necessary to do something because it has been done for the last 100 years? I see no reason why we should do something only because it has become the custom that a private member's motion be talked out; in other words, that it must be defeated. This is the effect of what happens with a private member's motion, because once it is talked out it goes to the bottom of the list and is never reached again until you are greyer than I am. Therefore I hope we will have a vote on this motion.


Mr. Richard J. J. Duranie (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I agree this is a very important question, but unfortunately the members of the party to which the originator of the motion belongs do not consider it to be a very important question, because there are only two members of that party in the house at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard John Joseph Durante: I would like to commend the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) on the intent of his notice of motion, which I personally feel has considerable merit. However, it should be clearly understood that although at this time I want to go on record as supporting the intent of the motion,
I do not necessarily support the idea that the Canadian merchant marine be revived. I say this because I wonder whether this is not really what the hon. gentleman has in mind in presenting his motion.
The notice of motion states that the government should consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian merchant marine. I would like to inform the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster, and the house, that this government is presently conducting a Canadian deep sea merchant marine feasibility study. I would like to make reference to a press release dated August 27, 1968, in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) announced an expansion of studies already launched on the question of a Canadian deep sea merchant marine.
It is my firm personal opinion that this government should not embark upon any program, including revival of the Canadian merchant marine, unless that program is truly beneficial to the Canadian people or beneficial to that segment of the Canadian economy


with which the program may deal. I am pleased that this is the policy of this government, which is confirmed in the terms of reference for the Canadian deep sea merchant marine feasibility study. These terms of reference include, among others, the following: First, to measure the competitive potential of a privately owned Canadian flag merchant fleet in Canadian ocean trades; second, to evaluate the resultant benefits to the Canadian economy of any such development.
The feasibility study will compare the daily cost of owning and operating Canadian ships to the daily cost of similar, typical foreign flat ships engaged in the same trades. I am confident that when the results of this study are received we will be in a much better position to determine whether we should revive the Canadian merchant marine. This government should ensure that as a nation we concentrate our efforts on those areas in which we are best suited. For example, Mr. Speaker, would we be able to be as competitive in the world market if we had our own merchant marine? Would the costs of building and operating our own merchant marine permit us to remain competitive on the world market, or would such costs make it necessary to increase the price of our commodities to such an extent that our export trade would suffer? Surely we must dedicate ourselves to increasing export trade, not decreasing it.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, there is little point in having our own merchant marine unless we use it to export our own commodities. To what extent would we lose out in world trade if such were the case? Would our wheat and lumber exports, for example, be as extensive as they now are if we qould not guarantee, as we now do in many cases, that those commodities will be shipped in the vessels of the purchasing nation? There is every evidence to indicate that some countries are experiencing difficulty in exporting their commodities because they insist that those commodities be shipped in their own vessels. The consequence is that eventually the goods are given away at fire sale prices or are permitted to stockpile completely out of proportion.
Mr. Speaker, for fear that it may be misconstrued that I am unalterably opposed to a Canadian merchant marine, I had better present my views in favour of such a move but, I must reiterate, in favour only if it is economically feasible for us to participate. Nevertheless, regardless of the feasibility study report results which, by the way, are expected in
October 28, 19G8

1970, it seems incongruous to me that a country such as Canada, with one of the world's longest coastlines, does not have an effective merchant marine.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear.


Richard John Joseph Durante: Furthermore, a nation like ours, more dependent than almost any other on foreign trade, should never have let its shipbuilding and shipping go by default to other nations. This situation is even more lamentable in view of Canada's proud history as a seafaring nation. In the years following confederation, the statistics show that Canada ranked fourth among the ship-owning nations of the world. As recently as the second world war, Canada ranked third behind the United States and Britain as shipbuilders.
Today ships of foreign registry have captured significant portions of our trade, and to counterbalance the economic disadvantages of owning and operating a merchant marine, which I cited earlier, I would like to suggest that for every ton of shipping that is transported in other than Canadian vessels a certain number of jobs for Canadian seamen and a certain number of Canadian dollars are sacrificed.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I reiterate that I think it is unfortunate that since 1947, when Canada's ocean-going merchant fleet numbered 155 vessels, in has been reduced to only four vessels with a gross tonnage of 65,000 tons. I hope that the results of the feasibility study will indicate that it is economically advisable to place Canada once again in its correct posture regarding shipbuilding and shipping.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the notice of motion, and I was interested to hear the remarks that have been made by hon. members on both sides of the house. I do not rise tonight as an instant expert on the problems of either the merchant marine or the shipbuilding industry, but I think in this debate we have heard a sufficient number of views to suggest that perhaps this subject is of great interest to a great many Canadians. As a member from the west coast of Canada, which formerly possessed a sizeable and flourishing shipbuilding industry, I have some real interest in the question. I would like to tell the house also that on a great number of open line shows during the
2121
Suggested Revival of Merchant Marine
campaign this issue was raised more than once.
I do not think it is any longer true today that our pool of skilled men from the industry can remain in Canada if we do not have a shipbuilding industry to employ them. They are constantly being drawn away to the United States. For example, frequently in Vancouver newspapers we see advertisements encouraging skilled people in the shipping trades to go to Seattle where they will find employment.
We do not have employment for these people to the same extent we once had, and I think this is a sorry situation. I realize that the development of the Canadian merchant marine is not the same as assisting the shipbuilding industry on the Pacific coast or anywhere else in Canada, but the fact remains that since world war II the Canadien merchant service has been gradually disappearing. The way in which it has been allowed to atrophy is shameful. Almost any kind of manufacturing industry in Canada should be treasured, because most of our exports-and we are among the world's most active traders -are in primary products, and they are usually less than one tenth as productive in terms of employment of workers than our secondary industries.
Our Pacific coast region is developing very substantial trading arrangements with Japan. I have figures for the last three years which I should like to read from the Canada Japan Trade Council Newsletter in which it is said that Canada sold to Japan in 1965 goods to a value of $316,187,000, in 1966 to a value of $393,892,000, and in 1967 to $572,156,000. On the other hand Canada bought from Japan in 1967 goods to a value of $304,678,000. What I would like to know is how much of this trade is being carried in Canadian ships. I would hazard a guess that not an ounce of it is.
Members of parliament have undoubtedly heard about the controversy surrounding the Roberts Bank superport. Federal and provincial funds have been poured into it and all railroads are interested, and ready to turn the whole planning of the mainland upside down to get the business. What is the business? It is $1 billion worth of coal that is to be sold to Japan in the next 15 years. Canadians are going to build a brand new port, extend rail lines and change the whole character of the region to deliver B.C. coal to a B.C. port to be met by Japanese ships. What kind of ships are these? Certainly they are not the 10,000 ton Liberty ships that we saw during the war.
October 28, 1968
2122	COMMONS
Suggested Revival oj Merchant Marine These are super carriers up to 100,000 tons, or ten times the size of the Liberty ships. On the drawing boards are ships almost five times that large. Who will build these vessels? Not us. Who will sail in these vessels? Not Canadians. Perhaps we may be able to specialize in building certain kinds of ships. We cannot beat the Japanese in all types of shipbuilding but we might be able to specialize. The building of grain boats and off-shore drilling rigs, and generally vessels for the transport on inland waters of grain and ore should be encouraged. We have allowed our exports to be carried on foreign ships, and ships that are hiding their true ownership under a registry of a country other than Canada.
In the last five years we have seen our employment in the shipbuilding industry on the west coast dip from 2,700 to less than 700. Why have we allowed this to happen? I am not interested in allowing our country to be limited to the role of an adjunct or an ancillary to the United States. Why can we not emulate our great good neighbour to the south in developing and protecting our merchant marine and in seeing to it that at least half our trade is carried in Canadian ships manned by Canadian crews?
I do not wish to be guilty of talking this motion out, I should like to leave that to members on the other side of the house. Therefore I will skip a great deal of the material I wanted to cover. A number of the points of view I was about to put before the house have been eloquently expressed by other hon. members, but I should like to leave the house with two thoughts. Certainly we are interested in the study which we learned the other day is to be made into the Canada Shipping Act. We are certainly interested also in the feasibility study by the Department of Transport. I would agree that no one would be interested in proceeding to develop a merchant marine if it were not in Canada's best interests. It would be ludicrous to do this purely for purposes of nationalism.
It has been shown in the past that it was in Canada's interest to have a merchant marine, and I think that, after all the stalling has been overcome, the study will probably indicate the same thing. I hope so; and I hope this is the beginning of a new active role for the Canadian merchant marine, and the end of an old passive one.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am distressed that I have been given only one minute by the hon. member
[Mr. Rose.l

who has just sat down in which to make a few points on the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It was a great mistake on the part of many of the long-winded speakers who preceded me to attempt deliberately to kill this motion, when others have opinions to express.
I should like to point out in the very short time remaining that any nation which has ports such as Canada has must have a ship repair facility, and to keep the ship repair facility in operation, we must construct ships in the slack periods.
It is necessary to point out that a new shipbuilding policy is required, because at present, despite highly skilled workers the productivity per man hour in the Canadian shipbuilding industry is only three quarters of that in the Japanese yards. I think the hon. member who introduced this motion should bear in mind that the five points he mentioned were nothing more than the old story of more subsidies and more government expenditure for the shipbuilding and ship owning people of this country. He said nothing about increased productivity.
Perhaps the hon. member should have directed his remarks to the industry itself, and encouraged it to take a serious look at its productivity, rather than asking the government to spend more on supporting a presently inefficient industry. If this country is to have efficient shipyards, shipbuilders themselves must take the responsibility for performing their work on the same sort of factory and mass production basis that is now used for production of automobiles. We cannot continue in the old way which results in the cost of ships in Canada being well over double that of those built in shipyards in Asia.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being seven o'clock the house will now adjourn until 8 p.m.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since I was the member most concerned in this matter, and in view of the facts which happened in my riding, I wish to tell the house that if the New Democratic party member representing a riding whose name I cannot remember had not caused the house to lose ten minutes by inquiring about the quorum, the bill could have come to a vote before seven o'clock.
October 28, 19G8


