1969-02-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, some ten days ago I raised a question on the omission of the coat of arms from the new Standing Orders of the house. Of course I realize I am not permitted to ask Your Honour any questions, but I would appreciate it if it could be made clear as to whether an examination by Your Honour has been made of the question that I raised, and what will be the position from now on of the coat of arms on the publication of Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows what the rules are in so far as the Chair is concerned. The only way that questions can be asked is in writing. There has been a communication in writing with the right hon. gentleman and it was my hope that the answer which was conveyed to him would be satisfactory.
I think that there should be as few exceptions as possible to the rule, because it is a good rule, that communications with the Speaker in so far as inquiries are concerned should be made in writing, and the reply made in the same way by the Chair. If the house will allow the Speaker, however, to make an exception to the rule, I will say that the intention of the officers of the house and of the Speaker is that eventually when the Standing Orders are published in this final form they will be published in the traditional way which has always been observed in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: The coat of arms will come back then.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



MAIN ESTIMATES. 1969-70 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1970, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board), and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the budgetary estimates for 1969-70 total $11,858 million. Normal lapsing would bring expenditures based on these estimates down to something below the $11,670 million figure projected by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget speech last October. The 1969-70 budgetary estimates of $11,858 million compare with anticipated total 1968-69 estimates of $10,826 million. The increase between years is, therefore, $1,032 million. Of this increase, $859 million relate to statutory items and the balance, or $173 million, to items requiring annual appropriations.
It should be recalled that the Minister of Finance has mentioned on several occasions that expenditures could easily vary from the projection of $11,670 million by about 1 per cent either way. In this connection I should point out that while these estimates were being printed the provincial governments were asked to provide us with more up-to-date forecasts of their expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and for post-secondary education. These latest forecasts confirm the validity of the total amount included in the estimates tabled today for these programs. It is not possible for me to be more definite in this report, since most provincial treasuries are still in the process of preparing their own 1969-70 estimates, which will not be presented to their legislatures for some weeks yet.
There may be a need, as in the past, for supplementary estimates in the course of the year to meet urgent and unforeseen requirements. The government is determined that

February 4, 1969
Main Estimates 1969-70 such supplementary estimates, if any, will be kept to a minimum and held to figures consistent with the declared objective of a balanced budget.
The estimates make provision for the expenditures required under programs for which statutory authority has already been granted by specific acts of parliament, such as the large programs already mentioned, as well as medicare and public debt charges, or resulting from formal agreements with the provinces such as those relating to occupational training of adults, and regional development. It should be noted that in respect to medicare, as indicated in the budget speech, provision has been made on the basis of participation by all the provinces for the full year.
Apart from these outlays, which are not readily manageable in the short term at least, the estimates for 1969-70 provide the required funds for the government to carry out its current defence commitments, and reflect the decision of the government to give priority to a number of specific areas of activity within an over-all framework of budgetary restraint.
Increased allocations have been made to programs for the efficient growth of the economy; to measures that contribute to raising the level of industrial technology, research and development and improving productivity; to programs for the support of research in the universities, and to water research programs.
Growth has also been provided in programs essential to the strengthening of national unity; to the reduction of regional disparities; to the improvement of the situation of Indians and Eskimos, and to the expansion of our external aid.
Finally, provision has been made to meet the increasing needs of parliament and essential funds have been allowed for the protection of persons and property, toward the acquisition of a communications satellite, and for postal operations.
A careful scrutiny was carried out of the manpower requirements of the various departments and agencies of the public service with the result, shown at page 476 of the estimates blue book, that the over-all manpower allocation for the year 1969-70 shows a decrease of 9,332 man-years from the levels authorized in the current year. The program of restraint on the over-all size of the public service which was announced by the government in March 1968 will be continued in 1969-70.
The considerations outlined above are reflected in the major elements of increase in the 1969-70 estimates over those of the current year. About 83 per cent of the over-all increase is made up of the requirements for programs authorized by existing legislation such as: medicare, $335 million; superannuation-civil and R.C.M.P., $154 million; public debt charges, $130 million; fiscal transfers to the provinces, $101 million; hospital insurance payments, $65 million; post-secondary education payments, $53 million; superannuation- defence, $51 million; Canada Assistance Plan, $48 million.
In the category of programs for which annual appropriations of parliament are required and which account for $6,185 million or 52 per cent of the total, the major elements of increase are: defence services, $51 million; regional economic expansion contributions, $46 million; federal government accommodation, $35 million; adult occupational training, $34 million, Indian, Eskimo and northern development programs, $33 million; external aid (excluding loans), $18 million; broadcasting, $15 million; grants for scientific and social research, $14 million; postal services, $13 million; industrial development assistance, $7 million; water research programs, $5 million.
The foregoing amounts relating to budgetary expenditures do not include loans, investments and advances on non-budgetary account, for which parliamentary approval is also being sought, in the amount of $614 million in the 1969-70 estimates. The corresponding amount in total estimates for 1968-69 is $720 million.
Similarly, the budgetary expenditures set forth in the preceding paragraphs do not include the forecast expenditures for Old Age Security payments. These payments, amounting to an estimated $1,760 million in 1969-70 -compared to $1,581 million in 1968-69-are carried separately from the budgetary expenditures provided for in the estimates as a statutory charge against the Old Age Security fund to which are credited the special taxes levied for this purpose.
I should also point out that a few presentational changes have been introduced in the 1969-70 blue book of estimates. For the first time we are providing details of the estimates requirements of crown corporations. Further, we have simplified the presentation of manpower detail and introduced a new standard expenditure coding system.

February 4, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	5093
Main Estimates 1969-70
[DOT] (2:20 p.m,)
Finally, I would like to add that we expect to make available to the members of this house and of the other place in the next week or so booklets setting forth the 1969-70 estimates in the form that we proposed to the Public Accounts Committee should be adopted for the formal presentation of the estimates for 1970-71. I trust that these booklets will be of assistance in the examination by parliament and others of the 1969-70 estimates. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the estimates blue book for 1969-70 as well as a number of tables setting forth further details on the 1969-70 estimates and comparisons with 1968-69 totals. The tables are five in number. Table I compares the total estimates for 1969-70 with previous years.
Table II shows selected major items in budgetary estimates for 1969-70 and 1968-69. Table III is a division of the 1969-70 and 1968-69 budgetary estimates into the administration, construction and grants categories. Table IV is a list of the loans, investments and advances by agency for 1969-70 and 196869, and Table V is a list of the budgetary estimates for 1969-70 and 1968-69 by major function. By leave of the house, rather than reading these tables, may I be permitted to ask that they be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
TOTAL BUDGETARY ESTIMATES (in millions of dollars)



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
Main Estimates	Supplementary Estimates	Final Supplementary Estimates	Total1969-70	
11,857.7	-	-	11,857.71968-69	
10,670.9	0.1	155.0*	10,825.91967-68	
9,535.1	110.9	281.6	9,927.61966-67	
7,950.5	608.4	236.0	8,794.91965-66	
7,399.7	426.2	173.7	7,999.61964-65	
6,702.9	221.8	245.6	7,170.31963-64	
6,307.2	311.9	240.9	6,860.01962-63	
6,048.2	181.0	281.9	6,466.01961-62	
6,123.8	355.9	122.8	6,602.51960-61	
5,713.2	169.9	178.2	6,061.3
Anticipated.
5094
[Stage Direction]
February 4, 1969
Main Estimates 1969-70
MAJOR ITEMS, BUDGETARY ESTIMATES, -1969-70 COMPARED WITH 1968-69 ($ Millions)
TABLE II (page 1)
1969-70	1968-69	ChangeItems Authorized by Statute: Medicare	370.0	35.0	335.0Public Debt Charges	1,604.2	1,474.0	130.2Major Pensions, Superannuation and Other Benefits -Civil and R.C.M.P	282.7	180.1	102.6-Defence	195.7	144.6	51.1Fiscal Transfers to Provinces	907.3	806.5	100.8Payments to Provinces under Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act	625.0	560.0	65.0Post Secondary Education Payments to Provinces	328.0	275.0	53.0Canada Assistance Plan	300.3	251.9	48.4Contribution to Unemployment Insurance Fund	87.6	82.2	5.4Interest payments under the Canada Student Loans Act and liabilities under other guaranteed loans Acts	12.8	9.2	3.6General Incentives to Industry (Research)	34.4	31.3	3.1Payments to Cape Breton Development Corporation	13.5	10.5	3.0Youth Allowance Payments	53.8	51.2	2.6Family Allowances Payments	562.4	561.7	0.7Trans-Canada Highway Contributions	45.0	45.0	Contributions under Health Resources Fund Act	37.5	37.5	Emergency Gold Mining Assistance	15.2	15.6	-0.4Payment of (1) Carrying costs of storing Temporary Wheat Reserves (2) Administering the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Program	48.2	49.9	-1.7Payments to Railway and Transportation Companies pursuant to the provisions of the National Transportation Act	82.0	96.0	-14.0Other Statutory Items	66.3	96.0	-29.7Total Statutory Items	5,671.9	4,813.2*	858.7Items to be Voted: Defence Services	1,616.2	1,565.3	50.9Regional Economic Expansion Contributions	153.0	107.1	45.9Federal Government Accommodation	216.5	181.2	35.3Adult Occupational Training	335.7	301.7	34.0Indian, Eskimo and Northern Development Programs	242.7	210.2	32.5External Aid (excluding an increase of $31 million in loans)	171.4	153.7	17.7Broadcasting	166.0	151.1	14.9Major Grants for Scientific and Social Research	124.8	110.4	14.4Postal Services	360.0	346.6	13.4Contributions for Urban Renewal, Sewage Treatment and Housing Research	49.0	38.1	10.9Industrial Development Assistance	55.5	48.8	6.7Water Research Programs	52.7	47.5	5.2Other	2,642.2	2,596.1	46.1Anticipated Further Supplementary Estimates	-	155.0	-155.0Total Items to be Voted	6,185.7	6,012.8*	172.9TOTAL ESTIMATES	11,857.6	10,825.9	1,031.7
See "Note" on Page 2
(Details do not necessarily add to totals due to rounding).
[Mr. Speaker.)
February 4, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Main Estimates 1969-70
TABLE II (page 2)
[Stage Direction]
The differences between the amounts shown for 1968-69 on Table II and those shown in the Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1968-69 are as follows:
-1968-69 Estimates	
-Items authorized by Statute in 1968-69 and to be voted in 1969-70:
Payments to Atlantic Development Fund	
Incentives for development of industrial employment opportunities Fund for Rural Economic Development	
-Item voted in 1968-69 and authorized by Statute in 1969-70:
Payment to New Brunswick-Minto coal fields	
Anticipated further Supplementary Estimates	
Items Authorized by Statute	Items to be Voted
4,886.0	5,785.0
-33.0	+33.0
-33.6	+33.6
- 9.6	+ 9.6
+ 3.4	- 3.4
-	+155.0
4,813.2	6,012.8

ESTIMATES FOR 1969-70 COMPARED WITH ESTIMATES FOR 1968-69 (in millions of dollars)

[Stage Direction]
o
[Stage Direction]


Administration and Operation	Buildings, Works and Equipment	Grants, Contributions and Other Transfer Payments	Total Estimates1969-70 1968-69	1969-70 1968-69	1969-70 1968-69	1969-70 1968-69Agriculture-	Department	98.2	88.2	6.1	7.1	146.5	160.5	250.8	255.8Canadian Dairy Commission	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3Canadian Livestock Feed Board	0.3	0.3	21.6	21.6	21.9	21.9Farm Credit Corporation	-	-	-	-	7.9	6.0	7.9	6.0Communications-	Department	9.7	8.2	5.4	5.3	0.6	0.5	15.7	14.0Post Office	360.0	346.6	-	-	-	-	360.0	346.6Consumer and Corporate Affairs	15.9	14.0	-	-	-	-	15.9	14.0Energy, Mines and Resources-	Department	79.6	70.9	17.9	16.3	21.7	23.0	119.2	110.2Atomic Energy Control Board	0.5	0.4	-	-	5.4	3.9	5.9	4.3Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	61.3	58.9	7.7	9.7	-	69.0	68.6Dominion Coal Board	0.2	0.2	8.7	8.0	8.9	8.2National Energy Board	1.8	1.6	-	-	1.8	1.6External Affairs-	Department	49.2	44.7	7.0	7.0	19.0	18.1	75.2	69.8Canadian International Development Agency	5.8	4.0	-	-	171.4	153.8	177.2	157.8International Joint Commission	0.5	0.5	-	-	-	-	0.5	0.5Finance-	Department	38.7	42.1	-	0.2	2,543.3	2,307.8	2,582.0	2,350.1Auditor General	2.7	2.5	-	-	-	-	2.7	2.5Insurance	1.6	1.5	-	-	-	-	1.6	1.5Fisheries and Forestry	59.5	56.5	11.9	13.1	3.1	5.5	74.5	75.1Governor General and Lieutenant Governors	1.0	1.0	-	-	0.1	0.1	1.1	1.1Indian Affairs and Northern Development-	Department	192.2	166.5	75.5	75.7	21.7	14.0	289.4	256.2National Battlefields Commission	0.3	0.3	-	-	-	-	0.3	0.3Industry, Trade and Commerce-	Department	55.0	46.4	0.6	0.7	165.1	157.7	220.7	204.8Dominion Bureau of Statistics	31.4	26.7	-	-	-	-	31.4	26.7Justice	19.9	18.2	-	-	0.1	0.1	20.0	18.3
s
s
0 Z
[Stage Direction]


to
>
n
w
a
er
[Stage Direction]


0)
n
s
<o
o>
Main Estimates 1969-70
Labour-
Department	  13.0
Unemployment Insurance Commission	 41.5
Manpower and Immigration-
Department	 209.1
Immigration Appeal Board	 0.7
National Defence-
Department	 1,555.0
Defence Construction (1951) Limited	 2.2
National Health and Welfare-
Department	 73.2
Medical Research Council	 0.4
National Revenue-
Customs and Excise	 63.4
Taxation	 68.5
Tax Appeal Board	 0.4
Parliament	 20.4
Privy Council-
Privy Council Office	 5.7
Science Council of Canada	 1.3
Economic Council of Canada	 1.6
Public Service Staff Relations Board	 1.4
Public Works	 153.7
Regional Economic Expansion-
Department	   20.6
National Capital Commission	 24.5
Cape Breton Development Corporation	 35.5
Secretary of State-
Department	 12.1
Canada Council	   -
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	 -
Canadian Film Development Corporation	 0.3
Canadian Radio-Television Commission	 2.6
Chief Electoral Officer	 0.5
Company of Young Canadians	 1-9
National Arts Centre Corporation	 2.5
National Film Board	 9.4
National Library	 2.0
National Museums of Canada	 7.2
Public Archives	 2.3
Public Service Commission	 14.7
Representation Commissioner	 0.1
Solicitor General-
Department	 1-3
Correctional Services	  53.6
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	 96.6
11.4
41.5
186.2
0.6
,421.4
2.3
71.6
0.3
61.4
62.7
0.3
19.1
5.4 0.4 1.6
1.4
144.1
18.1
24.5
31.4
11.0
0.3
1.7
14.4 1.9 1.1 9.4 1.6
7.2
2.3
13.4 0.1
0.8
49.2
73.3
-	-	0.5-	-	87.6__	229.5231.0	259.8	25.93.9	2.4	2,014.330.9-	-	0.2136.7	116.7	45.210.3	11.4	161.011.5	328.0-	-	23.7-	166.00.6	0.6	-0.1	0.6	-16.5	19.4	-7.7	6.5	7.11.2	13.5	12.682.2	129.1	123.7207.5	438.6	393.7-	0.7	0.628.7	1,811.9	1,709.9-	2.2	2.31,573.3	2,091.4	1,647.326.9	31.3	27.263.4	61.4-	68.5	62.7-	0.4	0.30.2	20.6	19.35.7	5.4-	1.3	0.4-	1.6	1.6-	1.4	1.445.2	335.6	306.0124.6	191.9	154.1-	24.5	24.5-	35.5	31.4275.0	340.1	297.520.6	23.7	20.6151.1	166.0	151.1-	0.3	0.3-	2.6	1.7-	0.5	14.4-	1.9	1.9-	2.5	1.1-	10.0	10.0-	2.0	1.6-	7.2	7.2-	2.3	2.3-	14.8	14.0-	0.1	0.11.3	0.8-	70.1	68.66.7	111.4	86.5
tr
[Stage Direction]
0>
to
en
to
[Stage Direction]