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. The house will now recess until 8 p.m. pursuant to standing order 6(2).
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Olto E. Lang (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-113, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
He said. Mr. Speaker, when this measure was at the resolution stage it was given a fairly full discussion on its merits, the resolution having revealed a good deal of the contents of the bill. I think it is clear that it is an extremely useful measure and that it will do a great deal to assist the prairie farmer to obtain needed cash at this time. The principle of the bill is very simple. The amendment contained in it will double the amount of money which is obtainable by way of cash advance. This is the central portion of the amendment contained in the bill.
The maximum amount available will be increased from $3,000 to $6,000. The amount calculated per bushel of wheat, oats and barley will be doubled in each case. The other amendments contained in the bill relate basically to the change in regard of the unit quota in that all quotas, the unit and ensuing quotas, will be treated in the same way. The grain, therefore, which a farmer has on hand will be all available to him in calculating the advance to which he is entitled. In the same way, the grain he delivers, whether on a unit or on quota, will be used to repay the advance.
I think a great deal has been said about the merits of this bill within these last few days.
I would not want, Mr. Speaker, to say a great deal more at this time and in any way slow the passage of the measure, now that it is again before the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I in no way
want to hold up the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I should like to convince the members of the government of the genial mood in which members of the opposition are today.
29180-134i
DEBATES	2123
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act In essence, we gave permission for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to visit the constituency of Pontiac this evening. Forgive me if I remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that the cash advance legislation would not have been dealt with this evening unless we had worked out an agreement to enable that to be done. I know the Minister of Agriculture took it upon himself to visit the old constituency of Pontiac this evening. It was in this constituency that my father was born, and a great many Horners live there today. In fact, if one looked at the telephone book for that area, I am sure he would find more Horners there than in any other part of [DOT]Canada. While I may well be a neighbour of the Minister of Agriculture in western Canada, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to consent to putting aside the farm credit bill this evening so that the cash advance legislation could be considered. In this way, we have permitted the Minister of Agriculture to visit my father's birthplace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that our intention this evening is to consider Bill No. C-113. The hon. member has had the floor for some time but has said very little, if anything, relating to this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I accept your words of wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in directing me back to the course which I must follow. I would be the first to admit I was going astray. I should like to say, in the hope that you will forgive me, that I could not help but draw the attention of the house to the fact that we westerners, some of us at least, did originate in the east, and we are happy to know the Minister of Agriculture is paying some attention to the problems of eastern Canada. I would be the first to congratulate him for that effort.
Now, if I may turn my attention more specifically to Bill No. C-113, I may say that back on October 4, which is quite a while ago, I directed a number of criticisms at this measure. However, I am not going to remain rigid or fixed in the positions I took at the resolution stage. On October 4 the minister and I got into a discussion with regard to the availability of cash advances and the ability of the farmer to repay those cash advances. I keep referring to the measure as cash advances, which is the common expression in western Canada, but actually it is the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
October 28, 1968
2j24	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act [DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The interpretation of the act in the past was that a farmer would receive 50 cents on the dollar per bushel of wheat delivered, the other half dollar going to repay the advance under the legislation. On October 4 the Minister without Portfolio, who in effect is an honorary parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), said that under the proposed bill farmers would be paid a cash advance of $1 per bushel, and that the repayment would still be at the rate of 50 per cent of that amount. The minister will correct me if I interpret his remarks wrongly but I think that he said that the farmers would repay at the same 50 per cent rate per bushel delivered under their quota. I and a number of other members of the opposition fail to comprehend how this system would fully repay the cash advance within the year, particularly if the quota remained at a staid and solid six bushels per acre.
The minister also said on October 4 that he would kindly consent to send me a table that would fully explain this system. I would inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister did do this, and I should like to take the liberty of referring to the table he sent me. In the speech I made on October 4 I cited the example of a farmer with 1,000 acres, a six bushel per acre quota, delivering 6,000 bushels of grain and receiving a maximum allowance of $6,000.
My first question to the minister is this. The minister gives an example of a farmer with a maximum allowance of 4,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat with 800 acres. If the table is based on a six bushel per acre quota, I cannot conceive how the farmer is, first going to deliver 4,000 bushels.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member look at the lower half.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says I should look at the lower half of the table which stipulates a maximum allowance of $4,800. If the farmer receives only $1.30 a bushel he will repay his advance at the rate of 65 cents per bushel. So how can he deliver 4,800 bushels and hope to repay $4,800 on a repayment schedule of 65 cents per bushel? The farmer is bound to have a carryover. That is the first point I would like to make.
As was explained on October 4, Mr. Speaker, if a farmer does have a carryover this would be an obstacle in the way of his


obtaining a further cash advance the following year. In other words, he will only be permitted to borrow the difference between what he owes and the maximum allowed to him the following year.
There, Mr. Speaker, is where the crux of the problem lies. If the minister would stand in his place this evening and say it is quite conceivable that that farmer would have a larger quota than six bushels per acre delivered, then perhaps I would rest more at ease, because the farmer might be able to repay his debt if that were the case. However, the minister has not said that, and even with his tables I do find real difficulty in understanding how he makes provision for the farmer to repay within the year the amount he is allowed to borrow.
If the minister tells the house that any amount the farmer is unable to repay will be carried over to the next year, then that is one thing. But how with a six bushel per acre quota can the farmer repay the total amount borrowed? The bill provides an increase in the maximum amount lent of from $3,000 to $6,000, and I am trying to establish whether this amount is the yearly maximum. Is this the maximum amount a farmer can borrow and repay in one year, borrowing the same amount the following year, or is it merely a built in debt that we will allow the farmer to incur? With a maximum loan of $6,000 will the farmer be required to repay $3,000, or half the loan outstanding, and carry over the other half from year to year? If that is the case, then I would ask the minister in all seriousness how good his legislation is.
All farmers, Mr. Speaker, want to repay their loans, and I defy anyone in this house to stand up and say that statement is wrong. This increase from $3,000 to $6,000 may capture the vision of a number of people, but surely the minister is not creating any false hopes in the hearts of our farmers. Surely they will be given the opportunity to repay within the same year. Unless the minister is prepared to increase the bushels per specified acre quota referred in clause 3 (2) of the bill, I cannot see how any farmer can repay within the year the maximum amount lent of $6,000.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I believe that should the quota be increased from six to eight bushels it is conceivable that a farmer operating within the quota system as we know it could borrow $6,000 on 800 acres, deliver the maximum amount and repay very nearly all he had borrowed. This
October 28, 1968

Ls where we must come to grips with the bill before us. In present circumstances does it really give the farmer a better opportunity or is it holding out a false hope? In other words, are we saying: We shall lend you so much money, but the circumstances are such that you will scarcely be able to pay it back.
I do not think there are many farmers actively engaged in the industry who do not wish to be solvent, who do not wish to use borrowed money profitably and who do not wish to repay their loans. There may be a few, but 99 per cent of the farmers who borrow money wish to use that money profitably and to repay it when due. Does the minister envisage that under a 6-bushel quota a farmer who borrows the maximum amount, having an ample amount of grain to entitle him to do so, will be able to repay his loan on the basis of 65 cents per bushel of wheat-wheat which, this year, is worth $1.30 a bushel? Can he pay his loan back within the year? This is the most important question which faces us as we discuss this bill.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is
with some satisfaction that I see this bill before us. I do not think "satisfaction" is the right word. What I am really trying to say is that this bill is badly needed. I hope we shall be able to get quotas large enough to enable farmers to repay the money they borrow under the provisions of this legislation within the current crop year.
I have no quarrel with the government's proposal to double the amount that can be borrowed. The situation is so desperate that I do not think I can quarrel with any provision which the government might make, whatever its form, to advance to farmers some interest-free money in order that they may be in a better position to meet their obligation in the current crop year. From my own observations, and those of people who live around me, I know the money will be badly needed. Look at the reports of farm management services. There is plenty of evidence there to show that you cannot operate a grain farm in western Canada on a six bushel quota.
Having placed this bill before the house- and I expect that in due time it will pass-I trust the government will not feel that nothing more remains to be done. There are serious weaknesses in our marketing structure, as a result of which we are not able to move or sell the quantities of grain we must sell if we are to benefit from the productivity of our farms. The selling program affects not only western Canada but other parts of Canada as
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act well, and I hope this will be kept in mind. I saw a gloomy report the other day in the paper by, I believe, Mr. Runciman, president of the United Grain Growers, in which he painted a depressing picture of the marketing of grain in the coming year. I hope the prospects are not as bad as he forecasts. I see by some press reports that there is a possibility of making sales to China. I hope the wheels are turning and that arrangements are under way.
That is all I can say with regard to this particular measure. Let us get it passed. Let the farmers have the cash and then let us get on with the real job, which is marketing the product we grow so well.


Stanley James Korchinski: I spoke on this legislation when it was first introduced. At that time I welcomed the introduction of a bill of this nature. However, I expressed hope that the minister, in consultation with his officials, might be able to give us the answers to certain questions. And I had hoped, too, that he might volunteer these answers in order that the questions need not be repeated.
There is still doubt in my mind as to what will really happen under this legislation. Take the case of a farmer operating 500 acres. A six bushel per acre quota would normally mean delivery of 3,000 bushels. The farmer would then be entitled to $3,000 as a cash advance. However, under present conditions, with feed wheat selling at $1.01 the farmer in question would have to repay his loan at the rate of 50 cents a bushel. At the end of the year, even if he had delivered his six bushel quota, he would have repaid something like $1,500, plus $200 on the additional quantity. In other words, his debt would amount to $1,300.
What happens in the following year? In normal circumstances he will be entitled to $3,000 operating on the same scale. But he has yet to repay $1,300 of the previous year's loan. In these circumstances, to all intents and purposes, we are dealing with a "one shot" bill, if the farmer concerned has to repay his debt in the following year, that is, if the amount he still owes is to be subtracted from the cash advance. We would be right back where we started before this measure was passed, presuming it is the intention of the house to pass it. In itself, this would not disturb me much, perhaps.
2126	COMMONS DEBATES	October 28, 1968
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The other thing I am concerned about is what happens in the case of a farmer who, the following year, has no crop or who gets hailed out. Again the Wheat Board would normally provide a quota of six bushels an acre and instruct the farmer, "Deliver your wheat because we have now provided you with a six bushel quota at that particular quota point. Where is your wheat?" Is the farmer going to be penalized and subjected to an interest rate and, if so, what will the interest rate be?
This raises another problem. If the farmer refuses to take the cash advance he might be able to catch up with the payments. As pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) each farmer wants to be able to repay cash advances. In our operation on the farm we take cash advances but we try to clear up our indebtedness to the Wheat Board. This is the way we like to operate, and it is the way all farmers like to operate. Regardless of the fact that there is no interest rate on an advance, we want to be able to start off again with the idea that if we need a cash advance we do not have any encumbrance against the operation. Will the farmer be continually hounded by the Wheat Board until he pays? In a disaster year will he be penalized an additional amount by way of interest? My reasoning leads me to that conclusion.
What will happen if a farmer decides to quit farming? Are we going to accumulate a lot of debts? If that happens over a period of years there will be people who will say that cash advance legislation as originally intended was fine, but now a lot of debts have been incurred.
In the case of a farmer who dies, will his widow be burdened with an additional debt? Will she have to repay this debt immediately? I hope the minister will give us an indication what the attitude of the department will be. Perhaps he would care to deal with these questions before we go further.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some interest that I witness the introduction of this legislation tonight. It brought to my mind that not too many years ago members of the group who sit to your right were dubious about the proposition then put forward that cash advance legislation should be implemented. These people, who were doubting Thomases only 10 or 11 years ago, were horrified at the thought of the problems that would arise as a result of the

introduction of that proposal. The fact that there were people who had the courage to advocate and introduce this type of legislation is something for which the prairie farmers can be very thankful, and it is a measure of tribute to those people who had the foresight to see what could be done through a measure such as this that now we have the government of the day, composed of the one-time doubting Thomases, embracing this proposal and taking it to their bosoms as their own.
I support the legislation that is before the house tonight. It is much needed, in light of the situation presently facing prairie farmers. For some time members of our group have pressed for priority for this bill. On more than one occasion members of our group, and members of other groups in the opposition, asked that this bill receive priority among the group of farm bills that is being considered by the house. However we were always answered with the assertion that this bill would be considered only after the farm credit bills had been passed. I am happy that tonight the government has reversed its stand and agreed to our proposal that this bill be proceeded with prior to the passage of the farm credit legislation which, as is well known, has some rather controversial features.
In light of these facts which are recorded in Hansard, I found it puzzling the other day to note that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) while in Regina made a statement to the Leader-Post which is not in accordance with my recollection of the facts and with the facts recorded in Hansard. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat tonight. I would have liked him to be present when I pointed out his statement in the Leader-Post of October 18, as follows:
Federal Agricultural Minister Olson in Regina Thursday accused the opposition in parliament of delaying "major help" to Saskatchewan farmers who are having a tough time harvesting because of bad weather.
Mr. Olson said in a Regina interview that legislation to double the cash advances on farm stored grain has been before parliament for many days but despite his appeals the opposition has not allowed it to pass.
"It could have been passed ten days ago. This will mean major help to prairie farmers," he said.
So far as I am concerned this statement by the minister is not in accordance with the facts of the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Stratford Burton: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of the advance is being increased and is being extended to include the unit quota.
October 28, 1968

At the same time repayment terms remain virtually the same, and in fact are being eased slightly with respect to the unit quota. This poses some serious problems with respect to repayments in years when the marketing situation is tight, such as was the case in the last crop year and is the case during the current crop year. I suggest the solution toward which the government should be working is to develop a plan for a guaranteed minimum delivery quota for grain, with provision for purchase of farm stored grain and payments for storage involved.
I also note that on numerous occasions government spokesmen have fallen back on this measure when questioned about steps contemplated to deal with the current emergency situation on the prairies. I would point out that while this measure does help to alleviate the effects of the tight marketing situation, it does not help alleviate the harvest and crop conditions now prevalent on the prairies. It does not apply to grain unthreshed in the fields. It does not compensate for costs of drying tough and damp grain, and the extra harvesting costs involved this fall. It does not help compensate for the deterioration of crops expected this fall.
I hope the government is considering other measures which will compensate farmers for some of the serious problems which have arisen this fall, which are beyond the control of the farmers, and of which the farmers should not be expected to bear the full brunt.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this bill. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), or whoever is responsible, for presenting this bill today. This legislation has been needed for a long time. I am very happy that finally it has come up for our consideration, and I therefore give it my wholehearted approval.
So far as I am concerned, anything that provides more operating capital for the farmer is a good thing. However, this measure, along with the three farm credit bills, is only a temporary measure in respect of the situation confronting the agricultural industry. As a reaction to the crisis affecting the economy of the agricultural community, this is a step in the right direction, but by no means is it any sort of a long term solution.
I should not like to see the minister going around patting himself on the back and thinking that he really has done something
DEBATES	2127
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act great for the farmers at this time. I do not believe he will be in a position to do this until he has brought in a measure of some type to equalize the income of farmers with that of the people in the rest of our society. If we are not to be faced with a crisis situation I believe it is important that we have a long term policy.
I have three suggestions concerning things which I believe must be done. First of all, prices for farm machinery must be stabilized in some way. Second, I believe a way must be found to dispose of farm production. Third, and more particularly, an aggressive world-wide sales policy for wheat is required. I would like to see the Minister of Agriculture, hand in hand with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to pack a suitcase and knock on the doors of Mrs. Ghandi in India, Mr. Kosygin in Russia and Mr. Mao Tse-tung in China and say, "Hello. I just want to introduce myself. I am the agricultural minister from Canada. I am here to see whether I can be of any assistance to you. In particular I have a sackful of wheat here in my bag and I would like you to take a look at it. We have some good wheat to sell."
Somebody might like an approach of this type, and buy something from us. Just as it is the case in respect of anything else, if one does not go out aggressively to seek markets people are not likely to come forward to buy the product. I should like to conclude my statement at this point.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill I must say that there can be no argument concerning the need of western farmers for legislation of this type, because their need for money cannot be disputed. I wholeheartedly support this legislation. I also wish to congratulate the government upon bringing this bill forward urgently. The bill which was discussed this afternoon is not nearly as urgent as is this bill.
I believe a word or two might be said concerning the condition in which this country finds itself because of the marketing problems. I might point out that marketing encompasses the total concept of a commodity in all its phases, such as planning, promotion and distribution. The role of the ultimate consumer must be emphasized in respect of the final disposition of the product. The problem facing western agriculture is one of marketing which this bill is designed to help and not one of production at the moment.
October 28, 1968
2128	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
We might examine one of the grains, wheat the producers of which will benefit as a result of the passage of this bill. We have been growing a high quality, good baking, type of wheat for many years. Gradually through the years the high quality wheat has become less necessary to the consumers throughout the world, due to the improvement in milling techniques and the upgrading of local wheat grown throughout the world. We must evaluate our markets. We must evaluate the new synthetic sources of protein. The basic price of wheat on the world market will be governed by the international grains agreement. The operators of farm plants may have to pay less attention to the matter of the price received per bushel, and give more attention to a greater net return per acre. As land costs and fixed costs rise, input costs rise and as a result output per acre is the single method by which one can meet these demands.
Our production units must be tailored to fit our marketing system. This will involve factors such as quality, type, volume, demand and consumption. Although fixed regulated prices under the international grains agreement give little benefit to either producer or consumer on either side of the demand or supply situation, Canada should examine the pricing mechanism. We must remember a well known sales law, that it will cost more to recover a lost account than to maintain it at a somewhat lower level. There is no hope of having a profit if an account is lost.
On the whole, competition has provided a high standard of living. Throughout the world today we see a great upsurge in United States and Russian exports. Our competitors are entering our market system. As producers we may be somewhat insulated from the marketplace. We must increase our sensitivity and encourage the producers to supply the consumers. I believe we should take a look at the world feed grain situation. Although wheat throughout the rest of the world is considered to be a good food for livestock, in Canada we grow very little wheat for feeding purposes. In western Canada barley is produced at a high level, but in recent years there has been little research done in respect of high yield barley. Barley does give a high energy output. It has always taken second place to wheat in land use and marketing importance.
Throughout the world there is a great and growing demand for feed grains. I should like to read some statistics which have been produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics concerning the export of feed grain by the major exporting countries. In the year 1960