3
o
5S
co
[Stage Direction]
n
w
>
-a
w
Main Estimates 1969-70

Administration and Operation	Buildings, Works and Equipment	Grants, Contributions and Other Transfer Payments	Total Estimates	1969-70	1968-69	1969-70	1968-69	1969-70	1968-69	1969-70	1968-69Supply and Services- Department	
Canadian Arsenals Limited	
Canadian Commercial Corporation...	
3.9	68.5 2.4	0.3	0.2 0.3	0.2	0.2	64.5 0.3 3.9	68.9 0.3 2.4Transport- Department	
Canadian National Railways	
Canadian Transport Commission	
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	
National Harbours Board	
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	
7.3 	
49.0 	
2.0 	
12.0	170.1 20.0 4.6 38.1 0.4 12.3	81.6 7.3	117.0 9.5	25.0 112.1	27.5 125.0	307.6 30.0 119.4 49.0 9.3 12.0	314.6 20.0 129.6 38.1 9.9 12.3Treasury Board- Department	
National Research Council	
47.2	251.4 45.0	4.0	5.4	71.1	65.1	338.2 122.3	251.4 115.5Veterans Affairs	74.8	12.4	6.5	332.6	344.6	421.2	425.9TOTAL, ALL DEPARTMENTS	
4,415.9	3,981.8	644.5	702.9	6,797.2	5,986.2	11,857.7	10,670.9Anticipated Supplementary Estimates	-	155.011,857.7	10,825.9
(D
[Stage Direction]
(D
n
o
2
o
5S
[Stage Direction]


w
[Stage Direction]
>
-J
n
co
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding)
*1
a>
er
[Stage Direction]
e
a
co
o>
Main Estimates 1969-70
February 4. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES Main Estimates 1969-70 LOANS, INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES	5099 TABLE IVDepartment or Agency	1969-70 1968-69	Change
Communications
-Department	
-Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation
Energy, Mines and Resources
-Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited	
External Affairs
-Canadian International Development Agency	
Finance	
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
-Department	
-Northern Canada Power Commission	
-Northern Transportation Company Limited	
Industry, Trade and Commerce	
Manpower and Immigration	
Regional Economic Expansion
-Department	
-National Capital Commission	
Secretary of State (CBC)	
Transport
-Marine and Air Services	
-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	
-National Harbours Board	
-St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	
Anticipated Supplementary Estimates	
(Millions of Dollars)
9.9	-	9.95.0	10.5	-5.5148.9	112.0	36.9137.0	106.0	31.0-	188.4	-188.411.7	5.1	6.64.0	8.2	-4.25.0	6.0	-1.017.0	18.0	-1.00.3	-	0.349.8	53.1	-3.37.3	4.9	2.430.0	25.0	5.021.1	1.4	19.7114.0	90.2	23.812.7	14.7	-2.041.0	41.0	--	36.0	-36.0
614.7
720.5
105.8
[Stage Direction]
February 4. 1969
Main Estimates 1969-70
BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR FUNCTION (Millions of Dollars)

[Stage Direction]
1969-70	1968-69
General Government Services	
440	408Foreign Affairs	
260	230Defence	
1,815	1,713Transportation and Communications	
948	946Economic Development	
1,693	1,569Health and Welfare	
2,883	2,405Education	
341	284Culture and Recreation	
245	237Fiscal Transfer Payments	
908	809Public Debt	
1,604	1,474Other Expenditures	
721	59611,858	10,671Anticipated Supplementary Estimates	
-	15511,858	10,826

[Stage Direction]
Notes: General Government Services-includes expenditures for the protection of persons and property, the budgetary requirements of Parliament and the central administration of the Public Service, and tbe collection of taxes and duties.
Other Expenditures-includes services provided by certain departments to other departments, the government's contribution to employee pension and medical plans, and the Treasury Board Contingencies Vote.

February 4, 1969
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to make two or three comments on the estimates. I have just received them and heard the minister's remarks, and I think they are worthy of a little more study than I have been able to give them so far. Therefore I will not attempt to make extensive comments. Yet I could not help noting that the minister's remarks seemed to be delivered in an apologetic way. That may have been a personal impression, but it is an impression, nevertheless, that struck me very definitely.
I notice that the estimates are increased by $1.32 billion over the revised estimates for last year, in round figures an increase of 10 per cent. That increase contrasts sharply with a conviction expressed by the former minister of finance a little over a year ago that the estimates would not be increased by more than 4.5 per cent. At any rate, the increase in estimates was to be confined to that percentage. The actual percentage of the increase is double that fixed, so to speak, by the former minister of finance. The undertaking of the previous minister was guaranteed, of course, by the present Minister of Finance.
We will, of course, study these estimates carefully. Nevertheless, because of our experience during the past year, we will take them with a grain of salt.


An hon. Member:: A whole bag full.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We shall do so, particularly, since the minister sprinkled salt on the budget estimates when he said he was in no position to be particularly firm on estimates of joint cost programs.
It is also a matter of regret to me that these estimates are not being presented to the house in a context of satisfactory financial relations between the federal government and the provinces. There ought, at least, to be an apparent willingness on the part of the federal government to meet with the provinces and frankly to work out with them priorities and approaches that would be in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore it is a matter of regret to me, and to most Canadians I think, that the atmosphere existing between the federal government and the provinces in the realm of financial relations is not good.
It will be the duty of the opposition, sir, to examine these estimates with care. This we will do in the light of experience we have had in the past year.
Main Estimates 1969-70


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker,
I remember when other estimates were tabled. The present estimates are much like the others and reflect a stale likeness, as if the merit of any set of estimates is to be judged by how well the figures on both sides of the ledger balance. Any bookkeeper can make figures balance.
We concede that it is necessary for the government to run its operation on a businesslike basis, yet any businessman would be appalled at the government's attitude. After all, any business seeks to expand, to make use of initiative and seek out new avenues of opportunity. The present government does not seem to be prepared to act that way. It is perfectly content to demonstrate that the figures on one side of the ledger balance the other side.
We in this party look forward to the day when we will have a government that takes some of the actions that members in our society in the past have taken. It takes the attitude that this is a country that needs governing and leadership, that has an exciting future and deserves far more than a flat assessment of the debits and credits as given to us today. We look forward to the day when that will take place.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister who has just presented the budgetary estimates for the year ending March 31st, 1970 speaks of the importance of a balanced budget. Now, in order to achieve this, restrictions have been made, as usual, in every sphere of Canadian economic activity while the physical possibilities of developing the wealth of our country have been completely overlooked.
Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to see a responsible minister rise in this house to speak to us not only of a budget which enables us to spend the taxes levied but of a balanced budget which would take into account the potential resources of Canada and would make everything financially possible, according to the theory we advocate, throughout Canada, in short wherever we go, that is to make financially possible what is physically achievable.
Mr. Speaker, I note in those estimates that the interest on the national debt this year will amount to $1,604,000,000. Although that item increases from year to year, the minister

February 4. 1969
Jet Pilot Fatigue Factor never speaks of reducing the service charges on that debt, which this year represents 13| per cent of a total budget of $11,858,000,000, and the government finds that normal.
We go visiting countries throughout the world trying to help them, while we cannot even take steps to help the Canadian people who develop or are willing to develop the natural resources of our country. If that is what is called a just society, it is indeed a strange just society. In fact, it is, as we hear so often, a "just for fun society" which completely ignores the needs of the people and their capacity to increase productivity and the standard of living of the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes will keep on harassing the government. We are going to scrutinize the estimates and we shall fight any measure which would tend to prevent the development of our natural resources in any province.
The estimates are presented to us only a few days before the opening of the famous federal-provincial conference which should start next week. In my opinion, it is a simple invitation to the provinces to keep down their requests because when their representatives meet the federal authorities, they will be told that their needs cannot be met. As of this afternoon I could predict anything which is going to happen next week between the provinces and the federal government. In fact, the whole matter will be a taxation issue. The federal and provincial governments state that they are not able to meet their financial requirements. The mayor of the city of Montreal tells the right hon. Prime Minister: We are at the end of our resources, come to our rescue otherwise I resign. We are living through a period of giving up. I would not be surprised, some fine day, to see the Prime Minister come to the house and tell us: I am fed up, I am going too. But, there is one group which will stay here and it is the Ral-liement Creditiste; it will keep on giving the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add for the time being but we shall have something more to say later on. However, before closing I wish to say that instead of seeking a balanced budget in accordance with our present tax system, we should balance our national economy according to our physical capabilities, therefore putting our finances at the service of those capabilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I undertook to make a brief statement with respect to the limitations on air crews serving on our regular air lines. The physical and mental condition of flight crew is a matter of continuing concern to governments all over the world. For this reason m the late 1940's ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, recommended that member states take action to establish limitations on the flight time of flight crew members in the interests of flight safety. This ICAO recommendation was accepted by Canada and minimum standards in keeping with the ICAO recommendation were formulated with the assistance of the aviation industry associations concerned. Because of the variety of aircraft operations in Canada to which such standards must apply, the standards adopted were, of necessity, general in nature.
Over the years they have had to be amended slightly to meet specific situations, but it can be said that, notwithstanding a recognized need to refine them to take full accou t of individual types of operation, they have been given general acceptance by operators and crews alike.
In the application of these standards the Department of Transport requires every operator of large aircraft engaged in commercial air operations to submit a proposed text to the department for approval, for inclusion in the company's approved operations manual setting out instructions in this regard for compliance by company personnel. In considering the acceptability of such proposals the department takes into account environmental factors involved, such as the length of route stages, weather, type of aircraft, number of landings and take-offs, etc., as well as the consistency of the proposal with the standard itself. The acceptability of such a proposal is an important prerequisite to the over-all safety certification of the operator.
As an example the flight time limitations approved for Air Canada's operations limit flight crews to a maximum of 85 hours per month, 14 hours in any one day including the time necessary to prepare for and terminate a flight. There is also a requirement for a minimum rest period of eight hours between duty periods during which the crews are relieved of all duties associated with their employment.
February 4, 1969

Some concern has been expressed aibout the length of time spent on duty by Air Canada crews on the Montreal-Moscow service. In this regard I can say that the maximum duty time on the Montreal-Moscow service is 9j hours.
While the procedures now followed in establishing flight time limitations through the approval of the company operations manual have served the purpose for which they were intended, future developments in aviation will require more scientific methods for determining fatigue levels. To this end the Department of Transport is participating in a study by MpGill University. The Federal Aviation Agency of the United States also has a study under way. Depending on the outcome of these studies the department will take whatever action is necessary in the circumstances.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are glad to hear that something has been done and is now being done to establish certain standards for pilots of aircraft commercially operated in this country. However with his announcement the minister has left a very great deal to our imagination, to conjecture, as to what is going on. For instance, he did not give us any idea how soon these recommendations are to be submitted by pilots for consideration by the government. Meanwhile presumably certain requirements have been made of pilots which are hardly in the interests of safety.
I note the minister has told us that at the present time pilots cannot be on duty more than 14 hours at a time. That is somewhat encouraging. The minister also said that pilots on the Montreal to Moscow run are not required to be on duty for more than nine hours at a time. I am glad to hear this, but it may be like the law against murder: there is a law against murder in Canada, but it does not prevent murders sometimes taking place. There may be regulations saying that these things cannot take place, but the information I and other hon. members have received is that some of the regulations simply are not carried out.
I have cited statistics in this house and in committees of the house as to the length of time that, it has been brought to my attention, pilots have been required to be on duty. It is now apparent, from the length of time that the minister has been looking into this matter, that something is indeed amiss.
A very large percentage of the Canadian public now uses aircraft on a daily or weekly basis, and it is very little comfort to the pub-
Jet Pilot Fatigue Factor lie to know that the government will consider certain recommendations which will be proposed some time, somewhere, some place by air line pilots. I can only hope that these recommendations will be made promptly, and that for once the government will act promptly with respect to them. Until that is done many of us, and I am sure most of the travelling public, will not feel very easy if we have doubt about the safety regulations covering commercially operated aircraft.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the minister has just read to us treats of a very technical subject. One assumes that the changes that are to take place with respect to new procedures and regulations covering the civil aviation industry will be made after a long period of painstaking testing and surveying, and after the receipt of submissions from experts in the field, and from the pilots associations.
One also assumes that Canada, as with other nations in the world, has a rather good reputation for maintaining a high level of safety performance in the field of aviation. It is gratifying to see that the minister and his department are keeping abreast with changes in this industry, to make sure that as technological improvements take place Canadian civil aviation operators will have to live up to new, high standards.
In specific terms, I wish to say I hope that the new regulations, when they come into effect, will be enforced effectively with respect to those air lines that operate on a charter basis. One has only to think back to a few months ago to an accident at Vancouver airport, when the aircraft in question was being piloted by a captain and co-pilot who had served a large number of hours of continuous duty, some 17 or 18 hours. It was small wonder that one and possibly both of them were rather punchy with fatigue, having spent that much time at the controls. This sort of thing can hardly be tolerated. For this reason it would seem that the minister's statement, which bears directly on this problem, should be welcomed by hon. members.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In conclusion I should like to say that in the future I hope the minister will show the usual and normal courtesy in making documents available. One would hope that he will not make a statement again to the house without first circulating, at least to each group in the house the contents of the statement he intends to make.
February A. 1969
5104	COMMONS
Establishment of Canada Grains Council GRAIN