the world total was 23 million metric tons and in 1966 it was 42 million metric tons. The United States increased its share of the world market from 11.5 million metric tons to 21.7 million metric tons between 1960 and 1966. Canada has not done so well. In 1960 our share of the world market was one million metric tons and in 1966 it was 1.1 million metric tons.
There is a growing market for feed grains throughout the world and I believe we should be aware of this. It would appear that in western Canada barley is one of the crops which could best meet this demand. There should be an attempt by the producers of western barley to meet the competition brought about by the importation of corn for eastern feeders. All segments of marketing must increase their efficiency in order to meet the challenge. As a nation we are expending relatively little energy on our marketing problems. We need more grain salesmen to operate as Fuller brush men to knock on doors and energize our marketing forces in areas where we may have been deficient in salesmanship.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) mentioned that we have had large grain sales in Russia, but that we have had little salesmanship. Situations like this must be remedied, and marketing research has to be encouraged. We do very little in marketing but we expend considerable effort in production. We have only started with our marketing system.
Finally, and most important to the producers of our western grains, we must make them aware of what the markets will accept, and the government must make efforts to assist these people to grow grains for which they will find markets. While it is not clear, I hope that the newly formed grain council of Canada will take a step in this direction, because unless we improve this marketing situation the farmers will again be obtaining and cashing these cash advances every year.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment or two, as I have a very simple question to ask the minister. Let us assume in theory that a farmer has obtained all the cash advances he can obtain, and at the end of the crop year he finds he has sufficient grain, but because quotas are not high enough he is unable to deliver an amount of grain which would allow him to repay his loan. Will the minister indicate
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
whether under those circumstances it would not be appropriate to charge that farmer interest on the unpaid balance until he has had an opportunity to fill a quota which would allow him to repay the loan?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must advise the house that if the minister speaks at this stage he will close the debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, several hon. members have asked the same question posed by the last speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir), regarding the consequences of a repayment not equalling the advances during the course of a year. It may be that I delivered my table to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) too late, or perhaps a little too early. I did not give him a great deal of time to look it over and I apologize to him for that.
Under the provisions of the bill, or the act as amended if the bill becomes law, a farmer receiving an advance at the rate of $1 per bushel of wheat, who may in fact not be able to repay the total amount if the quota does not open sufficiently for him to do so, will not have to pay interest on that unpaid balance. If the farmer took the maximum advance there would at the end of the crop year be an amount still owing by him on that advance, under the circumstances outlined by hon. members. It is certainly not our intention that there would be any interest payable on that amount at that time. The amount which he still owed when the crop year ended would of course be taken into account when the advances in the ensuing year were determined.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question at this point? He has referred specifically to his table and to my remarks. I take it from this table that by the words "4,000 bushels" the fanners will be limited in this sense to 4,000 bushels, because the quota failed to open any more than that. Let us be clear as we go along. I would assume that this situation occurred because the farmer had no more grain than that. I followed your tables and I am basically very strongly opposed to them. I want to be abundantly clear as to what this means.


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldl):: There are two examples in the table. I do not think I should refer to them because only the hon. member and I have the advantage of having them before us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have referred to them.
DEBATES	2129
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Otto Emil Lang: The position is that the farmer can go into the next crop year with a balance still owing on his account. That balance will be taken into account at that point in calculating the next advance. The maximum which he may obtain by way of advances never changes-that is to say, in the next crop year.
If our hypothetical farmer had an 800 acre farm he would be eligible in the first year to $4,800. Let us say that in the course of that year he paid back $500 less than $4,800. He would then go into the next year owing $500. His maximum would still be $4,800. At that time he could obtain an additional $4,300. Of course no interest would be paid on the $500 between the time the year ended and the time the next year began, but his obligations would continue to be as they are now, that is to deliver wheat as the quota opens in repayment of his advances.
There were some comments by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) about the difficulties facing a farmer who ends a year not having paid what he had borrowed. Let me point out that it is entirely up to the farmer to choose between the maximum and a smaller amount. If a farmer wishes to take an amount which will be repaid in a shorter period of time, he may do so.
This bill and these changes are particularly meritorious because they allow the flexibility which will permit a farmer, who wishes to take a larger advance, to do so. The farmer under this act can actually take an advance which involves more wheat than may be deliverable on the six bushel quota, which previously always cleared his indebtedness. Under the new plan a six bushel quota will not be adequate to clear this indebtedness. In that case the advance will actually be carried forward.
I am surprised to see how conservative in thinking some of the members opposite are when they say it is a bad thing. It seems to me this is a particularly strong part of the measure because it allows this specific credit advantage to the farmers in this way.


Stanley James Korchinski: Perhaps I could ask a question at this point. In the event there is a carryover of an indebtedness because of a crop failure, a crop being hailed out or for any such reason and a farmer does not have credit to deliver his quota to the wheat board, will he then be charged interest on that amount in the following year.
2130	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Daniel Aiken Lang: The
straightforward and simple answer to that is that a farmer is not in default on the amount owing until the wheat board finds him in default. So, in fact, the situation remains really as it is now. The administration of the act falls largely within the discretion of the wheat board, and I think in this regard we can count a great deal on that discretion.
In the other example the hon. member has given, if a man quits farming or he dies his farm changes hands, the advance owing is a debt on the estate. This is money which he received, and it certainly is a debt.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would the minister go back to the original question I asked? Will a farmer be penalized by way of interest in the following year if he does not have a crop at all? This is what I am getting at.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I think I answered that. A farmer is not charged any interest unless he is in default, and he would not be in that position unless the Wheat Board in fact decided he was in default. I think that is the simple answer to the proposition.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister-


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be simpler if I made a few remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. We will proceed into committee in a few moments, and I think it would be useful to let the minister make a statement.


Otto Emil Lang: I really want to say only a few things more at this stage, Mr. Speaker. We made it clear, and certainly I thought I had made it clear in my remarks when introducing this measure, that we did not see it as something of an entire answer to the existing problems. We certainly do not see it in that light. That it is, however, an extremely worth-while measure I think is beyond doubt.
When my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made reference to the delay in the bill proceeding through the house he had in mind, as hon. members know, the manner in which long debate on other measures had proceeded on occasion when hon. members fully knew that this bill could go forward. If there are any additional questions, I think I can handle them appropriately at the committee stage, so I will conclude there, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	October 28. 1968


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, before the
minister resumes his seat-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The minister has closed the debate and we will proceed immediately into committee, which is the place in which to ask questions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 1-
Albert Béchard: Shall clause 1
carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 carries-and I do not want to hold up this legislation one bit longer than is absolutely necessary-I should like to ask the minister a question. I will rephrase the question I asked the minister earlier. For my satisfaction, and for the satisfaction of the committee at large, could the minister explain the table that he handed to me as I came into the house this evening wherein he refers to the maximum amount deliverable as being 4,000 bushels in the first year. Is that because of the quota limitation, or because of the amount of grain the farmer has? It is a simple question, because I want to fully understand the table.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the very simple answer is that the examples, as can be seen, indicate that in both cases, for the farmer with an 800 acres farm the maximum theoretical advance is $4,800. In the first example the farmer has on hand 4,000 bushels of wheat, and therefore the maximum advance is $4,000. In the second example he has a great deal of wheat on hand, and naturally the maximum advance is $4,800.


John Stratford Burton: 
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Wheat Board is giving consideration to very many things, but naturally the kind of thing to which the hon. member opposite is referring would more likely be a matter of government policy, and the government is certainly looking at the whole picture of the farmer situation as well.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the question that I raised earlier. What is going to happen when there is a carryover of indebtedness into the following year and the farmer, through no fault of his own, is hailed out, or through drought or any other disaster that may befall him has no grain to deliver? Will the farmer be able to sign a declaration to the Wheat Board, and will it be authorized to accept the declaration that he has no wheat, and therefore the farmer will not be obliged to pay a penalty on the amount of the indebtedness the following year, even though the board does provide a quota for the following year?


Daniel Aiken Lang: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, this is really a matter for the administration of the act and therefore lies in the discretion of the administering body. The indebtedness is there. There is a point at which the farmer could theoretically be in default, and it will really be a question of how the act is administered.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, the minister is a renowned lawyer and well versed in the law. Surely he should be able to give us an idea as to what the position of the farmer will be in this situation. I know it is very difficult for a lawyer to try to think in terms of a farmer, but I wish the minister would for once put himself in the position in which the farmer will find himself when he does not have any grain to deliver, would like to be able to repay the indebtedness but, because he was hailed out, snowed under or what-have-you, will not be able to deliver. I ask the minister this question: Will this farmer have to pay a penalty that year, when he has no grain and nothing on which to live?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, I can only say what I said before. That is, in effect, that I depend upon the wheat board not to persecute a man in that position. That is really the simple answer. In other words it will be entirely up to the Wheat Board whether that man will be penalized or not.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, there have been times in the past-and it was brought to my
2131
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act attention at times in the position which I occupied previously-when this sort of thing has happened under the cash advances program; that is, the Wheat Board has said in effect, "There is a quota open. You borrowed so much. It has not all been paid back. We want you to haul in wheat and pay us the rest." I know that in the circumstances which I described a very considerable amount of pressure was put on the farmer to do just that.
Unless the attitude changes substantially, I think the answer to the question of the hon. member for Mackenzie is that the farmer will be in some kind of difficulty. Let us not have any illusions in this regard. I am not saying whether it is good or bad, but I think this is the answer that should be given to the hon. member for Mackenzie.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, further to the question I asked previously, can I now ask the minister whether the government is giving any consideration to the development of a plan to provide for a guaranteed minimum delivery quota in each crop year.


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated previously to the hon. member opposite, he will have to wait for government policy in its own good time.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of questions to the minister. First of all I would like to go on record as being, naturally, in favour of Bill No. C-113. The doubling of cash advances will certainly help many farmers through this difficult period of restricted deliveries. My hope of course is that market conditions will improve so that there will be no problems about repayment, and there will be less need for cash advances in the years to come. This is the only real solution to the farmer's problem of a shortage of cash.
I am happy to note that in the first two and a half months of this crop year our exports of wheat and flour are running about 26 per cent higher than they were in a similar period last year. I urge all those in the business of selling our wheat to explore every possible market for our grain.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I have the following suggestions to make. I think provision should be made for cash advances on grain that is still on the fields. In Saskatchewan at least, and in the other prairie provinces also, much of the grain will not
2132	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act be harvested until springtime unless a miracle takes place in November. I understand that in at least one previous year-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In 1959.


Albert B. Douglas: -cash advances were made on grain which was still lying in swaths and stooks, and the experience with the repayment of these cash advances was very good. I can see no reason why this should not be extended again this year. I should like to point out that these cash advances are not regarded as loans to farmers. The hon. member for Crowfoot spoke of them as being loans or money borrowed. They are regarded as cash advances and therefore as income for income tax purposes in the year in which they are received.
Personally I think there is a great deal to be said for regarding them as loans which would not be taxable until the grain was actually delivered, which could be in the next income tax year instead of the year in which cash advances were made. I suggest that the appropriate government department should look into this matter to see whether this regulation could not be changed, so that cash advances would not be regarded as income. For example, if they are made in 1968, they would not be taxable that year but only when the grain is delivered, at which time the full value of the grain would be regarded as income.
Those are the two suggestions I should like to make to the government.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was the only one pursuing this line of questioning, but now that I have had some assistance from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar I do not mind asking the minister for some further information. On several occasions I myself have taken out cash advances when the delivery of grain in the winter months has not been too good, owing to road conditions. At that time I have received a very nice letter from the Wheat Board suggesting I should make the delivery within something like 14 days, or else I would be penalized. Will this practice be continued in cases where farmers find themselves unable to deliver grain? Will the government intercede on behalf of these farmers? Can the minister clearly indicate that there will be a regulation to the effect that farmers will not be required to pay interest on the loan on grain which is not delivered on the date specified?

DEBATES	October 28, 1988


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, certainly the government would be very happy to consider any changes in the regulations which may be necessary, upon the experience gained once the bill has been implemented. I do not think the experience of the hon. member opposite necessarily indicates any grave difficulty. He indicated he received a very nice letter from the Wheat Board and I presume he wrote a nice letter back to the board, so that more or less answered the question. I think that is probably the hope for the future.
Of course the hon. member for Assiniboia has stated a true fact when he indicated that these loans are not so much money that is borrowed as a prepayment for the wheat which remains on the farm.


Mr. McIntosh:: Why then are farmers
charged interest on their own money?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Accordingly, no interest is charged on it. The hon. member for Assiniboia also made what I consider to be a very worth-while comment in drawing to our attention the problem of grain lying unharvested on farmers' fields. We are conscious of the previous example in this regard. Of course we are investigating this whole situation, but it is really premature now to even seriously consider that matter at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I think now is the time to pause on clause 1 and to serve notice of our grave doubts about the practicality of the minister's suggestion. I will attempt this evening to convince every backbencher in the house of the lack of mathematical feasibility of repaying these loans. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to all hon. members, that I wish all backbenchers, and particularly those on the government side, would give me their attention for just a moment to allow me to convince them to be guided by their own judgment and not by any supreme being, nor by any group of exalted rulers. I will attempt to put forward arguments to portray my point of view to the minister, who is in effect piloting this bill through the house.
I have been a member of this house for 11 years but never have I seen before such mathematical wizardry as that which the minister has engaged in, and this in the light of the budget presented the other night. I suggest there must be a special place in the cabinet for the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, if he can supplant the Minister of Finance in
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
mathematical wizardry. Some hon. member suggests that I am getting political. Mr. Chairman, that is the farthest thought from my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I attempted throughout the whole of last week to bring this bill before the house, and in fact I took great pains to point out to the minister that on October 4 he made a statement which is recorded at page 827 of Hansard. In this regard let me compliment the hon. member for Assiniboia on the comments he just made, with regard to the difficult time which the farmers have been experiencing with their harvests.
After a thorough examination, the minister said the following:
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-
I should like to emphasize the words "new year".
-so that it is dealt with immediately at the beginning of the new year.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I will not go any further with the statement made by the minister on October 4, 1968. Today is October 28, 1968, at 9.21 p.m., and I have now seen this calculation by the minister. I was thunderstruck. I have been a member, as I have said, for 11 years and I have never seen such an attempt at mathematical calculation as this. I am going to read through this calculation very quickly. It is suggested that under the bill the maximum advance for a farmer with an 800 acre quota would be 4,800 bushels, or $4,800. He would only have on hand 4,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat. His rate of repayment would be based on a price of $1.30 per bushel for No. 2 wheat, basis Red Deer, Alberta. The amount taken to repay the cash advance would be 65 cents or about half of the $1.30. A lot of backbenchers should realize that the wheat is valued at $1.30 and the rate of repayment would be 65 cents per bushel. I should have said at the beginning that, under this bill, for every bushel a farmer has in storage he is given $1 by way of cash advance. The amount therefore taken to pay back the $4,000 cash advance would be 6,154 bushels.
The delivery unit would be 400 bushels and the quota would be 3,600 bushels. The amount owing after a complete crop year would be $1,400 or something over 2,000 bushels. This
DEBATES	2133
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act represents over half what the farmer had at the start. If this is the intention of the government, that the farmer should go into debt every year, if that is the extent of the confidence of the government in the agricultural industry, let the minister stand up and say so, and then I will understand him.
Let us proceed further to step 2 in the minister's table. The next year the farmer has a great crop. Let me be very generous in saying this. According to the minister's statement the farmer harvests 12,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat. His maximum allowance for advance under this bill is 4,800 bushels or $4,800. The repayment is based on the same assumed price. Here we have to take into our calculations the extra $1,400 of debt from the previous year which, in effect, would represent 7,385 bushels.
Then, here is where I wanted to ask the minister a question. The delivery unit would be 400 bushels. The minister's calculations, presented to this house in all sincerity, indicate that an eight bushel quota would allow the farmer to deliver 6,400 bushels. Now, is the minister saying that this year we might well have a six bushel quota but that next year there will be an eight bushel quota? Is the minister saying that this government, in all its wisdom, will combine an eight bushel quota with a plentiful crop? I doubt it. The minister says that even after that, even after a farmer had delivered on the eight bushel quota, if a nine bushel quota did not open, the farmer would still owe $380 in the next year.
I want the minister to go back and read the debate that took place between the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar and myself on October 4. We explicitly pointed out our belief that if the minister advanced $1 a bushel and the farmer only had to repay half of what he received, the farmer would invariably go into debt every year. Rural members and backbenchers on both sides of the house might well ask, what is he getting at? I want to make it abundantly clear that under the act as it is now the farmer has a right to obtain a cash advance of $3,000 interest free on grain in storage.
In 1959, an amendment was made to cover grain in the field, not necessarily harvested. During the election campaign members of the government said they were going to double that; they were going to make it $6,000. However, they do not give the farmer the right to pay this money back in the same
October 28, 1968