CANADA GRAINS COUNCIL-ESTABLISHMENT AT WINNIPEG MEETING

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the house on the meeting held in Winnipeg yesterday at which the Canada Grains Council was established, and I should like also to table for the information of hon. members certain relevant documents. These documents include the terms of reference of the council, the list of member and advisory organizations, along with a list of those organizations whose representatives will form the executive of the council, as well as a document showing the organizational arrangements that were approved by yesterday's meeting.
At that meeting the chairman and the vicechairman, Messrs. A. M. Runciman and G. Heffelfinger, respectively, were installed. Subsequent to the meeting of the council the chairman held the first meeting of the executive committee. I am pleased to report that the initial meeting of the council was marked by an obvious desire on the part of those present to work together to solve the problems of the grain industry for the mutual benefit of all concerned.
The executive committee is immediately directing itself to the problems of establishing priorities for the various tasks that have been suggested by member organizations, the recruitment of staff, and are also to give consideration to the type of legal entity that will best suit its purpose. As soon as we have the views of the council on this latter subject, the necessary action will be initiated.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) with regard to the setting up of the Canada Grains Council, I might add that to a large extent he has left us still in the dark concerning the jurisdiction of the council. He suggested that the terms of reference were actually discussed at the meeting in Winnipeg, but he did not inform the house exactly what the jurisdiction of the council will be and whether it will be over and above that of the Canadian Wheat Board or the Board of Grain Commissioners. This is something we want to know. The minister shakes his head indicating that this is not the case.
I can only comment that the Grains Council as we see it today could bring forth no new


ideas. Mr. Runciman, a man I have admired and a man who has a great deal of wisdom with regard to the grain trade, has been very actively involved in the grain trade in the past number of years. I do not think he has in any way been negligent in performing his duties in advising the government in the past number of years concerning ways in which the grain trade could be improved. I fail to see how his appointment as chairman of the proposed Canada Grains Council will in fact make him more diligent in respect of this very important industry, with which he has been involved in the past number of years.
The minister has not told us the exact terms of reference and the jurisdiction of the council, nor has he told us who will pay the cost of operating and maintaining the council, and I would hesitate to say whether it will prove to be beneficial or just be another board which will divide further the responsibility of handling grain, a very important problem this year, and one which will be very important in the coming months.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it would have been appreciated had the minister seen fit to give us these documents so that we could have had a brief look at them. I have tried over the last two or three months to obtain information concerning the proposed terms of reference for this proposed council. I regard this as an important event. I believe this will be important for the farmers of western Canada. We should know what this council will do. We should have information concerning the role it will play. I think what it really has within it is the concept of a new base for decision making in respect of western agriculture. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to shift that base into what is often defined as the agri-business sector. I think it will result in a downgrading of the role of the farm organization, and that the decisions with regard to western agriculture will increasingly be made in the halls and offices of big businesses. It is not that I have a bias against big business-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Nobody believes me. Well, I am sorry I have been interrupted, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say to the members of this house that I have successfully made a living as a businessman. However, I also wish to
February 4. 1969	COMMONS
say that I do not want business of any kind to tell me and my fellow farmers in western Canada how to run our businesses. What concerns me is what this particular move portends for the farmers of western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Socialism; that is what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, to some extent at least the people who will dominate the Grains Council will be the grain businesses-the 10 per cent people-those companies who have been living on an income guaranteed by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the farmers of western Canada over the last number of years. I think we deserve from the minister information concerning the terms of reference, the manner in which this particular council will operate and the way in which it will be financed. Is it to operate under legislation that is to be brought before this house, which will clearly define its role, or will it be an advisory body?
We would like to know whether the reports of this council will be made public, so that the farmers and producers will know what recommendations are made. Only a week or two ago I asked for a report from the Department of Trade and Commerce with regard to the dairy industry. I was told that this is a confidential document. Will the Grains Council be another body that will issue a number of confidential documents, on the basis of which the government will take action, while the actual producer sits out in the country wondering who is calling the shots? So far as I and the farmers of western Canada are concerned, this is what we want to know.
The grain industry is vital to our welfare; we depend on it for a living. When I see reports quoting the chairman of the council as saying that one organization is representing the commercial farmers, and the other organizations are representing the non-commercial farmers, I become concerned.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Who is going to decide who is, and who is not, a commercial farmer? Who is going to call the shots in this situation? I want from ministers of the Crown answers to these questions. I am not prepared, and I say this flatly, to have the industry people in Winnipeg or anywhere else make, behind closed doors, decisions that will affect my welfare and that
DEBATES	5105
Establishment of Canada Grains Council of my fellow farmers, and then tell us the decisions when they feel like it.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I just had a look at the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) about the Canada Grains Council.
Like many other members, I was here during the debate that took place again last week on the grain question in western Canada. When I say "again," I do not mean I find the problem boring, on the contrary, it is because I see it as a very complicated problem, that requires the attention of all members in order to be solved as soon as possible.
I see that at their meeting on February 3, the Canada Grains Council, endeavoured to find means of solving in this problem for the time being at least.
The western grain producers wish to be paid too for their work so as to get an income that will enable them to meet their obligations.
The problem concerning the sale of western grain is beyond me. If we were going through a shortage at the present time, we could say: Good gracious, what is the matter? The land is getting barren, the people are hungry, there is not enough wheat to feed mankind, to feed our people; there is not enough grain to feed our cattle and produce meat, again to feed mankind. Then the situation would really be terrible. But it seems to me that the problem we face here is not that unusual since Providence is giving us the opportunity to produce on a large scale and to meet the needs of mankind so that we may, together, find a way of distributing that wealth we owe to the bounty of our land, to the toil of mankind and to the generous care of Providence.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the Commissioners really mean business, and do not merely sit once or twice every year, just for the sake of meeting each other, but have a genuine desire to find a way out, they will be able to reach the goal aimed at. I am hopeful that, through this means, we may, together, find answers. Maybe, in a year from now, we shall be able to say that the Canada Grains Council has made progress and that the Minister of Agriculture was well inspired when, he made the statement we heard today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
5106	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-166, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the National Housing Act. It is designed to increase the supply of mortgage money available for residential purposes and to reduce the interest rate payable on N.H.A. mortgages. It is a very lengthy bill-


Mr. Baldwin:: Did you tell Paul?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -which is necessarily so because it provides for the conversion of every existing N.H.A. mortgage into a bond mortgage divided into unit bonds as small as $100. Provision is made in the bill for the resulting bond mortgages to be offered to the public at an interest rate of one-half of one per cent less than the rate payable under the mortgage by the borrower. The one-half of one per cent deducted is remuneration to the trustee administering the mortgage.
Under present legislation, only very large financial institutions are eligible to make N.H.A. insured loans. At present rates, N.H.A. mortgages represent a high yield and very secure investment, which would be attractive to many Canadians who are at present unable to invest in them. There is in Canada at present, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, over $16 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -invested in bonds-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-167, to amend the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act (electrical appliances).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l
DEBATES	February 4, 1969


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the present bill derives from the fact that, and I quote:
Consumers buy stoves and other electrical household appliances which are manufactured in one part of Canada and sold across the country, as well as their spare parts.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that within a stated time manufacturers of all electrical appliances and parts shall be responsible for the replacement of individual faulty parts, or alternatively shall give a written statement at the time of sale that no replacements will be available.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the answers he gave yesterday to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and remarks attributed to the Prime Minister outside the house to the effect that economic matters, including fiscal questions and the spending power of the federal government, would be discussed at the federal-provincial conference under the heading "Distribution of Powers". Would the Prime Minister say whether the federal government will have any concrete proposal or proposals to make concerning a possible redistribution of powers and/or reallocation of revenue sources?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the continuing committee of officials did not reach the point in their discussions where they were asked to submit propositions on this matter. Because of that we do not intend taking the initiative to raise these matters and to make proposals of our own at this conference as they have not yet been discussed by the continuing committee of officials. But I repeat that we are prepared to discuss any and every aspect of the constitution any time and anywhere with any of the
February 4, 1969

provinces at any meeting they want to suggest. So if they want to make proposals if they want to change the agenda, and if there is general agreement to do so, we will do it, but we insist that this is a constitutional conference and that the constitutional aspect of these problems be discussed. If the provinces want to have another meeting of the ministers of finance, this can also be agreed to, of course. But we believe that these questions can only be fruitfully discussed in the context of the constitution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would I be justified in concluding from the Prime Minister's remarks that it is the position of the government that the present distribution of powers and allocation of revenue sources are adequate to meet the needs of confederation and the constitution for the time being at least?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I was never one to say that there should be a vastly changed distribution of powers between the two levels of government, but again this is something I am prepared to discuss and on which this government is prepared to argue. If it is felt that certain areas of jurisdiction could be better administered by the provinces than by the federal government, and if this is the desire of the Canadian people, we will amend the constitution in consequence; vice-versa, if it is felt the federal government could better administer certain areas of the constitution which are now provincial, we would want a transfer in that direction.
As regards fiscal resources, the Leader of the Opposition knows that under the present B.N.A. Act both levels of government have nearly universal access to all forms of taxation, both direct and indirect. If it is felt however, that amendments of the text of the constitution are called for, we are prepared to discuss these also.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
He said a while ago that the tax structure allows the provincial governments to draw from the same source as the federal government and that the tax problem would of course be discussed at the conference, and I would like to ask him if the monetary system, which is under federal jurisdiction and has nothing to do with the provinces, is also to be discussed at the federal-provincial conference?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In regard to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I do not want any misunderstanding. I said that for all practical purposes taxation sources are open to both levels of government, and all aspects of indirect taxation are certainly not open to the provinces under our present constitution.
As for the second part of the question, none of the provinces showed its intention to put the monetary problem, as such, on the agenda, and I am not aware that any of the provinces, even Alberta and British-Co'lumbia, are willing to discuss the matter of Social Credit at the conference.


David Réal Caouette: Another question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be ready to discuss Social Credit at the federal-provincial conference?



REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES BILL

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statements made by the premiers of the prairie provinces, and to some extent by Premier Robarts yesterday, with regard to the languages bill, would the Prime Minister consider that the federal government should seek at this conference under a particular item to establish clearly the points of reference with regard to the languages bill that might be made to the Supreme Court in order to remove any and all doubts about its constitutionality?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the language question is very high on the agenda and we certainly would be very anxious to have the provinces explain their point of view on this matter. We commenced from the decision made at last year's constitutional conference to the effect that the report of the B. and B. Commission should be implemented to the extent that it said the French language should, in the rest of Canada, have equivalent rights to those enjoyed by the English language in Quebec. It is on the basis of this recommendation of the federal-provincial conference that we drafted our language bill which, as the house knows, applies only to the federal government and does not at all affect provincial legislation or provincial areas of jurisdiction.
I believe that the constitutional objection is not based on the fact that we would be interfering with provincial jurisdiction but merely on the fact that our bill may go beyond the
February 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry bounds contained in section 133 of the constitution. We hold, of course, that it does not, and we have made extensive studies of this point in the Department of Justice. But if the provinces want to argue that section 133 does not permit the federal government to implement bilingualism in the way in which the language bill does, we are prepared to have the courts arbitrate on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Not arbitrate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To give an opinion on it, to adjudicate on it. But I feel, if section 133 of the constitution does have the effect of preventing the federal government from implementing bilingualism at its level, that we will have to fight very hard to have section 133 amended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not
contradicting the words of the Prime Minister but my question was whether it would be settled at this conference as to what the points of reference would be. After all, the federal government takes one stand in presenting its views, and so do the provinces, and obviously there is a difference of opinion. Will the points of reference to the Supreme Court be settled at this conference in the light of the stated positions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for his question and I hope that some attempt will be made to give more precision to that matter. The point of view that the provinces and some of the public have taken, as I understand it, is that the bill in total would be ultra vires of section 133. I hope that the provinces, if they want to raise this question, will indicate what particular section is ultra vires because surely they cannot think that the whole bill is.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister say what the government's position is with regard to amending the B.N.A. Act? Does he take the position it would affect only the federal government? Does he have to get the consent of the provinces or would he only have to go directly from this house to the imperial parliament for that amendment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is the hon. member's question relevant to the amendment of section 133?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member knows that the amending procedure is not very precise in our present constitution. However, on this aspect of the question I think he would admit that the 1949 amendment of section 91 (1) precludes the federal government from proceeding on its own to amend finally the rights of the French and English languages as expressed under section 133 of the constitution. Therefore, apart from my own inclination, which has always been toward consultation rather than unilateral action, I think section 91 (1) answers the question.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether he has considered or considers the possibility of obviating the Constitution by way of a referendum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, how it is possible to "obviate" the Constitution by way of a referendum but I am ready to consider the suggestion, if I am given some more explanation.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to remind hon. members that the question period is limited and that several other members wish to put questions on other subjects.


Mr. George Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Sainte-Marie want to put a supplementary question?


Georges-J. Valade: No, Mr. Speaker, my question refers to another subject.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister on another subject. Is the reported objective of the Minister of National Defence to persuade, if he can, the Treasury Board to increase defence expenditures to 3 per cent of the gross national product, a statement of government policy? Also, how does the action of the minister fit into the
February 4, 1969

review of foreign and defence policies which we are told is now taking place?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister made it quite clear that his remarks should be interpreted in the light of the review of foreign policy and defence policy which is at present under way, and that his suggestion that defence expenditures be tied to a certain percentage of the gross national product, or perhaps the national income, is purely an exploratory idea which he wants to have discussed. It is not government policy.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I might preface it by saying that the actions of ministers during the period of this review are of some importance to parliament and to the people of Canada. Does the Prime Minister mean that individual members of his cabinet are free not only to express different opinions on policy publicly but also to seek publicly to persuade other ministers to accept their policies, as is reported to be the case in this instance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the house knows, in every government every minister would like to have a greater percentage of the budget applied to his department. There is competition for funds among all ministers; it takes place within the cabinet and it takes place outside of it. This does not distress the government, and we hope it is not causing too much confusion in the ranks of the opposition.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I might preface it also by informing the right hon. gentleman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is getting into the habit of prefacing all his questions by statements; this he cannot do according to the rules.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when a minister, in answering a question, makes some suggestion about the behaviour of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: -it is a very strong temptation to make a comment in return. I am sure Your Honour appreciates the sheer humanity of that position.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NATO-POSSIBILITY OF BILLING FRANCE FOR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister or the Canadian government to follow the example of the American government and send a bill to the French government for Canadian equipment left in France after the withdrawal of NATO troops in compliance with orders given by the French government?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we had not considered that additional source of revenue, but we could perhaps think about that when the province of Quebec sends a bill to the French government for the Quebec flag provided to the Quebec delegation in Kinshasa.



EXTERNAL AID


David Lewis: A further supplementary for the Prime Minister on the same subject-it is not a question of being confused but of understanding exactly what is taking place. Would the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether, in view of the fact that the estimates tabled today still leave Canada's foreign aid much below 1 per cent of the gross national product, any member of the cabinet or of the government as a whole is setting a target date for reaching the United Nations' objective of 1 per cent?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The hon. member knows that the subject of foreign aid also forms part of the review of our defence and external policies. The government is not yet in a position to state what increases may be made or at what rate this 1 per cent figure will be reached. In the meantime, I am sure various ministers and various members on the government side will be promoting more foreign aid, while others will be promoting different objects of expenditure.


An hon. Member:: No minister is pressing it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I am pressing it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
5110	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: There have been a number of supplementary questions on this point and I suggest we move on to another subject.



EXHIBITIONS


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
I would like to know whether he or someone from his cabinet has met Mr. Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee of Montreal, in order to discuss a proposal regarding "Man and His World".


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I did meet Mr. Saulnier. In fact I had the pleasure to have lunch with him and we spoke a great deal about politics but very little of "Man and His World".
I can say that Mr. Saulnier did not come to Ottawa mainly in connection, I think, with the future of "Man and His World" but regarding the city of Montreal's debt to the federal government, and vice versa, for the world exhibition. This afternoon, he is to meet Treasury Board officials to discuss that matter which, as the hon. member can see, is rather special and has nothing to do basically with the future of "Man and His World."


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the chairman of the executive committee has submitted a specific and concrete proposal to the federal government, in addition to the other subjects discussed in connection with "Man and His World"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer without speaking out of turn, because it is for the chairman of the Montreal executive committee to state the reason of his visit but essentially once again, his specific proposal has nothing to do with the future of "Man and His World" but rather with the liquidation of the past. As for the future, I leave it to him to speak about it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the Prime Minister has met Mr. Saulnier, is he confident that a solution will soon

DEBATES	February 4, 1969
be found to settle the problem of "Man and His World"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that a solution will soon be found to settle the problem of man and his world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take the necessary action to require all trucks to be equipped with rear bumpers low enough to prevent cars from going underneath them in a rear-end collision?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this matter comes within the administrative responsibility of the federal Minister of Transport. In any case, I suggest this is the type of question which might be placed on the order paper.



THE MINISTRY


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising from his statement with regard to discussions by ministers of government policy outside the cabinet. Would the Prime Minister kindly inform the house where he draws the line as to which policies may be debated in public and which must be debated in cabinet, with the press excluded?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I believe the theory should be quite simple to state, Mr. Speaker. A decision which has become government policy is not debatable by ministers. All of them are responsible for the decision and all of them must abide by it or else withdraw from the cabinet.
However, regarding policies that are in the formative stage, regarding priorities that the government will have to decide upon in the future, regarding the long-term orientation of the country and regarding planning in general over the next three, seven or 11 years, ministers and all members of the government party are encouraged to discuss, not only in
February 4, 1969

the house but in the country, all kinds of new ideas that will be conducive to the progress and dynamic future of this country.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could advise us at what stage the confidentiality of cabinet sessions enters into the picture when formulation of policy is being discussed after a debate outside the cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this type of discussion is highly academic and philosophical, and I am not sure that it is the type of debate we should have during the question period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest deference, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself put the question in issue, and as a Privy Councillor I would ask for an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I
should remind the hon. member that it was he who put the question at issue by his question. I doubt that the matter should be pursued by inviting the Prime Minister to make another academic or general philosophical statement in answer to this type of question.



AIR TRANSPORT


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house whether the Canadian Transport Commission is proceeding with plans to implement the provisions of the government's two year old regional air policy in areas of Canada other than British Columbia? I ask the question not only in view of developments in British Columbia which took place recently but also in view of the minister's indication that the government is actively studying the possibility of a merger between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, this is a matter of continuing concern. There are now some rays of light on the horizon, including the one just referred to by my hon. friend.
In reply to the second part of the question, I think I answered it in the house a day or two ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



MALNUTRITION IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES RESERVATIONS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the minister for Indian affairs is now in a position to answer the question I asked the other day with particular reference to the Indians in the La Biche area of Saskatchewan, and also Indians elsewhere in reserves who, because of the very severe and inclement weather, find themselves unable to have for themselves the ordinary things of life, with the result that youngsters have to be kept from school.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries following the question put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I was informed that in La Loche, Saskatchewan, out of 800 people, only 100 are registered Indians.
In December and January, the 45 Indian families received social welfare payments according to their needs. Moreover, the department gave each of those families the necessary equipment for trapping and provided transportation for eight families to the working site. In addition, we established a special residential building program and gave special assistance to enable some Indians to do commercial fishing. We also took the necessary steps to inform the Saskatchewan government of the matter raised by the right hon. member and three officials of the department left this week for the northern region of those provinces to see what the situation is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: May I again ask the minister to look further into this question? Otherwise, unless action is taken that is effective many of these Indian people who have been law-abiding will join the mainstream of civil disobedience.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the conditions of Indians in La Loche, I am sure there is nothing abnormal at this moment. As for the Metis population, I am sorry to say that I have no jurisdiction on that matter.
February 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question concerning the increasing number of highway accidents across the country involving interprovincially operated trucks. What steps are being taken at the federal level to meet this particular traffic hazard?


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. member is very wide in scope and requires a statement that should normally be made on motions. I suggest to the hon. member that the question cannot be asked in this form at this time.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the house that the minister was preparing a document for submission to the cabinet setting out his urgent recommendations arising out of the report of the task force on housing. Could the minister tell the house how soon he expects to be able to present this memorandum to his colleagues?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of information that is not normally provided to the house, but I can say to my hon. friend that I hope it can be done without delay.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given the minister notice. Has the government adopted the public housing policies set forth in that paper, or will those projects that are now in the pipe line, to use his word of Friday, be completed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, no decisions have yet been taken. In any event it is very difficult to generalise because all of the projects are at different stages. However, the government will be considering policy in respect of these matters and will decide what changes, if any, are to be made in the present policy.
[Mr. Chretien.)



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but because of his regrettable absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the seepage of oil over vast areas of the Pacific Ocean because of a leak in a well on the ocean floor, will the Prime Minister indicate whether certain safeguards are required from oil companies when permits are granted for offshore drilling on the Atlantic coast in order to prevent a similar occurrence on the east coast which could be destructive of our deep-sea fishing industry?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of the question. I should like to inform the house that, in view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will unfortunately be away from the house for a few months because of illness, an order in council was passed this morning appointing the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan acting minister during this period. I should appreciate it if in future questions were addressed to him as he will have responsibility for that department.



WHEAT-REMOVAL OF QUOTA DISCREPANCIES

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the difficult wheat marketing situation, is it the intention of the government to remove the discrepancies that exist between delivery points in regard to the quotas allotted thereto? Many places are still on a unit quota while others are on a two, three or even four bushel quota. Is it the intention of the government to equalize this situation as soon as possible?


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board makes every reasonable effort during the course of the year to give the maximum amount of equalization, but at the present time, as hon. members opposite should of course particularly appreciate, it does become very important on occasion to unbalance the quotas in order to provide for the delivery of the appropriate amount of grain to the appropriate spots.
February 4, 1969


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is a well understood practice that grain for export must be either at the Lake-head or the Vancouver terminal. In southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan much grain was harvested dry. Deliveries over most C.P.R. lines are based on a three bushel quota whereas those on many C.N. lines are based on a one bushel quota.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member please ask a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. Quotas were allotted because there is a need to bring certain types of grain to the terminals. Why, therefore, is there this discrepancy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is an argument rather than a question.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can he advise of any progress being made in his discussions with the unions regarding the dispute over five day delivery?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much dispute over the five day week. What discussions are going on relate to other changes taking place in the post office. I spent over an hour and a half with union representatives this morning and I expect to see them again later in the week.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If there is no dispute, may I ask the minister why an order went out from him or his deputy minister to the effect that representatives of the postal unions should not display on the walls of various post office premises reports of complaints by postal employees concerning the five day week? Why was that order given? Is there not free speech among postal employees?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of free speech. During the last weeks there has been a great deal of free speech among postal employees. At one time union representatives wanted to distribute a bulletin, to which the right hon. member has
Inquiries of the Ministry referred, which gave directions to employees of the post office that I considered to be within the purview of management and not within the purview of the union. At that time I gave instructions that these bulletins were not to be posted. I should like to make it clear that the unions are not opposed to the five day week but there are a number of other changes they are questioning. We are considering their point of view and accepting many of their suggestions. I am confident that by the end of this week all our differences will have been satisfactorily settled.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that in the estimates he tabled today there are substantial increases for the various superannuation accounts, may I ask whether any of these moneys will be used to increase the pensions of civil servants already retired? If not, will other funds be found for that purpose?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the sums shown in the estimates request with respect to superannuation accounts relate to the sums needed to make up actuarial deficiencies and are not for the purpose the hon. gentleman mentioned. I reget to say that as yet no decision has been taken to make additional funds available to superannuates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the President of the Treasury Board aware of the fact that in the United Kingdom arrangements have been made to increase the pensions of retired civil servants on April 1, for the seventh time? Will he study this and see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIRPORTS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is he in a position to advise us where the negotiations being carried out between the
February 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry officials of his department and the government of Quebec stand at this time, in connection with the site of the future international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there will be at least one further meeting before any final decision is taken. My hon. friend can therefore conclude that the negotiations continue.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of widespread concern about pending hearings on rail branch line abandonments, can the minister inform the house when the long overdue costing order will be published by the railway transport committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall whether the order has been made public. In any event, I shall be glad to refer my hon. friend's question to the Canadian Transport Commission.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of what appears to be an unnecessarily long delay experienced by applicants seeking admission to Canada at the Hong Kong immigration office, would the government consider taking steps to make its operations there more efficient so that prospective immigrants can be admitted more expeditiously?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman is not asking a question but making a representation. I assume it has been noted.



ARMED FORCES SERVICE BY U.S. IMMIGRANTS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has his department issued a directive to examining officers instructing them to ask prospective landed immigrants from the United
[Mr. Rondeau.)

States whether they are currently in the armed forces? If the answer is in the affirmative, are the instructions to officials at border points to delay or deport such United States citizens wishing to enter Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the directive I think my hon. friend refers to was sent out last July. Its purpose was not to alter the practice that had been in operation until then but merely to clarify the operation of that practice.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that last week in Toronto an officer of the department asked a prospective immigrant to testify under oath about his armed forces service and to say whether he held desertion to be a crime?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not ask the minister to confirm or deny a statement made in this way.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he inform himself of certain facts and investigate the very serious charges relating to inflated air line fares in western Canada made by the Liberal member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries)?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, serious charges have been made by a member belonging to the minister's party. They were made not in the house but outside. Surely the minister must take cognizance of those charges and conduct an inquiry. Will he undertake to do so in order that the truth may be ascertained for the benefit of Canadians generally and the people of western Canada in particular?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make sure that the representations made first from this side of the house and now from the opposition are brought to the attention of the Canadian Transport Commission which is responsible for approving air fares in Canada.
February 4, 1969



AIRPORTS


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In the government's search for a new location for an international airport near Toronto, arising out of the need to expand facilities at Malton, has consideration been given to the building of an airport extending out into lake Ontario that would supplement the facilities at Malton? Such an airport would be immediately adjacent to downtown Toronto and would not be near residential property. Therefore no resident could complain of noise or pollution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a submission to the minister similar to other submissions made by other hon. members. I would think the matter could be allowed to rest there.


Robert Elgin McKinley: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, a number of similar questions have been asked about airports during the last three months and have been allowed. Many of those questions had to do with an airport to serve Toronto. If the minister was granted leave to answer those questions, why can he not answer my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member has asked a question but we must hold the line to some extent. I realize that some hon. members will feel constrained to ask questions relating to their particular regions, but very little can be achieved this way, I suggest. That is why I suggest that perhaps the hon. member's question ought to be placed on the order paper. However, if the hon. member wishes to discuss the matter he has raised, he may do so at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask
whether the government's policy on NATO and our membership in NATO or otherwise will be determined and announced prior to the NATO ministerial meeting in April?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, that is the deadline we have very much in mind. We shall try to meet it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event that deadline is not
Inquiries of the Ministry met, does the government intend to include the Postmaster General among its representatives so that the views of the Postmaster General and the government may be adequately presented to NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It sounds like a very good idea, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we can include as well some members from the opposition because there is quite a variety of opinions on the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has expired. I know that a number of members who are anxious to ask questions have not had an opportunity to do so. I have made a note of the situation. Perhaps they can be given priority tomorrow afternoon.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have a question to answer, Mr. Speaker, and I will not be in the house tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is seeking unanimous agreement of the house to answer a question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Simpson: Could the minister not get a special dispensation from the Prime Minister to be in the house tomorrow?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon I have to work in my office.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dauphin asked last Friday a question concerning the locality of Buffalo Narrows.
Buffalo Narrows is not an Indian reservation, but a locality whose inhabitants include mainly Metis and non-Indians. Only three Indian families live there, and they settled down there of their own will. It comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Saskatchewan and the Premier of that province has indicated that his government is to conduct an inquiry on the conditions prevailing in that locality as soon as a full police report has been received on the acts of violence which broke out there lately. No Indian was involved in those incidents.
5116	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act [English]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 31, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-162, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this additional cash advance to assist in drying damp grain is another indication that the government failed to recognize the problem which began to develop last fall. It failed to bring forth measures soon enough in order to alleviate the difficulty which was apparent as early as last October. The government has now made a belated effort to shift the responsibility for drying the grain from the terminals which have customarily done the drying for the farmers.
The problem of damp grain arose in 1959 and again since that time. Mr. McNamara, the head of the Wheat Board, has said until very recently in any event that farmers must use a great deal of caution in tire use of driers on their farms'because of the danger of burning or cooking the wheat which would ruin thq protein content and make it lower than our export standards. In the last few weeks the Wheat Board has published full-page ads in weekly papers advising farmers that they should dry and not fry their wheat. The government is encouraging the farmers to dry their grain rather than consolidate it and have it dried commercially either at the terminals or on the prairies. It has said it will give the farmer a cash advance of 10 cents a bushel, but it is not giving the farmers anything but the interest. That is all. The bill is not clear on the point whether the cash advance is over and above the allowable six bushel quota cash advance which many farmers may have at the present time. If it is, it is still not enough.
Debate regarding the damp grain has arisen in the house from time to time throughout the winter. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in his last speech scolded the opposition for attempting to make headlines. He said that the net effect of debating this question in

DEBATES	February 4, 1969
the house has been very detrimental to the grain trade generally. Mr. McNamara held a press conference in Winnipeg and stated there were 800 million bushels of damp grain on the prairies, including wheat, oats and barley. He stated the terminals could not possibly dry this amount and it would have to be done by the farmers. Because of that press conference debate was initiated on the matter. If there was any detrimental effect on Canada's grain trade it was caused as much by that action as by any action in this house.
In previous debates on this subject the Minister of Agriculture suggested that the opposition had not offered concrete suggestions. We have made suggestions, and had they been acted upon soon enough perhaps this bill would not have been necessary. Some time ago the Alberta Department of Agriculture stated that if more grain was not dried on the farms there would be an estimated $36 million loss to the farmers of Alberta because of the prospect of spoilage of damp grain this spring. On a previous occasion I suggested that the tariff on commercial driers ought to be removed. This suggestion was promptly accepted by the government. I suggested also that the government should ascertain through the municipalities where the largest number of driers were located which were not being used, find out where the largest amount of damp grain was located and then get the two together. I suggest the government should pay the transportation costs for the movement of driers. These driers should be operated by skilled people so that the protein content of the grain would not be endangered by frying rather than drying. The drying system has become a hit and miss affair.
From time to time we read in the weekly papers of one government or another, and in particular the premier of Saskatchewan, having stated that only half of the driers on the prairies are being used. I say to the minister neither that he nor the government made any real attempt to have the unused driers moved to where the damp grain is located. The minister never offered a subsidy or mileage payment or in fact any payment at all to ensure that the facilities already on the prairies would be used to capacity.
Additional interest free money has been offered in the hope the farmers will dry their own grain. The bill states that the grain must be damp. However, the minister did not say that it must necessarily be damp. How will the farmer's wheat be inspected to determine the moisture content and decide whether it is
February 4, 1969