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act year. In effect they are giving the farmer the right to go into debt more deeply every year to the extent of one quarter, or perhaps even a half of the cash advance in a period of four years. If a farmer is faced with ever increasing costs and remains on a six bushel quota, then within four years he will consume $6,000 in the form of cash advances. Then he will have no avenue to which to turn.
I say to the minister in all sincerity that he should examine his table closely. The late president of the United States, when he was dealing with Khrushchev at the time of the Cuba crisis said, "I don't want to put his back to the wall; I want to give him an avenue through which he can escape." I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the government wants to give the farmer an avenue through which he can escape. Surely the government does not want to put the farmers in a corner, then have them throw up their hands and march on Ottawa because they are in debt up to their ears to the federal government.
I am sure the minister does not want to place the farmers in that position. I am sure no backbencher in this house wants to place the farmer with his back to the wall. The table the minister presented suggests that next year the farmers will be on an eight bushel quota. What makes him confident of that? The year after, he says the farmers will be on a nine bushel quota, and all will be well. They will reap this glorious promise that he and his Prime Minister made in June of this year. Surely, he does not expect us to buy that, when the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in South America trying to sell wheat. Those countries have never been our biggest customers. I urge every member in the house tonight to seriously consider the position. Nobody entices a person to borrow money he cannot possibly repay. Perhaps an enemy does, but certainly not your friend. This is what the bill will do, unless the minister accepts one simple amendment and then sees that the provisions in the bill are carried out.
I have studied this bill from all angles ever since the minister made his statement on October 4. I want to make it abundantly clear that we have not been holding up this measure since October 4. We have been accused of holding up other measures, but we have not even seen this one since October 4. As I say, I have studied the matter and there is only one simple solution to this whole position in which the farmer will be placed. The solution is to allow the farmer to borrow $1

per bushel for every bushel in storage, but to repay it at only 65 cents a bushel.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Any backbencher who is skilled in business realizes what the bill is going to do to the farmers. It will entice them in their dire periods of need to borrow the maximum and to repay the minimum allowable under the bill.
I say to every businessman in this house, to every member with any knowledge of the manipulation of the dollar bill and sound credit, that this bill is based on a faulty premise.
I know the minister fairly well, perhaps better than he knows me. I have a brother who graduated from law school with the minister and I have a great deal of regard for the minister because of the high respect in which my brother holds him. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge him to seriously consider the position in which this bill will place our farmers today.
I have a simple solution, Mr. Chairman, which may get the farmers out of this position. I am not going to move an amendment now, but I do want the minister thoroughly to consider this point between now and the time we reach clause 3. I put this forward for the consideration of all rural members of the house, no matter to which party they belong. I am going to suggest that in line 6 of clause 3 as it appears at page 3 of the bill the word "six" bushels per specified acre be changed to read "eight" bushels per specified acre.
In light of the table of the minister it might be said that this is a simple amendment; how can it solve all the evil that the hon. member has attempted to portray? I say to hon. members of this committee, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it can help alleviate the problem, provided the government sells eight bushels per specified acre. If this change were made, then a farmer with 800 acres could borrow $4,800 and would be able to deliver 6,400 bushels of wheat. I am not saying that this is a perfect amendment because it is not, but it does at least give the farmers some opportunity to meet their operational costs.
The minister's table indicates that in the second year the government, through their good graces and offices, hope to give the farmers an eight bushel quota. I say to the minister that if he and his cabinet colleagues have the courage to make this eight bushel quota good to the farmers in the first year, then if they want to say to the farmers that in the third year they will have a nine bushel
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
quota, all well and good, Mr. Chairman, it will not be turned down. But the provision in the bill to increase the maximum loan from $3,000 to $6,000 is not soundly based unless the farmer is given ample opportunity to repay the amount borrowed.
I can see no way to repay the loan, Mr. Chairman, other than by decreasing the amount allowable from $1 per bushel to 75 cents a bushel, or increasing the allowable acreage. In the amendment that I am going to propose I prefer the farmers to receive the advantage of $1 per bushel, but to give them every opportunity to repay the loan on an eight bushel per acre quota.
I urge the minister seriously to consider this proposal because I think the position in which he is now placing the farmers will be a dangerous one in the years ahead.


Mr. Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Crowfoot has raised an interesting point, particularly in connection with the suggested eight bushel quota amendment, about which I should like to comment at this time.
Speaking on October 4, as reported at page 819 of Hansard, I am reported as follows:
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 m wheat, which would give the government a more direct interest in selling wheat.
I should like to hear the minister tell the committee what solution he has for solving the problem. For example, to be facetious about it, is he praying for drought in Russia or China? Is he indicating that at some time there might be an increase in the price of wheat, that the farmers will receive more money and be able to repay it at a quicker rate? I should like to hear the minister tell the committee how this problem can be resolved. If he has trouble, I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia might have some comment to make in this respect.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I believe I heard the minister say that this money should not be considered a loan. I think he was endorsing a suggestion
DEBATES	2135
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. One of his reasons for not describing it as a loan was because no interest was involved. Did I hear the minister correctly and did he say no interest was involved?


Otto Emil Lang: That is right.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then would the minister look at section 5 (1) (b) of the act, which reads as follows:
(b) upon default, he will repay to the board the amount in default, without interest prior to default but with interest at six per cent per annum after default.
If no interest is involved, Mr. Chairman, then what does that provision mean?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, naturally the question with which I was dealing was that of interest in general, not interest payable after default which is a totally different issue. That was what my earlier response had reference to.
I am most astonished this evening to hear hon. members opposite actually complaining because the cash advance bill is going to allow the farmers to borrow too much money and to repay it at too slow a rate. I would have imagined almost any other attack from the opposition, Mr. Chairman. I think it must be a good bill when they are put in the position of attacking it in this fashion.
I must also say, Mr. Chairman, that while the hon. member for Crowfoot was speaking I thought several times I would have to rise on a point of privilege. I let the opportunity go and it did come out all right from that point of view. However, the next time he asks me to send him a table, if I have the time I shall write him a book. His trouble is that he has not been quite ready to believe that in fact the result of the bill is exactly that which it sets out to do, namely that the farmer can indeed borrow an amount that is much greater than he has been able to borrow before. The farmer will actually be in the position where, when deliveries are slow in a particular year, he will not be called upon to repay the total advanced to him in that year, and in that sense will carry over the amount advanced as a matter of calculation to the next year. That is perfectly true and I think perfectly laudable. Certainly it is our objective to move much more wheat; that has been clear in our statements all along.
2136	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act [DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Kecent history does not indicate that one should be unduly pessimistic, as hon. members opposite seem to be, because of an immediate problem such as the one this year. As to the examples referred to by the hon. member for Crowfoot, may I say that the contents of the table were meant to illustrate a variety of situations and were not intended to be identified as one year, or another year, or years in succession of each other. It is certainly true that under this bill a farmer may obtain these increased amounts if he wishes to do so. I emphasize this point to those who are concerned lest a farmer may borrow more than he can repay. The amount is up to the borrower. If he chooses to borrow this money without interest, he can do so, provided he has sufficient grain on hand. When he repays the loan, he does so at 50 per cent of the initial payment. In many a year he will not repay the total advance unless he has delivered approximately a nine bushel quota, if he has taken the full advance. Then again, if a farmer chooses at any time to repay the advance he is entitled to do so; the act enables him to do so, specifically, under section 5 (2).
The concern expressed by hon. members opposite is difficult to understand when it is concern about a farmer being lent too much money and being made to pay it too slowly- and when there is no interest for it at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister's remarks are certainly apropos. But he will recall that at the beginning of my comments I specifically asked him what he meant by the 4,000 bushel maximum in the table he sent over to me. I asked whether it was the number of bushels on hand, or the number of bushels which the farmer chose, or the number of bushels his quota allowed him to deliver. The minister said it was the number of bushels on hand. Therein lies the difference between us.
At no time in recent history, the minister says, have there been two low quota years running year after year. That is what the minister suggested. I am not in any way afraid that farmers will be unable to repay their loans, but I do not want a farmer to feel that he is way over his head and has no means of repaying them.
Under the present arrangements a farmer can borrow $3,000 and can repay that amount. I ask the minister: Is this much better? We are giving him a huge maximum and very little opportunity to repay. Eventually, over a