damp or dry? As I understand the terms of the bill it would be very easy for a farmer to collect the extra $600. If I am wrong the minister can correct me. Unless the damp grain is actually inspected it will be very difficult to prove that a farmer is not in fact getting an additional $600 plus his six bushel quota and the $6,000 cash advance already made to him.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr.' Olson: Do you want it to be more difficult?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture asks whether I want it to be more difficult. All I am trying to do is to solicit information from him and from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on how the provisions of the bill will be applied to farmers. If the minister suggests he wants to make it more difficult-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, you did.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I made no such suggestion at all. I said that in many cases this bill will allow farmers to collect $600, over and above the six bushel quota they enjoy and over and above the cash advances already made to them to a maximum of $6,000, unless the government appoints somebody to inspect the grain to see whether or not it is damp or tough and, when the grain finally has been delivered, whether or not it has been dried.
I say to the minister that in effect this bill is too little and too late. Of the 800 million bushels of damp grain on the prairies only about 200 million bushels have been dried. The terminal elevators at Vancouver and the Lakehead have cut off any further shipments of damp grain to them. They have all the damp grain they can possibly dry between now and spring. Surely the government should bring in measures such as I suggested previously to move large commercial dryers into pockets where damp grain exists and have that grain dried on a commercial basis. To some extent this is now being done by the elevator companies but they have only a moral obligation to do so. They have been given no financial encouragement whatsoever. They are under a moral obligation only to help the grain trade and try to satisfy their customers.
A little over a week ago we had an emergency debate in this house on the grain stituation. The government stated that the biggest problem was the weather. Now we 29180-324
DEBATES	5117
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act have milder weather on the prairies. Will this alleviate the situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is doubtful. We were told that approximately 360,000 box cars were being handled monthly at Vancouver, and now we are told that the port of Vancouver will have to handle up to 800,000 box cars in February in order to meet customer demands. What changes does the government propose to make this feasible? Is it going to provide
800,000	box cars of damp grain, dry grain, tough grain, or what class of grain? Certainly it would be dry grain under the provisions of this bill.
At no time has the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator at the port of Vancouver been plugged. It could have been taking grain all this time. What was the trouble? During the question period today I tried to elicit information from the minister as to why points in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta have a three or four bushel quota while points in northern Alberta, where most of the damp grain was grown, in some cases are on a unit or one bushel quota. Why is there this discrepancy between the two areas?
In my view the biggest problem lies with the railroads and their handling of damp grain. Some years ago there was a similar problem at the Lakehead and a traffic coordinator was appointed. I am thinking of the fall of 1965. Since then the idea of a coordinator has been dropped. Now a new Grains Council is being established. I did not have a copy of the minister's statement this afternoon when he announced that the terms of reference of the new Grains Council will give it power to inquire into all facets of the grain trade. However, I point out that the Grains Council is to meet only twice a year. The minister announced that one meeting was held in Winnipeg on February 3. He did not tell us when the next meeting is going to take place. I hope it will be before October or November, 1969.
The minister did not say what powers the council would have. He did not say whether it would do research into improved drying methods. He did not say who would finance the Grains Council. It looks to me as if it is another body which has been established so that ministers can say, when replying to questions in the house: The Grains Council should handle this. We will have the Grains Council look into this. Surely you are not complaining about the people on the Grains
February 4, 1969
5118	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act Council. No one has complained about the people on the Grains Council.
As I said earlier today, the people appointed to the Grains Council are people who have been involved in the grain business. They are not going to do any more than they have been doing in the past unless they are given power to demand greater service and greater efforts from the C.P.R., the C.N.R. and other bodies. But the chairman of the Grains Council has been given no authority to tell the C.N.R. or the C.P.R.: You have not moved enough box cars to Vancouver; you are not moving the grain fast enough. What effect will the Grains Council really have? It will have the effect of smothering the whole problem, of putting another blanket on the whole problem so that we cannot get at its roots.
At a delivery point in my constituency 214 box cars, I believe, were loaded on January 1, but up until a few days ago those 214 box cars, mainly loaded with No. 2 wheat, were still sitting on the siding. After the emergency debate in the house some of the cars were moved and now there are only 120 still sitting on the siding.


Mr. Whelan:: A frozen asset.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Somebody says "a frozen asset". A frozen government fits the description better because most of those cars contain dry No. 2 and No. 3 wheat which has been in demand at Vancouver for the past week or ten days. Of the 120 cars still at that rail divisional point 85 are loaded with dry No. 2 and No.
3 wheat. All they need is a locomotive to move them.
We are told that the C.P.R. is renting power units from the United States. Surely to meet the problem of moving 800,000 box cars a month to Vancouver we need something more than just a Grains Council with an over-all blanket approach to everything. We are told that the Grains Council is going to do research, is going to examine the movement of grain and transportation costs, is going to promote exports, is going to review, appraise and make recommendations. If it cannot do more than make recommendations, if it cannot do more than appraise, it will not aid in solving the damp grain problem.
With respect to the 800,000 box cars a month needed at Vancouver, the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator authority has stated that it can take 120 cars a day but the railroads can move only 85 box cars to the elevator. Where is the problem? The Alberta Wheat Pool has one-third of the storage at


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is about time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, as an hon. member points out, it is about time indeed. We have heard a great deal about Roberts Bank and the movement of potash and coal. Is any consideration being given to the building of grain storage facilities at Roberts Bank? Are any facilities being created for the movement of railway cars to that point? We need greater grain drying facilities, particularly at Vancouver.
Someone said earlier in this debate that the grain drying facility at Lethbridge was not operating because it was out of order. Is that a good enough excuse when Alberta farmers are likely to lose $36 million? The government has a $5 million elevator at Lethbridge which is not being used because the grain dryer is out of order. Surely long before this time the government should have had the grain dryer working or should have bought a new one. This is not good enough when we are trying to encourage farmers to dry their own grain by giving them interest-free money which they must pay back. The government should consider the idea put forward by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day in this debate that perhaps an additional $200 would encourage the farmers to rent a dryer and move it on to their farms to dry their grain.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is not good enough to create a blanket, such as the Canada Grains Council may very well be, give it no authority, and shrug off
February 4, 1969
5120	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act the responsibility by placing it on the tanners and saying: You dry the grain. The greatest asset of the Canadian wheat trade has been the quality of the wheat sold. It has long been considered one of the best quality wheats on the market. What will this bill do to create a better quality of wheat, or even to ensure that the present quality is maintained? If we had built more drying facilities and paid farmers a bonus to move their grain to drying centres, as was suggested earlier in the debate, it would have been more beneficial to the farmers.
The provisions of this bill are beneficial to the extent that they will allow farmers who have damp grain to obtain a cash advance of $600. I encourage farmers to obtain this advance whether their grain is damp or dry. The provisions of the bill are so unenforceable in this regard that farmers could easily do it. I encourage farmers to make use of these provisions and dry their grain, having taken advantage of the cash advance. However, I assure the minister that the provisions of the bill are not wide enough to save many millions of bushels of grain which may well spoil this spring unless additional assistance is provided for the movement of grain to dryers or the movement of dryers to the grain.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to speak in this debate last Friday but was under the impression that there was agreement to pass the legislation that day and I did not want to deprive opposition spokesmen of the opportunity of speaking. It seems a little strange to me that many hon. members opposite should at the beginning or during their speeches indicate their support of this measure and then proceed to talk about other matters in connection with agriculture and delay its passage. A little delay in the implementation of this emergency cash advance legislation is not really very serious, however. The main thing is that the farmers should know it will be forthcoming before spring. This has been known to most of us ever since the government announced some weeks ago its intention to provide this special form of assistance.
There has been some criticism of this method of providing cash to help farmers pay the cost of drying their grain. Certainly some farmers and farm organizations requested outright cash assistance. This would have been the popular way to do it, and I am sure most people would prefer a grant to a loan if they had a choice. Some farmers in western Canada have been saying, though, that it IMr. Horner.]

would be unfair to make cash payments to farmers who had damp grain, giving nothing to those thousands of farmers whose crops were reduced in yield, quality and value by frost, drought or hail. Many farmers with damp grain also have other grain that may have been harvested dry, or has been carried over from last year. Many have livestock and poultry. Very few are destitute and seeking charity.
It has been alleged that by using this method of providing assistance the government is getting off scot-free so far as the unusual, emergency damp grain situation which exists on the prairies is concerned. I point out that these cash advances are interest free to the farmers but not to the government. I ask hon. members to remember that the amount of cash advances was doubled last fall, anc with these special advances the government will now be putting up a very substantial sum of money by way of interest and carrying charges on loans, some of which will not be fully repaid for many, many months.
Farmers know this cash advance money will be available shortly. We know, too, that in a few weeks we will receive the final payment for the 1967-1968 crop. We know that the government has not abandoned us. We know that much legislation regarding agriculture has been presented this session. We know that cash advances have been doubled, that farm improvement loans have been reactivated, and more capital has been made available to the Farm Credit Corporation. We know that the government recently put the Wheat Board on a permanent basis. Some $3J million were spent last year in implementing, for the first time in history, a guaranteed floor price for wheat. We know that in the past crop year, for instance, the federal government picked up between $40 million and $50 million of the cost of storing wheat under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We know that the government continues to provide hundreds of services to agriculture across Canada, ranging from research to inspection, disease and pest control, right up to outright price support.
We all know it is important to the economy of Canada to do everything possible to ensure that our damp grain does not spoil. It would be a shame if this happened in a world in which there are so many hungry people who need the food we can produce. But it is also extremely important to the economy of each individual farmer who has damp grain to see that he does not lose it. He knows that
February 4, 1963	COMMONS
sooner or later he will sell his grain or feed it, and he is not going to let it be ruined.
I believe that bad weather and snow conditions are the main reasons why some dryers have been idle in recent weeks. It is simply not practical to dry grain outside on the farm when there are sub-zero temperatures. When the weather improves there will be an increase in drying activity, and I am confident that with the assurance of the availability of these special cash advances all farmers will take the necessary steps to preserve their grain and protect their investment in it.
The farmer's cash position could be somewhat improved if in the immediate future something effective were done to speed up delivery of grain to the terminals. On January 22 I asked the government to appoint a transport controller. This has not yet been done. In support of that request. I submit the following quotation from page 1785 of Hansard for May 8, 1967. The quotation is from a report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture on its investigation into grain handling facilities in Canada, and reads as follows:
The committee is of the opinion that the appointment of a transport expediter during periods of recent stress performed a useful service in facilitating the movement of grain. It is your committee's recommendation that the government give consideration to appointing a transport expediter on a continuing basis.
I still think that if we had had the continuous services of a transport controller or expediter, we would not be experiencing the difficulties that exist at the present time in the movement of grain to the west coast. I believe that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is at the present time conducting a personal survey of the situation at Vancouver. I trust that everything possible is being done and will be done to make sure that sales are not being lost or our future markets hurt.
The agriculture committee report of May 8, 1967, also recommended the developing of a block system for grouping our country elevators for more efficient handling and shipping of grain. I am happy to note a recent announcement that two such experimental blocks will soon be in operation, one at Medicine Hat, Alberta, and the other at Dauphin, Manitoba. We farmers will watch these experiments very closely. It may well be necessary to inspect, grade and seal grain right on the farm and extend much further the principle of advance payments. There are many other implications of this scheme but perhaps these should be discussed at another time.
DEBATES	5121
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Another recommendation contained in the same committee report reads as follows:
Your committee strongly recommends that the government and Canadian Wheat Board encourage the railway companies to speed up their plans for new track in the Vancouver area, and the improvement of the trackage already there. Your committee feels it would be desirable to co-ordinate all harbour and handling facilities for maximum efficiency.
I doubt very much that this recommendation, which like the others was presumably adopted by parliament, has been carried out to any appreciable degree, if at all. So I again urge the government, the grain trade and the railways to act quickly to overcome one of the main reasons for the farmers' shortage of cash-the grain transportation bottleneck.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Some hon. members made disparaging remarks the other day about the Liberals and their attitude toward agriculture. One reason I am a Liberal is that when I started farming on my own in 1931 in Saskatchewan, the first four or five years of my farming experience were under Conservative governments, both provincial and federal. Those were the dirtiest years of the dirty thirties. I took less than 20 cents a bushel at the elevator for the top grade of wheat, and less than 50 cents for flax. Those were not initial payments; that was the total payment with no final payment to come later. We hear talk now about the $1 a bushel that farmers voluntarily take as being something unthinkable. I am reminding hon. members of some of the things that have happened in years gone by under the Conservative government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who founded the Wheat Board and what party voted against it?


Albert B. Douglas: Another reason I am a Liberal is that the best farming years in the past decade have been since 1963 when the Liberal party came into power. Our overseas exports of wheat are currently about 25 per cent ahead of what they were a year ago, and I am sure that the wheat surplus problem will be overcome and that we farmers can look forward with optimism and with full confidence that agriculture is not and will not be neglected by this government. Let us get on with the job and pass the legislation so that this very desirable assistance will be available to those who need it at the earliest possible date.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because of the
5122	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act continuing desperate economic situation that our farm families are having to contend with on the prairies at the present time. The fact that we are only now considering legislation to make up to $600 available to each farmer for the purpose of drying his grain is but another indication of the complete muddle in which this government finds itself in regard to western agricultural problems.
Last fall the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made a tour of southern Manitoba. He was accompanied by two of his political henchmen. After wading around in the soggy fields of southern Manitoba and having his picture taken as the saviour of the situation, he arrived back in Ottawa and told us that things could have been much worse. He was right because they have become much worse, chiefly because there has been no leadership on the part of the government in marshalling grain drying facilities or in co-ordinating our grain handling and transportation problems.
We have three ministers who are more or less responsible for this situation: the Minister of Agriculture who took a look at the fields, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatoon. Since last fall opposition members have been told that everything was under control, that these problems would be looked into or that the government would be discussing them with the railways, the Wheat Board or the grain companies. The three ministers worked on the principle that a soft answer turneth away wrath. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce maintained his charm and his benign smile, which demonstrated the fact that he just did not know what to do. The Minister of Agriculture continued to play politics, at which he is very apt, and the Minister without Portfolio was too new at the job to know what was expected of him. In the meantime the situation at Vancouver reached crisis proportions, unloading problems piled up, supply routes got choked with the wrong grades of grain, and one large cargo which apparently was badly out of condition was shipped to Japan, a situation which should never have been allowed to happen. Ships hung around the harbour for weeks waiting for a berth. Here is what the Ottawa Journal of January 31 had to say:
By January 15 there were 19 grain carriers around her, some seeking the same cargoes, others after Nos. four and five wheat bound for mainland China.

DEBATES	February 4, 1969
One ship, the Toyota Maru which arrived on December 11, finally pulled out empty on January 31. The article went on to say:
To keep the vessel in trim cost about $2,500 a day.
This means that it cost roughly $130,000 to keep that ship in Vancouver harbour waiting for a load of grain.
Demurrage-funds paid to ships idled due to circumstances beyond their control-will cover about $30,000.
This will be charged against the final payment farmers will get for their grain.
Captain Kimishima hopes the Canadian Wheat Board, which acts for western Canadian wheat growers, will compensate the owners at the rate of $1,000 a day effective December 31.
That gives us some idea of the real mess with which we have to contend in Vancouver and about which the government does nothing. In fact, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in a speech made in Saskatoon said, after a visit during which he saw grain dryers in operation, that the grain situation in Canada is due to many factors. He cited the damp grain harvested last fall, record crops for three years, high sales and cold weather as the most evident reasons. But he admitted there were other less obvious factors. He said:
Probably everyone could have done a bit more ... even me.
We have been trying to tell the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister without Portfolio and the whole government that they should be trying to do more, but they have been leading us down the garden path. We have been doing all we can and we find they have been doing nothing. Surely conditions such as these demand action and not the evasive answers that opposition members have been getting over the last four months. Even the Minister of Agriculture will agree with that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question? Could he advise us how we could go about giving directives that the weather should be warmer now and that there should be no rain during the harvest season, because these are the major factors involved?


George Robson Muir: If the Minister of
Agriculture will have a little patience I will tell him how he could have had the situation in hand months ago. We have had bad weather and rain for years; it is part of the western scene. We do not stay indoors just because of
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
rain or because it happens to be a little cold.
I noticed that the minister had become a little soft since he came to Ottawa, but surely not that soft.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Neither have the farmers.