DEBATES	October 28, 1968
period of years, he builds up a debt, and in time he will only qualify for a loan of $3,000, the amount he can get today. If the minister wishes to contradict this statement I shall be glad to hear him do so. But on the basis of the bill today, on the basis of a six bushel quota, a farmer builds up a debt of $3,000 at least, and carries it with him unless at some time or another the government increases the delivery quota, and at the same time he is blessed with a bountiful crop. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that very often the reverse is true. Moreover the quota expands when farmers do not experience such a bountiful year. It is easy for a quota to build up to ten bushels if there is a poor crop in the west, but it is difficult for a quota to build up beyond six bushels when there is a heavy crop.
I am not saying the bill is altogether wrong. I am not saying I intend to vote against it; I do not. But I am trying to point out the dangers. This bill will place the farmer at no real advantage year after year. The minister can deny this if he wishes to do so. I hope he will. I hope he will say that the bill will place the farmer at a definite advantage year after year, because he will undertake to sell an eight bushel quota. But even on the basis of an eight bushel quota, a farmer taking the maximum will still, in the following year, have to sell a nine or ten bushel quota in order to repay. The minister can sit there in the greatest sublimity but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is not sound mathematically. This is the opinion I had before the minister gave me his tables. It is the opinion I held on October 4, and I have not changed it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On claue 3-Undertaking by the producer.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to say nothing more-


An hon. Member:: Holding up the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Somebody over there immediately says I am holding up the bill. They think it is my duty to give everything swift approval. Well, the last time this bill came up in the house was on October 4. Today is October 28. Who held it up in the meantime?


An hon. Member:: You did.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says we did. It is the duty of the government to bring measures before the house. I did my best to encourage the government to bring it before the house, but they did not do so.
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
I have said whatever I could, and dare the minister to defend his table on an actuarially sound basis, because it will not stand up. If a farmer is in need of money he will borrow more under this bill than he is capable of repaying according to the quota system. I defy any mathematician to prove this statement wrong. So, without any further remarks, I move:
That on page 3 in line 6 the word "six" be deleted, and the word "eight" inserted in its place so that the line will read "of eight bushels per specified acre".
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Daniel Aiken Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the change envisaged in this amendment would have the effect of imposing an additional burden on the treasury and therefore is not in order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the point of order raised by the minister, Mr. Chairman, I went to great lengths to point out that it was the ability of the farmer to repay with which I was concerned. The amendment would allow a loan to be repaid that much quicker. It places no additional burden on the treasury. As the hon. member for Assiniboia said, it is not in fact a loan, it is a cash advance on the farmer's own wheat, on his own money.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On another
point of order, I wonder if perhaps we might have the committee rise, to report to the house with a view to arriving at agreement to extend the sitting for another hour this evening, so that we might complete the bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us have a ruling on the amendment first.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed that I rise and report progress?


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest that we have a ruling and vote on the amendment, and after the vote we might be amazed at what progress we would make.


Albert Béchard: Order. Amendments in committee are governed by the terms of the resolution which precedes the bill. The pertinent phrase in the resolution reads as follows:
-to permit the calculation of advance payments on grain deliverable under unit quotas, and for other related purposes.
DEBATES	2137
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
There is no specific price listed here, and so therefore there is no amount involved. For that reason I have to accept the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Horner) negatived: Yeas, 41; nays, 70.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Transitional.
Stanley James Korchinski: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest a way whereby the government can save some money by not paying administration costs as stipulated under the present situation. The amendment I shall propose will make it possible for farmers to take two cash advances. The minister has overlooked the fact that administration costs were $150,000 last year. There was a transfer of undistributed amounts of $6,000, and the cost to the treasury was $90,000. Some 45,000 cash advances were taken last year and at $2 a piece $90,000 could be recovered if a second advance were necessary. I therefore propose the following amendment:
That section 6 of the said act be amended by the addition of the following subsection:
6 (a) In any year where the producer has not taken the maximum permissible, he may, upon repayment of the original advance payment, reapply for a further advance payment up to the maximum amount allowable under the provisions of this act.
Amendment (Mr. Korchinski) negatived: Yeas, 41; nays, 72.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, or at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: By leave now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader give us some indication concerning the intentions, honourable or otherwise, for tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have hoped that the official opposition would have
October 28, 1968
2138	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion permitted third reading of the bill with which we have just dealt tonight. I can only hope that hon. members will not unduly prolong the debate tomorrow on the bill in respect of which they profess to be so interested.
An hon. member says that if I make more remarks like that they will prolong the debate. That is interesting. Notwithstanding threats by hon. members I think we will call third reading of the prairie grain advance payments bill and then proceed to the committee stage, and one would hope third reading, of the farm credit bill. Then we would deal with the resolution concerning the C.N.R. financing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The house leader seems a bit downhearted because we have only dealt with second reading, and six clauses of the bill in the committee stage. We moved two amendments and not one was accepted in any shape or form. With the amendments we suggested and the progress made I thought we had done very well this evening from eight o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we should not become involved in a debate at a time when the opposition house leader has asked for the business for the next day and when this business has been announced by the government. It would be easy for this to be done without argumentation or debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when the news leaked out almost a month ago that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was proceeding with a reorganization there was virtually unanimous condemnation from one end of the country to the other. This decision was made without consultation with representatives of the Indian community. Despite the assurance of the minister that these changes are purely administrative and will have no effect on services provided for the Indians in [DOT]Canada, this condemnation instead of subsiding has accelerated.


During last week end a conference was held at Glendon college in Toronto at which were present representatives of Indian communities, as well as the department. I have been informed, as I am sure the minister has by his officials, that the deputy minister of his department was heckled and jeered at that conference. This is not surprising. Ever since the end of world war II we have been spending more and more money, ostensibly for Indian needs; yet the more we spend and the more we do the more complaints we hear from Indian communities. I think the reason is perfectly clear. In the past 100 years we have developed a completely authoritarian approach to Indian affairs. We, the great white fathers, tell the Indians what is good for them, and whether they like it or not they must accept it.
In recent years the ministers, and we have had a new one almost every year, have told the Indians that things are to be different. They have been told that the government intends to listen to them and get their advice as to what they want. Each minister has been put in the position where more and more decisions are being made, not by the Indians but by departmental officials. These decisions are not even being made by the minister.
This administrative change again means a further centralization, rather than a decentralization of this administration. This is now the case, rather than discussions with the provinces and a placing of responsibilities on the Indians for decisions, in consultation and co-operation with the provinces, as suggested by the Indian and Eskimo Association. This was also suggested by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) in a letter to the former prime minister, and I must say in language much stronger than I am using tonight.
We are getting more centralization, and more decisions will have to be made here in Ottawa rather than by the Indians and representatives of the department in the field. This whole structure is being reorganized without consultation. No one knows how we can develop an economic program for the Indians without developing a social program. We now have a biologist in charge of human development. I am sure he is a very worthy gentleman, but he is a man without the required knowledge, training, and experience to work with people. He is now in charge of human development.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Yet we are told by this minister-we get a different story, of course, when we listen to
October 28, 1968
the Minister without Portfolio-that this is purely a bookkeeping device and one which ought not to concern the Indians. Well, it does concern the Indians. They are protesting and I think they are justified in protesting. I think they must continue to protest, as we must, until this minister does what other ministers have promised to do, and that is to start listening to the Indians instead of continuing to listen to and to obey what the bureaucrats in Ottawa tell the minister he ought to do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to suggest to the hon. member that he should begin by reading the newspapers.
In the whole history of Canada, ever since the federal government has taken an interest in the problems of the Indians, consultations with the Indians have never taken place. Now, since July 15, 1968, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development branch has embarked upon a series of consultations with the Indians in all the provinces. We have held ten consultations with the Indians so far, and we will have finished the first round of 19 consultations at the end of December. Never in the past were the Indians consulted and I hear the hon. member say that we do not consult them.
However, as far as the reorganization of the branch is concerned, it was logical, following a decision taken by the House of Commons in 1966, to create a Department of Indian Affairs. Formerly, there was an Indian Affairs Branch, in 1966, it was decided to set up a Department of Indian Affairs and the decision taken a month ago by the cabinet and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was aimed at giving the status of a department to the Indian Affairs Branch. We wanted in that way to give even more importance to Indian affairs. However, since it was a purely administrative decision, we explained it here, and none of the criticism expressed until now dealt with the fundamental value of the reorganization.
All we heard about was the lack of consultation. There was no lack of consultation, because the reorganization concerned only the personnel in Ottawa.
We did not deal with the Indians, either with the reserves or the bands, any differently. We kept exactly the same structures. With regard to consulting the Indians and giving
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion them new responsibilities, I can assure the honourable members that, as a result of the consultations we have had with them until now, it is obvious that under the terms of the new Indian Act, we will give them more authority, on both the reserve and band levels, in order to enable them to control their own destiny and to participate in their economic and social development.
No government, Mr. Speaker, has cared as much about the social and economic emancipation of the Indians, and we intend to continue in that direction.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS-INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF &quot;GRANDE HERMINE&quot;