George Robson Muir: The government should give immediate consideration to the appointment of a transport controller-they should have done so long ago but it is still not too late-who would have authority to co-ordinate the movement of grain in order to meet our export requirements. The three western premiers have made this suggestion in an attempt, as they put it, to prevent any further loss of wheat sales. It is a sensible suggestion.
All this government bumbling has placed the prairie farmer in a very grave economic position. No business can carry on for long in a strait-jacket where, even if it is efficient, sales do not equal expenses. We have already had one year when a six bushel quota still left 50 per cent of the grain on the farms and this year, as the many letters I have received testify, some areas have not even delivered the initial quota.
Cash advances have helped and this legislation extending a cash advance for drying grain will help. But when one considers the expenses for fuel, seed, fertilizer, repairs, taxes, without even mentioning living expenses, mortgage payments and other expenses incurred in the operation, one wonders how much longer farmers are going to be able to carry on.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As one hon. member mentioned a few moments ago, grain drying on the farms is almost at a standstill because it is almost impossible to dry grain in sub-zero weather. This means that if we are to save the 200 million bushels of tough and damp grain on the prairies, all the work will have to be done after the weather improves. To make this possible, the government will have to know where every bushel of out of condition grain is located. It will have to see that grain drying equipment is available at strategic points, and it will have to make available the financial assistance which will be required to do the job, other than the loan of a maximum of $600.
The $200 acreage payment made by the former Conservative government to compensate the farmers for lack of markets other than the Canadian market paid dividends to
DEBATES	5123
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act the nation as a whole. I am sure that one Liberal finance minister can attest to that; he found that revenue from grain sales saved Canada's balance of payments situation on more than one occasion. Indeed, it has contributed to the nation's prosperity year after year.
I should like to point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to members of the government that though successive Liberal governments have repeatedly promised a two-price system for wheat, nothing has been done to implement this promise. One is led to believe that it is just another promise which can be dusted off at election times and conveniently pigeonholed afterward.
The acreage payment program amounting to a dollar per bushel for wheat used for human consumption in Canada was implemented by the Conservative government when the situation on the prairies was almost identical to that which exists today-huge surpluses and falling markets. In those days the Liberals described the payment as "peanuts", but it did help, if only by showing our farm people that the government of the day understood the seriousness of the situation and was prepared to use the resources of the nation to avert a disastrous situation for agriculture. If offers of assistance are any criteria, there has been no such realization of the seriousness of the situation in western Canada by the present government. Certainly there has been no imaginative leadership to help solve the problems we face in agriculture today.
While prices and wages in industry have risen appreciably over the last decade, prices of farm products have remained almost static. I am sure the Canadian consumer does not expect the hard-pressed western farmer to subsidize the cost of his bread. But because bread is a staple food, used particularly by families on low incomes, I still think it would be good business for the government to give consideration to meeting the difference out of the consolidated revenue fund. Payment of the domestic price could be made on the initial quota and the amount to be paid out would be calculated on the basis of the total amount used in Canada for human consumption. That is how simple it would be to initiate the two-price system. If the government fails to do something in this regard, the taxpayers of Canada are apt to find out, when the family farmer is forced to quit, that the corporate farms which will be replacing him are not too interested in keeping Canada a cheap basic food nation.
5124	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
In closing let me say that if the government fails to respond to the pleas of western farm organizations and western members to initiate a program immediately to help preserve agriculture as a viable industry, the whole nation will be the loser and the industry itself will suffer irreparable damage.
I again ask the Prime Minister to appoint a transport controller, one who is familiar with the situation as it exists today, even if on a temporary basis only until the problem is in hand.


An hon. Member:: With unlimited power.


George Robson Muir: Right. Further, I join with my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek in asking the Prime Minister to appoint one minister to be responsible for the Wheat Board and for the over-all marketing of our grain-one through whom the transport controller could report to parliament. We cannot expect a troika of ministers, each deferring to the other, without clear authority, to get us out of the grain-handling mess brought about by the government's bungling and incompetence.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a pretence and a farce. In my view it is a substitute for action. It is one more illustration of the government's inability and unwillingness to take effective steps to deal with a crisis which is much more than a farm crisis or a western crisis. What we face here is a national crisis which has already taken its toll and will cost the Canadian economy much more if effective measures are not taken immediately.
Let me give the house some examples of the effect of this situation to date on various sectors of the Canadian economy. Take a look at retail sales in Saskatchewan. In the most recent six months for which figures are available, that is, from May to October, a period which predates the immediate crisis, retail sales in Saskatchewan amounted to $540.5 million, a drop of about $7.6 million compared with the figure for the same six months in 1967. If one takes into account the inflationary factor of approximately 4 per cent it means that the comparable figure for 1967 would be about $570 million, which would produce an effective drop in retail sales of some $30 million or over 5 per cent. There is little doubt, I believe, that this decline in retail sales will continue in the province, with an adverse effect both on the economy of Saskatchewan and on the economy of Canada as a whole. I suggest that all hon. members in

DEBATES	February 4, 1969
this house should be concerned about the consequences of this situation.
As another example I draw attention to the situation in which auto dealers in Regina find themselves. They have experienced a decline of between 40 and 50 per cent in their car sales compared with a year ago. This, of course, has a direct effect on the automobile industry and will be of immediate concern to hon. members from Windsor, Oshawa, Hamilton and Oakville. Sales of farm equipment are also falling considerably below those of a year ago and this, in turn, has a serious effect upon the farm machinery industry.
When he introduced this bill on Friday the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) really had very little to say. I note, however, that he did use the following words:
I therefore urge hon. members to join in the enactment of this legislation to make available to farmers who need this additional cash, interest free, the amount they need in the shortest possible time.
He was urging the greatest speed in getting this legislation through the house. It seems to me it takes a great deal of nerve to urge speed on the house in dealing with the legislation when one recalls that the announcement that the measure would be introduced was first made on December 24 and that the earliest date by which the government could bring it before the house was January 31. I do not think the government has any cause to talk to anyone else about the need for speed in dealing with this problem.
It would seem to me that either the minister found little to say in favour of the bill when he opened this debate, in which case I can sympathize with him, or he did not consider that there was a cash shortage on the prairies such as to make the legislation really necessary. I should like to hear a forthright statement on the minister's views in this connection. The Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, represents an important agricultural area. I should like to know whether he agrees that there is a cash shortage in western Canada at the present time in agricultural circles. I note his statement as reported in Hansard for January 31 at page 4996:
The existing drying facilities in the terminals will not be able to dry more than a limited amount of the grain involved. As a result, there is a significant burden on the farmers of this region to dry the grain themselves. They are proceeding in this direction but in some cases the shortage of ready cash and a credit situation in which they find themselves may be impeding the drying operation.
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Note the "may" in the minister's statement. If these are the real feelings of the minister it seems to me that a proposition like that is a rather shaky basis on which to introduce legislation in the house. I think that both members and the people in western Canada would also like to know whether or not the minister agrees that there is an unwillingness to borrow money to cope with the present situation and to carry on grain drying operations, and whether or not he agrees that this stems from an awareness on the part of farmers of the seriousness of the quota situation and that in coming months they will have a great deal of difficulty finding the necessary ability to repay any loans extended to them, even though they may be interest free.
I would also ask the minister whether he can muster sufficient support from his colleagues to ensure adequate policies to deal with the situation or, as I asked him previously, is he not convinced that there is a need for further action? It seems to me that some of the ministers who have been concerned with the western situation have been so entranced with and mesmerized by the business of setting up the Canada Grains Council that they have given the current crisis the minimum of attention.
The Minister without Portfolio, who told his constituents both before and after the election that he would go to eastern Canada and tell the people and the government about western farm problems, has given a performance that I suggest has been an abysmal failure. If the minister has not been able to persuade his colleagues of the scope and nature of the crisis that is facing western Canada, it seems to me that this indicates one of three things. First of all, it could mean that he does not understand the situation. Second, it could mean that he cannot persuade his colleagues of the seriousness of the situation. Third, it could mean that the government will not be persuaded. I should like to know which it is. Since I have known the minister personally for a long time I should like to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that it is the third possibility, but we would all like to hear what is the real answer.
The present grain situation is a national crisis. Today I talked to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who has just returned from the city of Vancouver, and the hon. lady reported that in her own 29180-325
DEBATES	5125
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act constituency she found a great deal of concern about this situation. In her constituency there are a great many stevedores, people working in the port of Vancouver, grain handlers, railway workers and a whole host of people who are very concerned with the movement of grain as a daily occupation.
I have also given examples of the effect this situation has on retail trade and the effect it will have on industry in other parts of Canada. What has been the response of the government to this situation? I think the government has demonstrated the greatest combination of callousness, indifference and mismanagement ever witnessed in western Canada. Can the government not see the effect that this situation is having on the national economy or on many people in one of the major regions of Canada, which may result in people being pushed off farms unless a solution is found to the immediate crisis as well as to the long-range problems?
This bill is supposedly designed to help farmers dry grain. Over the past several months there have been contradictions in the attitude and policy of the government. First of all, the government would not recognize that there was a problem. Some members on this side of the house asked questions about the situation within a few days of the commencement of the session on September 12, but the government indicated that there really was no problem, that it would see how the harvest came along, that everything was under control.
Several weeks later, when it was finally recognized that there was a problem, we heard that there would be a three bushel over-delivery quota for tough and damp grain, and this was introduced in one step. I think it is now recognized by all people concerned and interested that the manner in which this over-delivery quota was introduced, not the fact that there was an overdelivery quota, but the manner and way in which it was introduced, has contributed substantially to the present problem and to some inequities that exist with respect to it.
After the government recognized that there was a problem the farmers were told they would have to dry their own grain. At the same time no help was offered to dry the grain and there was no co-ordination. It seems to me that this was the first step that should have been taken. I have witnessed previous crisis situations where there was a
February 4, 1969
5126	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act joint co-operative effort on the part of the federal and provincial governments, the grain industry, farm organizations and the farmers themselves which resulted in a program being worked out to deal with the problem that was confronting them. We now have belated recognition of this problem and some very inadequate steps have been taken as a gesture to meet a crisis that is now acknowledged.
When farmers hauled their grain to the elevators after the introduction of the overdelivery quota, it was not moved fast enough to the terminals. Many terminals had to operate at below capacity for some time. Now, of course, they are plugged with damp and tough grain in many cases. There were delays in drying all the way along the line. Even when we received export orders, tough and damp grain kept coming to the terminals.
I for one have always believed that one of the advantages of the cash advance system was that it would provide more flexibility for the Wheat Board, when dealing with the business under its jursidiction, to move grain in such a way as to take the best possible advantage of market conditions. But all the way along the piece we have had bottlenecks, from farm to elevator, to the railways, and to the terminals. I suppose it is possible that the next bottleneck will be in shipping. Certainly that is going to happen if ships continue to leave the port of Vancouver at the rate they have over the past several days.
It seems to me that if the government is going to pursue a policy of drying grain on farms it would surely be logical in following up that policy to provide cash grants as assistance and as an incentive in order to show that the government really means business. In this regard a number of proposals have been made, as the minister will be aware. For example, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture and the western conference of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture proposed cash assistance grants of up to five cents a bushel with a $200 maximum. Some of the friends of the minister in the Saskatchewan government had suggested six cents a bushel as a cash grant. Other farm organizations, such as the National Farmers Union, were proposing assistance of 12 cents a bushel.
Surely the government would have been able to work out an equitable scheme in conjunction with the provincial governments and the authorities concerned. This would have been an effective support and stimulus for the policy that we are urging upon farmers. As


was suggested the other day, an investment of some $20 million to $30 million would be repaid ten times over and would also benefit the national economy. Instead we have had inaction, confusion and contradictory policies.
It seems to me that policies and programs to deal with grain drying now under consideration in this bill are only part of a larger picture and must be considered in a context that involves harvesting, handling, transport and export of wheat. The problems that have been created through government policies, or lack of policies, have been reflected all down the line. For example, to follow up this policy of farm drying of grain, why does the government not follow through with effective policies that will co-ordinate grain movement and handling all the way to the point of export?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Experience has shown that elevator companies do not like to keep damp grain. There has been no co-ordination with elevator companies and no control over them. Their operations have not been regulated and no penalty has been imposed if they do not ship grain as ordered. They have taken damp and tough grain thinking they would be able to ship it out shortly after receiving it. I know that elevator companies which have received shipping orders for No. 2 wheat have filled those orders with damp and tough grain. I think the minister is aware that is so. Certainly elevator companies are not required to adhere strictly to shipping orders given to them. Some of the difficulties with wheat have arisen from our lack of control over elevators and from lack of co-ordination with elevator companies.
There has been a great deal of uncertainty and apprehension in western farm circles. Some coming from the rural areas of my constituency report they have never seen the people of the rural communities there so despondent and dejected as in the last few months. It is obvious we must co-ordinate and control activities in the grain industry. We on this side of the house have been urging since last October the appointment of a transport controller. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) urge the appointment of a transport controller. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has argued against this proposal a number of times, suggesting that a grain transport committee would serve as a better alternative. From our past experience we
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
have found that controllers are effective in speeding up the movement of grain and dealing with specific situations at particular times.
I am glad to see in today's newspapers that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is today looking into the difficulties at Vancouver. His is a rather late conversion; all the same I am glad he is looking into the matter.
I hope that his action will be followed by other action Which has been recommended today and on many other occasions.
The situation at Vancouver is relevant to the present debate. Damp and tough grain has plugged up the terminals at Vancouver. There is no excuse for that situation. Orders were given last fall that priority must be given for the shipment of damp and tough grain. Late in November new export orders for wheat were received from Japan. It seems only logical that if grain movements had been adequately controlled and co-ordinated export wheat would have received shipping priority.
We ought to have made certain that wheat required to fill export orders was available at export points. I understand, in fact, that the Canadian Wheat Board issued such orders on December 5. I also understand that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Alberta Wheat Pool adhered to these instructions for the most part. Nevertheless some other elevator companies continued shipping damp and tough grain, their idea being to get it out of their systems, out of country elevators where it constituted a serious problem. Because this happened we experienced a bottleneck in grain movements. That bottleneck has been particularly serious in Vancouver. The situation has been brought on as a result of government inaction. I say that because the government failed to deal with conditions which developed last fall.
I know that on a number of occasions the government has made excuses. First it hid behind the excuse that weather was a problem. Of course, no one can control the weather. The weather has made the movement of grain difficult. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I have had some experience in railway operations, having been employed on the railways for several years. Severe weather conditions are experienced by our western population every winter and it is often necessary to cut back on train service and shorten trains. These are normal operating conditions and ought to be taken into account. At the same 29180-3251
DEBATES	5127
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act time, I understand that weather conditions this winter were somewhat worse than most winters.
May I also point out that the government knew about the Japanese export order and knew it had been confirmed long before the severe spell of winter weather set in. If the government had wanted to take effective action it ought to have made certain that wheat was in export position long before the bitterly cold weather set in some weeks ago.
Members of the government have also pointed out that during the past several weeks we have increased export sales of wheat. In particular, we made a large sale of wheat to Japan during November. We give the Canadian Wheat Board full credit for its actions. I submit it is incumbent on the government, particularly since it is involved in various phases of the wheat situation, to support the Wheat Board. I think we all know that the railways do not place priority on the shipment of grain unless required to do so by the authorities. Most people in western Canada know this. I note, however, that the other day there was an announcement in the house that a special shipment of wheat was to go from Moose Jaw to the terminal at Vancouver. That is commendable although, goodness knows, there are serious problems connected with the build-up of shipping in Vancouver harbour.
The government has attempted to hide behind the skirts of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have indicated clearly that we support the actions of the Canadian Wheat Board and we do not wish members of the Wheat Board to be blamed for any shortcomings attributable to the government. Members of the government are accountable for our present difficulties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can say that again.