Mr. Gerard Duquei (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, when I put a question, on October 24 last, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), with regard to the repatriation of the replica of the Grande Hermine to Quebec, please believe me it was not without reason.
This ship was built two years ago. It was one of the main attractions of La Ronde at Expo '67. Then, it was supposed to be taken to the historic Cartier-Brebeuf park which is to be built in Quebec City.
Of course, due to uncontrollable circumstances, we were unable to repatriate it when Expo '67 closed down. This ship stayed all winter long at La Ronde in 1967, and it stayed at Man and His World in 1968, because the Cartier-Brebeuf park was not yet ready.
The history of the Grande Hermine speaks eloquently for itself, so that I need not elaborate on the matter. I do not intend either to hold the present minister-and much less his predecessor-responsible for such delays. However, I should like to mention certain reasons, because I feel that if circumstances did not lend themselves to transporting the ship to Quebec, someone was responsible for the situation.
I feel that the city of Quebec is not excusable, under the circumstances, for not having done the utmost to hand over to the federal government, as agreed the land expropriated for the Cartier-Brebeuf park.
I therefore feel justified, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my electors, on behalf of the whole population of the city of Quebec-who, first of all, hope to see Cartier-Brebeuf park become a reality and, secondly to see the replica of the historical ship called Grande Hermine installed in the estuary of the St. Charles and Lairet rivers, historical site where Jacques Cartier wintered in 1534 and

October 28, 1968
2140	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion 1535-in asking the honourable minister to let us know what his department intends to do with regard to the Grande Hermine for the coming months, and what it intends to do so that the ship can be repatriated to the city of Quebec and, especially, to the Cartier-Brebeuf park.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Quebec East, I merely wish to tell him that the stay in Montreal of the Grande Hermine which was an attraction at Expo '67 and at Man and His World in 1968, has come to an end, and that we now want to move it to Cartier-Brebeuf park in Quebec City.
However, circumstances known to the hon. member, that is the fact that we still do not have at our disposal the necessary land in the Cartier-Brebeuf park to build permanent facilities for the Grande Hermine, force us to berth it temporarily at Lauzon, so that it will not be too far from the park when it is ready.
We are still waiting for the city of Quebec to let us have the land. I know that the municipal authorities intend to expropriate it and as soon as the land is handed over to us, we will immediately undertake the final development of the Cartier-Brebeuf park, in order to set up permantly the replica of the Grande Hermine on the historic location where Jacques Cartier had his winter quarters, as the hon. member said so well, in 1534 and in 1535.



ATOMIC ENERGY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRENCH AND CANADIAN AGENCIES

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on October 15 of this year the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced that an agreement had been entered into between Atomic Energy of Canada and the C.E.A. of France providing for co-operation and exchange of information on research and development of heavy water moderated nuclear reactors. Although he made a long statement on the development of nuclear power reactors, the minister said practically nothing about the agreement itself. On subsequent occasions when he was asked for details of the agreement, the minister said it was secret and would not be published.
Only three things were mentioned in the public statement: First, that there was an exchange of information of commercial value; second, that it does not include the full design


details of specific power stations such as at Douglas point; and third, that the French are very interested in Canadian nuclear power systems. We do not know and we were not told what real or imagined benefit will come to Canada from this agreement; whether there is any real expectation of selling nuclear power plants or just a pious hope; how much Canada is receiving for the sale of 20 years of research. In this context I should point out that in this year alone the research program of A.E.C.L. will cost Canada $68 million. We do not know if we are selling all our research or only part. We do not know what safeguards are written into this agreement and the previous one for the sale of plutonium. It should provide for the peaceful use only of material and information. This was stressed strongly in the previous agreements between Canada and India and between Canada and the United Kingdom. The fact that they do not have bomb development programs made those situations different from that of France which, in fact, has.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
In the previous agreements it was stressed that the international atomic energy agency should supervise any part of an agreement concerning the sale of plutonium or the sale of information. We are not told whether in this particular case the international atomic energy agency has any part to play.
May I now turn to the reason for secrecy, if there is one. First, it is very clear that there is no military security involved. We do not have any bomb technology to sell. Second, there is no technology in the agreement itself. In other words, this agreement is concerned with information, but the information itself is not in the agreement. How, therefore, can any technology be made public or any secret or any confidential information passed when that cannot possibly be in the agreement? There can surely be no secrecy or confidentiality on that ground.
Finally, the design details of certain nuclear power plants are excluded, but we do not know what is included in this agreement. Since there is no military secrecy, and no technical secrecy, the only thing left is the financial consideration. We do have some vague idea, Mr. Speaker, what the financial consideration amounts to. At a press conference outside the house it was revealed that the United Kingdom paid $700,000 for the information it received and that France was paying slightly more. Now, what slightly
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
more amounts to, I have no idea. I suppose it could be a million dollars.
How much have we spent in the last 20 years on research? It was estimated nearly a billion dollars. The only conclusion to which I can come is that the government does not want us to know what it has done. I have an overwhelming feeling that we have given away one of our most expensive and prized possessions, our nuclear technology, and received nothing in return. In ordinary parlance, one would call it being sold down the river.
I conclude by acknowledging that the sale of nuclear power plants has become a very competitive business. We have to protect ourselves. We cannot give away our business secrets nor our technology; that goes without saying. I wonder if this is not exactly what we have done in this case? In trying to protect the confidentiality of this information from other people, we have refused it to the Canadian people as well. We do not know whether this agreement is a valid one. There is no reason on earth why it should be secret. We have asked on several occasions that the government either publish the agreement or the essential parts of it, or at the very least make a statement indicating what is contained in the agreement. This statement could be made in such a manner that if there are secrets or confidential material in the agreement, that part would not be revealed. I think in a matter of this magnitude the Canadian people have some right to know whether or not the government has made a fair deal on their behalf.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) as well as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) I shall attempt to answer this question tonight. The hon. member asked the question of the Prime Minister and repeated it here tonight. He wants the non-secret parts of the agreement made public. I think it is unfortunate when we are dealing with atomic energy, with all the fury that it is capable of bringing upon people when it is not used for peaceful purposes, to leave a sinister connotation such as is left by the hon. gentleman's question. I am certain he had no intention of doing that. I think there is no clear assertion that the conditions of the agreement will never be made public. They could not be made public at this
DEBATES	2141
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion time because to do so we would have to secure the consent of France.
The fact of the matter is this, that Canada has been very cautious indeed in the sale of atomic fuels, as my hon. friend has already pointed out, and commendably has required stringent guarantees in respect of the peaceful use of such fuels. We are not dealing here with the sale of a fuel; we are dealing with the exchange of information between two nations. I think we are fortunate in that we are blessed with one of the greatest potential sources in any nation in the world of that particular type of fuel. France is in a position where it is among the first ten nations today in energy consumption, based upon income of people, and therefore constitutes a very promising market for our fuel.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, they are using a method that is different from ours. It is thought in Canada, where we want to obtain the largest possible sale of fuel in the future, that an exchange of information will probably popularize the type of fuel that we have for sale and the method that we have adopted. This is an information exchange between Canadian scientists who will go to France and French scientists who will come to Canada. As a matter of fact, I am informed that two or three persons have already been exchanged.
I think that in this fuel lies a fantastic future. It is being suggested that by 1980 over 30 per cent of the energy on this continent may be atomic energy. There is a very wide opinion among scientists today to the effect that we have just begun to touch the fringes of atomic energy, that it has much greater scientific potential than other forms of energy.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in respect to this nation a good market is indicated for the future for the sale of fuel, and the type and method we are using, which is water cooled instead of gas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Arthur Laing: However, the chief reason, Mr. Speaker, is that no consent has been obtained at this time from France to make public the agreement. If the matter were pressed, then possibly the minister would endeavour to obtain such agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, Oclober 29, 1968