John Stratford Burton: Canadians generally are concerned about our difficulties, and well they might be. The Prime Minister ought to be concerned, as should his ministers. We have been disturbed by statements attributed to the Prime Minister which show he is not taking much interest in the subject of grain. We have also been disturbed by the actions of his ministers.
I wish to make it clear that I do not question the general capability or sincerity of the ministers involved in grain matters. But we do need effective action on the part of the government to deal with specific problems,
February 4, 1969
5128	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the government generally has demonstrated that it cannot cope with our problems. Western Canada and all of Canada will hold the Prime Minister, the ministers involved and the Liberal government accountable for their actions.
In order that problems facing our western community may be adequately dealt with we urge the appointment of a grain movement co-ordinator or transport controller who would co-ordinate the movement of wheat to terminals and on to ships. Second, we recommend that there be direct cash payments to farmers for grain drying. I suggest that about 10 cents per bushel might deal with the present situation. Third-and this has been suggested previously-we suggest that the government of Canada should pay demurrage charges on ships forced to wait for wheat, so that this added cost will not be subtracted from the final payment to farmers. Fourth, we urge the government to take additional and energetic efforts to see that more wheat sales are not lost and to make certain that we retain our share of world markets. Fifth, I suggest that an immediate study be undertaken with respect to grain drying on a long term basis. A delegation from Saskatchewan, led by Mr. Woodrow Lloyd, leader of the opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature, recently went to North Dakota to investigate grain drying facilities there. I shall be happy to make available to the minister any information this delegation gathered. Members of the delegation discovered that grain drying is a standard feature of elevator operations in North Dakota. It is the accepted practice there that elevators be equipped with grain drying facilities. Elevators are the proper places in which to instal drying facilities.
Elevator companies in this country hesitate to move into the drying field because they fear the large investment in equipment they have to make. They consider drying operations economically marginal. Such investments must be considered as bringing in returns over a long period. I urge the government to consider studying the feasibility of assisting in setting up facilities in this country similar to those in North Dakota. The installation of such facilities would help to deal with the immediate crisis facing western Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments in support of Bill No. C-162 which was introduced in this house last week.


In my opinion, we do not misuse the time of the house, when we point out problems to the government, especially those dealing with farming.
I have noted that during the past few months, in various parts of the country, those problems have been raised intelligently, sometimes in strong terms-at the proper time, I think it is not a bad thing-and with much vigour.
Mr. Speaker, the discussion on wheat, grains, drying, etc. had a beneficial effect. In fact, it has prompted the government and particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to present the house with bill No. C-162 which is an emergency measure-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is five o'clock.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -designed to facilitate the temporary solution of a problem, and to help western producers solve the drying problem by-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
five o'clock.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Vocational Training-opportunities for unemployed to improve technical skills; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)- Information to Hon. Members Respecting Legislation; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier)-Power-Nelson River, Man.-alleged harmful effects of development.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
February 4, 1969	COMMONS



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-15, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is rather rare that the idea embodied in a private member's public bill becomes topical at the time of its debate in the house. I believe that this measure to protect reporters from being forced to disclose the source of their material has an immediacy now because of the attitude to the press revealed so recently by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I refer to his petulant outburst at Claridges in London on Wednesday, January 15.
There is additional evidence from two other situations involving the Prime Minister to justify this bill. Most of us remember his reaction to the printing by the La Presse of Montreal of details of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism. He put the R.C.M.P. on a hunt, and a young lady reporter was investigated and harassed in order to elicit from her the source of her information. A more pungent story was disclosed with the publishing of the hon. Judy LaMarsh's book. In it she writes at length about the irritation and concern of former Prime Minister Pearson about leaks from the cabinet in particular but also from the Liberal caucus. Miss LaMarsh describes the scene at the cabinet table involving a particularly gross revelation of a matter privy to the cabinet. She discloses that it was the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, who advanced the means to put an end to the leaks by having the R.C.M.P. trace the leaks in order to determine the sources. So when the Prime Minister burst out in London with the proposition that the R.C.M.P. might be put on the trail of reporters to investigate their private lives it was the third manifestation of an idea held by our executive head of state, to preserve secrecy in government operations and to put newsmen at arm's length from government and politics by calling in the police.
Of course, defenders of the Prime Minister will claim that he was merely applying the argumentative technique of reductio ad absurdum to the matter in order to make its
DEBATES	5129
News Sources Protection Act nature clear, as well as its silliness. Defenders of the Prime Minister will point to the apparently open, innocent invitation to debate the issue of the relations of the press and politicians. The Prime Minister is fond of this debating, dialoguing, participating gimmick. It suits his purpose since most of its advantages, at least to this point, lie with him. It is a cinch to dialogue with a pack of university kids in convenient gatherings where he has the stage, the microphone, the prestige of his office and his "trendy" popularity, while they are down in the pit and limited to a question or two. Again in London we saw the hollowness of this dialogue when the Prime Minister told one young questioner not to bother coming back to Canada if he thought that housing was a field falling within the federal jurisdiction. A fine dialogue that is and an ironic answer too in light of the Minister of Transport's task force report.
I take seriously the Prime Minister's threat in London regarding use of the R.C.M.P. because most of the reporters who were there believe he was not fooling. For example, two good and fair journalists are George Bain of the Globe and Mail and W. A. Wilson of the Montreal Star. It is clear from their stories of the event that these men took the Prime Minister at his word. I have digressed, but the clear fact is that we have a Prime Minister with a Gaullist view of reporters.
One of the poorest features of the parliamentary system of government is its fetish for secrecy in order to protect the bureaucracy and the executive. We in the opposition are always probing and pressing for information. It is en elemental part of the political game in Ottawa and one of its great frustrations. This fetish for secrecy, this developed distaste for openness in information about both administration and policy development, puts a heavy onus on reporters of the day to query, to speculate, to cultivate particular sources. Why? Because it is their job to find out what is going on, what factors are under consideration on any issue or regarding any personality and agency in politics and government. If reporters did not do this we would receive our political information largely by handout and with an inordinate amount of news management.
In the Toronto Telegram of April 3, 1967, there appeared an article written by Douglas Fisher and Harry Crowe regarding politicians and the press. The article refers to the policy of a journalist to conduct his business in a
5130	COMMONS
News Sources Protection Act proper journalistic manner, and reads in part as follows:
Any journalist with perspicacity-reporter, columnist, radio or TV-knows that the best way to find out the main elements of what is going on or is likely to develop in Ottawa is not through the open happenings that pass on the floor of the house or at press conferences.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
One has sources, "leaks", politicians and their assistants and their officials who want to create an impression or set up a situation or counter a "going" interpretation. One probes and gropes and listens and weighs.
The process has many of the elements of a kid's secret society about it. Prejudices and enmities and rivalries build up. Then they burst into the open when someone, usually the politician, comes to believe he is getting a raw deal.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to manage the news. He does not want anyone, even his associates, to get between him and the voter. So we get all this flummery about feed-back, regional desks, and all the jazz about dialogue and participation. So we got that dictum from him right after the election that any cabinet minister who got out of line by revealing information would not be a cabinet minister for very long.
It is easy enough to understand how this authoritarian, rather arrogant style of the Prime Minister developed. He has not gone through the apprenticeship of constituency and party politics. The personal freedom given him by wealth and exceptional opportunities for education without the pressures of earning a living have bred a feeling that he is above the common Joe. And he comes out of a society which, in his formative years during the Duplessis regime, was very authoritarian and strong on hierarchy and order. So it is in his nature, and it is as a result of his training that he calls for the police-


Mr. Gibson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


William Arnold Peters: -to ferret out those-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: -who dare to pierce the screen of his cabinet's and his own activities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I and I am sure many other members are interested in this bill. But what we seem to be getting from the hon. member is a personal attack upon the Prime Minister rather than dealing with the bill itself.
IMr. Peters.]
DEBATES	February 4, 1969


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must confess that I was developing the same misgivings and I would invite the hon. member for Timiskaming to try not to stray too far from the precise provisions of his bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was explaining why there is a considerable need for this type of bill today, and I was pointing out that the actions the Prime Minister has been taking would lead one to demand the type of protection being asked for in this bill. I repeat that it is in the Prime Minister's nature and it is as a result of his training that he calls for the police to ferret out those who dare to pierce the screen of his cabinet's and his own activities. I think he will learn that such threats are un-Canadian, that this is one part of the French heritage that Canada can do without.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


William Arnold Peters: But the fact that he thinks this way is a prime and timely reason to enact this simple measure that I advance. Remember that this bill is not designed to protect a reporter or his employer from libel. It is no protection for a reporter who goes beyond the law and decency in interfering with the privacy of individuals, groups or corporate entities. The effective part of the bill is clause 3 which reads:
A journalist is not compellable to disclose or produce to a court the source of information relating to public news, intelligence or reports of events that is given or communicated to, or is seen, heard or otherwise obtained by him and published or broadcast in whole or in part by a newspaper.
Several examples were in my mind when I brought in this bill. Most of us remember the late Blair Fraser of Maclean's, a man whom many would put on the highest level of Canadian political journalism with Dafoe, Dexter and O'Leary. A decade ago he refused in court to reveal the source of a piece of information which was in one of his stories and he was held in contempt of court for his stubbornness. As I remember, his defence was that if he broke the undertaking between himself and his source the latter's identity would not be confidential and he would be guilty of a breach of professional ethics. He believed that the quality of trust in the reporter would be destroyed. A few years ago a woman reporter from a New York paper went to jail rather than reveal the source of a piece of information she had used in a story.
I am neither an intimate nor a close student of the press and the people who work as reporters. But I know that those of us in
February 4, 1969

politics, particularly in opposition to a reigning government, would do much more poorly at our jobs if the reporters were not at work probing for sources of information. There is nothing a government likes better than to be in total control of what goes on within it and there is nothing as bad for the public weal if it can exert this control.
I and my colleagues believe that the test of secrecy of information ought to be not what the government chooses to reveal but that it should reveal everything except what is explicitly made private. This has become the practice in Scandinavian countries. In Sweden any citizen is entitled to look at almost every government file if he so wishes. This is surely the ideal of an open society. This bill, of course, is not so positive and embracing. Indeed, it is a short bill designed to protect a specific kind of worker in the pursuit of his calling in a society with a government system that is not yet ready to be open and frank. In spite of its narrowness within a huge field I believe this bill merits the support of hon. members.
I understand that tonight in the other place Senator Davey is moving a motion for a study of the press in Canada. I do not know what special gifts or expertise he has for this chore. If such a committee study is to be undertaken it would certainly seem to me that it should be done by a house committee. One of our privileges is a vital one in that what we say here is protected from action in court. We can appreciate the importance of this privilege. What I seek to extend here to reporters is a much smaller privilege but one important to them and perhaps essential if the Prime Minister pushes farther his penchant for using the police for investigations into the source of reporters' news.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the normal rules of the game prohibit unfair disclosure of news sources as a rule in news reporting. However, sir, it seems to me that when serious slander or libel occurs, when the security of the nation is breached, or when malicious and unfair rumours are blazoned forth by the press against possibly innocent victims, it is time to step in and demand that the source of the witch hunt be revealed. Obviously the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is intent on an attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today and is not interested in anything else but getting headlines for his own benefit.

News Sources Protection Act


William Arnold Peters: From private members' hour? Are you kidding?


Colin David Gibson: He failed to address himself to the real principle of the bill. Certainly anyone who heard the entire dialogue with the university students in London would be greatly impressed by it as the most interesting example of dialogue in which any prime minister in the world has even taken part.


An hon. Member:: Did you hear it?


Colin David Gibson: I did, sir.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are looking for an appointment.


Colin David Gibson: Looking for an appointment, sir? From my seat, so close to the curtain, I assure you I am not that optimistic.

In this second language I am trying to practise as much as I can, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the press is enjoying presently all the freedom it needs, without our providing it with any more protection. Let us not allow it to go so far as destroying individual freedom.

News Sources Protection Act This is an area in which one side does all the giving and in which the often innocent victims of malice, with or without oppression, do all the taking.
For these reasons I oppose this bill as a denial of the right to a fair and just trial. It is fair only to one side and discriminatory and vicious in respect of the victim on the other side. I question most strongly the provisions of clause 3 of the bill which reads as follows:
A journalist is not compellable to disclose or produce to a court the source of information relating to public news, intelligence or reports of events that is given or communicated to, or is seen, heard or otherwise obtained by him and published or broadcast in whole or in part in or by a newspaper.
I submit that in a government inquiry into intelligence matters it may be that the security of the nation is more important than the protection of a newspaper editor. I submit that this bill would mean an unwarranted change in the law, something which we should consider very seriously before adopting.


William Arnold Peters: There is a special law, the War Measures Act.


Colin David Gibson: When we are at war conditions are different.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite brief. I say without any reservation that I support this bill. I think it is a good bill. I should like to make three points. I think hon. members on both sides will agree that all news media- newspaper, television or radio-in a democracy are part of that democracy. After all, it is the news that is published which causes the public to be informed concerning what parliament and the government are doing. In fact you can carry this to any extent so far as a democracy is concerned. In a democracy it is the responsibility of the press to report the facts.
Some people may suggest that over the years there has been some change in reporting in that the reporters now act more as column writers, commentators and artists who paint the news as they see it rather than print the facts so that the people can draw their own inferences. I believe, however, we must accept that the newspaper is a very important part of the functioning of any parliamentary system. All one need do is think of any European country which has established a dictatorship to realize that those dictatorships control the press. The people

there are fed the kind of information the dictator and the group around him want the people to have. We have seen the invasion recently of Czechoslovakia. We know that when the U.S.S.R. took over that country their first attempt was to control the press in order to hide from the people there the real issues and the views of their leader so far as liberty and freedom are concerned. So on this basis I support the bill.
Ini order to obtain news-and this is where I fall out with the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson)-the press must have sources. The great news stories of the world come from certain sources. If those sources must be disclosed then the tap of news dries up. I have always felt that a medical man should have the same privilege a solicitor has. If someone discloses information to a solicitor that information is privileged; it cannot be given in evidence in court. The solicitor can apply for the privilege and it will be given. This does not apply to medical men. I think, however, that this privilege should apply to the press. For instance, if I personally happened to be the source of information I might not in that particular case wish my name to be connected with the story.
If we were to say that the names of people must be disclosed we would dry up the news; we would close the tap and shut off the flow of truth to the nation. I support the bill wholeheartedly. I believe that when the members of the committee take a look at it they will appreciate that as the hon. member suggested there is a protection under this bill. When one speaks of slander and libel, nowhere in this bill is there anything which prevents the newspaper or the reporter being sued for libel or slander.


Colin David Gibson: What about security?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will come to that in a moment. If a newspaper breaks the security laws of the nation it is liable. It may be that a person who has certain secrets would give them to a newspaper. That situation might arise. But we are not dealing with the security of the state; we are talking about news of parliament and news which flows through the community. I am sure that the newsman from the Toronto Star, when he found that Mrs. Munsinger was not dead but alive, obtained that information because he hustled about day and night and found people who would talk to him.


An hon. Member:: Fly by night.
February 4, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Worse than the Bonaventure'.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and far more damaging to a person's character. Miss LaMarsh says:
Then Trudeau suggested that we should put a stop to it once and for all.
He came forward with an idea for stopping these leaks.
He proposed calling in the R.C.M.P. to find out how the leak had happened and from what source.
In other words, her suggestion was that there must have been a Liberal source or a cabinet source that was feeding the news to the newspapers, television and radio. The then minister of justice said: We will get the police after our own men. Judy LaMarsh continues in her book:
At first there were some murmurs of agreement.
I can just see the cabinet members sitting around their beautiful table, with paper and pencils, and some of them murmuring in agreement. This is very interesting.
On reflection, the public reaction-should our action ever become public that our ministers could be so little trusted that they had to be under police scrutiny all the time-would be bad and the suggestion was shelved. It would really be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I remember speaking to Judy at the time the house was discussing the Canada Pension
News Sources Protection Act Plan. She said she was the mother of all pensions. I said I hoped that was one baby she had rocked to sleep, because it was conceived in haste and delivered in confusion. Her book continues:
That incident made me question the ruthlessness of Trudeau, although at the time I thought his suggestion only half meant. Subsequent events have already shown that his mind is still running to the prevention of leaks.
He does not like leaks.
I thoroughly approve. It will never be necessary for more than a threat to keep the cabinet's lid on and the ministers' mouths closed. Of course, there will be plenty of news, but it won't be premature. The government is supposed to make the news and the press report it; many of the press have come to believe it is their position to actually make the news themselves. Pundits talk and write about the public's "right to know," and by extension as the public's eyes and ears, of the press' right to know. If there is such a right, it must be a pretty limited one.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister, who holds the highest office in the land, was serious when he referred to the press, following his actions and experiences while attending the commonwealth conference as the "crummy" press. There were no doubt sources of information that the press found and followed. The Canadian people had the privilege, whether it is right or wrong, of reading about the conduct of the Prime Minister while at the commonwealth conference. People will draw their own inference, from the facts printed by the press, whether that conduct was of the kind we expect from a Canadian Prime Minister. That is not for me to decide.


Mr. Laniel:: How come the press aren't here to listen?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a question I will leave with you. I am sure you can answer it. The press do not have to sit in the gallery. They can read the press-run of the proceedings in this house; they can read what I have said and write their story on that.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Keep reading from the book; that is more interesting.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member should not table the book, in view of the fact that he is reading from it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would agree to that
suggestion, Mr. Speaker, were it not for my ancestors and the fact that the book cost me $8. Therefore I cannot see my way clear to
February 4, 1969

News Sources Protection Act asking that it be tabled. My last point is this. All the bill does is guarantee to the press freedom to find sources of information about the government, parliament or individuals.
If, when Hitler rose to power, Germany had had a free press the people would have been informed about the Reichstag fire, which was blamed on the communists. Then, Germany would never have been a dictatorship and the black terror which was responsible for six million people being thrown into the furnaces would never have crept into that nation. It is through the media of newspapers, television and radio that we as citizens are able to maintain our freedom. All this bill seeks to do is to give to the press freedom to obtain information from whatever source. You must have a source for these things; you must have the well with the water in it. Sources of information will dry up if one has to come forward and say: I am the man-or woman-who gave that information.
I think the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) is very happy to be a source of information at certain times. That is only human. The human reaction of members of parliament is such that we like to read about our statement, about ourselves, about parliament and the government. We like to see our party portrayed in the best light. I am sure that if the press went to the hon. member and asked for information that would place him, his constituency and party in a better light, he would not want to blow out the candle. I would like to see this bill go to committee. I support it. I think other members who have the opportunity to speak will support it. I hope that when it comes back from committee it will obtain approval, because we de facto now have this right. The hon. member is asking only that the right be guaranteed to the press, because of statements made by the Prime Minister and perhaps others in public life.
As the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) knows, Alberta at one time brought in a bill to control the news media. That provincial act was declared by the Supreme Court of Canada to be ultra vires of our constitution and civil rights. This is basically a very liberal bill. It is the kind of liberal, with a small "1", bill that would guarantee our freedom here and elsewhere throughout the nation.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and I approve wholeheartedly this legislation involving some basic matters.
To approve such legislation is simply to approve freedom because in this day and age a free press or the freedom of the press is synonymous with a free nation. The press having become above all a most important and even essential means to ensure a well functioning democracy, it follows that we must protect at all costs those who, by their actions or their role as journalists, promote true freedom. We can only rejoice that such a bill was introduced, which if passed will give well deserved protection to those dedicated people, as they sometimes sacrifice themselves for freedom. I will give an example. A couple of months ago, some articles published in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, were excerpts from Volume 3 of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission report on bilingualism and biculturalism. If La Presse had not had access to this source of information, we may never have been informed of what was written in a certain chapter of that volume, and this at the public's expense, because if we compel those who obtained that information to divulge their source, they will never again have access to it.
Quite often, we realize that information originates almost exclusively from the press, and we, on this side of the house, have often complained that the press knew the facts ahead of us, even in cases involving parliamentary prerogatives.
If news sources are good only when one is In power, I cannot see why a distinction should be made in other circumstances, because since the reporter has to play an essential part in our society, he must enjoy full liberty of action.
As pointed out by the hon. member who spoke before me, it goes without saying that if a reporter, in order to get information, breaks the law of the country, then he runs the risk of being prosecuted, and he will have deserved it.
The question here is to protect him, by not compelling him to disclose his news sources.
To follow up the instance I have just given, I was saying that an editorial in the Montreal newspaper La Presse had even blamed the R.C.M.P. for checking up the
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
news sources of Miss or Mrs. Gagnon, one of its reporters. That editor of La Presse felt that a very base device had been used to try and discover her news sources.
I feel therefore that this bill, which ensures the protection of news sources, deserves the unqualified support of the house.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has introduced this afternoon, Bill C-15 concerning a very important matter which can be connected with the main question of the privileges or the freedom of the press.
It is a matter which in history has given rise to interesting debates and even to several epoch making cases. It is a burning issue because thanks to the technical development of present media, news reach an ever increasing number of people.
However, I am sorry that the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) dealt so little with the principle of the bill which, I understand, does not attack the question of the freedom of the press in general, but simply aims at providing privilege of communication between a journalist and his news source or in respect of his source where the source is a document or other material, on the occasion of proceedings under the federal authority.
However, the hon. member took unfair advantage of it, thus transgressing the rules, to attack the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In fact, his reference to the London incident constitutes, in my opinion, a case where it can be said that there has been misuse of the freedom of the press in that the latter did not act exactly as it should have, regarding the privacy of people.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Calgary North also took that opportunity to speak of the freedom of the press and of what happened, for instance, in the countries behind the iron curtain or in Germany before the last World War, when the press was controlled.
I do not think it is intended in this bill to put any limitations on the freedom of the press which must remain independent and impartial. I would like to deal more specifically with the purpose of the bill which would entitle a journalist, when sued for defamatory libel, for instance, or for something else concerning perhaps the security of the country, the private life or the reputation
DEBATES	5135
News Sources Protection Act of a citizen not to divulge his news source. And I think this is the matter the hon. member wished to put before the house this afternoon.
However, press privileges-what we call the freedom of the press-include of course the right for a reporter to gather, as he sees fit and practically without any limits, information he may broadcast thereafter, and this bill provides for a communication privilege between the journalist and his news source in any proceedings conducted before criminal or federal courts. In fact, if we consider the bill, we notice that it goes far enough, because the definition applies to, and I quote:
-a criminal proceeding held before or under the authority of a court exercising judicial authority-
The bill goes on as follows:
-an inquiry or investigation held or made under authority of a law of Canada or by order of Her Majesty before or under the authority of a court, tribunal, commission, board, power, authority, or a judicial, administrative or ministerial official, or any other proceeding or matter whatsoever coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada or within the prerogative of Her Majesty;-
When we look at the definition of "journalist" or "newspaper", we see that it includes not only the written news, but also radio, television, etc.
This is therefore a bill that goes quite far, but during a trial for libel, for instance, where the private rights of a citizen may be involved, should a journalist who has free scope to publish information obtained by him, be considered as a preferred witness, under no obligation to disclose his news source, when he appears before the court? I think that an entirely new situation would be created.
As the hon. member must know, the courts have always in the past, except in cases where national security was threatened, compelled newspaper men to disclose their news sources. The right to conceal news sources has never been considered a privilege comparable, for example, with that of a lawyer and his client, as pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North who wanted to put the newspaper man on an equal footing with the lawyer.
Now, some distinctions can surely be made between the two and I ask the following question: Does the newspaper men have more rights than the ordinary citizens before the law or should they enjoy an exceptional status, as for example, the one existing
February 4, 1969

News Sources Protection Act between husband and wife or that enjoyed by the counsel for the defence in a criminal court?
In my opinion, the scope of the freedom of the press can be restricted by the exercise of other liberties, by the basic rights of other citizens, in order to assure a better administration of justice.
I am thinking particularly of the rights of the ordinary citizens when his reputation is involved or in order that his private life be respected. In the present case, a newspaper man would have the privilege of not being compelled to disclose in the proceedings listed in the bill his source of information for news and reports on events of public interest which are published or broadcast.
As a result of the proposed legislation, a reporter could refuse to answer a question, or to produce a document which would disclose his news source. The right to invoke this privilege would be given to the reporter alone, and not to his source of information, and it seems that it would be impossible to ask why he refuses to testify.
In law, apart from some exceptions I have mentioned earlier and which are well specified in statutes, the general rule is that any person can be a competent witness and can be forced to reveal the names of those who gave him the information according to which the article was written.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The Criminal Code and the Evidence Act grant this privilege to certain people such as the accused, for instance, who is not obliged to testify at his own trial or at the trial of his wife, subject to some exceptions when the accused could get protection should he incriminate himself by his answer. He can then ask for the protection of the court, so that his answer could not be used as evidence in future procedures; however, he cannot refuse to answer. The privilege is also extended to the lawyer and his client-and it is understandable-since the obligation for any able person to testify during judicial procedures on relevant facts known to him, is justified by the fact that it is the best way to get full justice and that it gives the courts the possibility to judge with complete knowledge of the facts. That is why the administration of justice imposes this obligation.
As a matter of fact, I think that the authors have established rules which are considered essential towards recognizing that privilege of not being compelled to disclose to the court 
certain information, and the four following rules are set forth:
(1)	The communication must proceed from the assurance that it will not be disclosed.
(2)	That assurance must be essential to the complete and satisfactory maintenance of relations between the parties.
(3)	The relation must be one which the community is interested to protect.
(4)	The adverse effect that the disclosure of the communication could have on the relation must be greater than the benefits which could ensue from the disclosure of the said communication in case of conflict.
These are the rules taught by the authors in order that the fact of not disclosing certain information may constitute a privilege before the court. When one thinks particularly of the relations which could exist between say a lawyer and his client, one sees that in such a case the rules are obviously adhered to. If, for example, a lawyer were to testify in a trial, that would more or less amount to saying that the client would be compelled indirectly to testify against himself. The same principles are involved in the case of the relations between husband and wife.
However, if we look closely at those rules, we realize that they do not apply at all in the case of a journalist who appears as a witness and who can be compelled to disclose his sources of information; he cannot benefit from those rules which are based on past experience.
The hon. member alluded to the case of Mr. Blair Fraser-whom several members have known and who unfortunately is dead-who had been involved in a lawsuit that created a great stir. He was sued by the Attorney General of British Columbia who had brought an action for damage against that journalist and the magazine who had published such information.
However, the precedents which were mentioned but that unfortunately I have not had the time to study thoroughly, refer particularly to the British jurisprudence. The Court's decision was that the journalist would have to reply to the questions. This judgment was based on a very elaborate jurisprudence. He appealed from the judgment of the Appeal Court of British Columbia which had upheld the judgment of the court of first instance, and the authorization to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. This case is referred to in the 4th volume of the Dominion Law Reports for 1954. Here is what one of the
February 4, 1969

Justices said; and I am quoting from page 334:
In the present case, in my opinion, the refusal of the defender to divulge the source of his information is sheer stubbornness. He has persisted for more than one year in his refusal to obey the orders of this country's courts. Now, he is more or less telling us that, after careful consideration, he believes his moral obligations towards the people who gave him the information are more important that his duty to obey the judgment of the Court.
Under these circumstances-
-as pointed out by another Justice-
-he must realize that his refusal brings about as a consequence the result achieved by the rules.
Well, it was decided that in a civil proceeding resulting from a libellous information published in a newspaper, the newsman had to answer questions. In this case, English jurisprudence was studied, where perhaps it seems to grant the privilege that the hon. member wishes to grant to the newspapers, but which does not extend to newsmen. In Canada, no decision was taken on this matter, but it was mentioned that the newspaperman in this case had to reveal his source of information.
Mr. Speaker, the bill presented by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) may, at first sight, seem to be of some advantage. But if we consider it in relation to its consequences, especially for certain persons who might be involved by newspapersmen's charges-and we know that newsmen sometimes go a bit too far-I submit that the freedom of the press must also be limited by other freedoms: that of individuals, in particular, and I am unable to support the principle of the bill because it goes a little too far.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask a question? In what way does this bill limit the right of an individual to take action against a newspaper reporter? It is not the purpose of the bill to interfere with the libel provisions of our law, but only to provide protection for persons who supply information.


Yves Forest: I know, Mr. Speaker, that this bill would not prevent a person from bringing an action for libel against a journalist. This certainly may have an effect on the outcome of the trial. As a matter of fact, it is possible that the information cannot be obtained from the journalist who can plead his good faith.
To sum up, this bill goes a little too far and I could not endorse it. I think that, in view of

News Sources Protection Act the circumstances, it should not get the support of hon. members.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: It is
indeed regrettable that a bill which deals with matters of principle as serious as this should have been introduced in a way which really avoided the principles involved and relied upon what can best be described, I think, as a distasteful attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The sympathy which one might have felt for the principle of this measure is bound to be diluted to some extent as a result of the manner in which it was introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Nevertheless, the principle is important today. We hear, with great sympathy, hon. members in that corner of the house asking when it is the government's intention to bring in a bill dealing with electronic eavesdropping and other invasions of privacy. This, Mr. Speaker, is the other side of the coin at which we must look. We are living in days when we must be very conscious of personal rights and privileges. It is certainly a time in which we cannot dispose of a bill of this kind without a very deep discussion on principle.
e (6:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) inquired of the parliamentary secretary how this bill could possibly affect the laws of libel. This may be a trivial incident but nevertheless the area of college football is rather important to some people. It was less than two years ago that the University of Georgia athletics director, Wally Butts, was accused in a Saturday Evening Post article of selling or giving away his team's football strategy to Alabama coach "Bear" Bryant. Butts sued the Saturday Evening Post, and apparently the courts in the United States did not regard the matter as trivial because judgment for libel was entered at $460,000, and was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The basis of the judgment was that the Saturday Evening Post had relied on sources on which they had no business to rely. The judgment would not have been possible had not the source been disclosed and available. The Post could have relied on the usual press exemptions in libel cases, apologized and that would have been that. But the fact was that the Supreme Court of the United States
February 4, 1969
5138	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act determined in the case that the Saturday Evening Post was anxious to change its image by introducing a policy of sophisticated muck-raking and pressure to produce a successful expose was on them.
In selling their papers they went beyond the limit and used a source who at that time was on probation for passing bad cheques. They knew about this and did not check the sources to which he attributed the story. In general they relied on evidence on which they had no business to rely. As I say, the libel action was successful. So, sources are relevant in freedom of the press.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair to resume same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-162, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was saying that there had been repeated remarks on the opposition as well as on the government side and that some government members, taking their role seriously or assuming their responsibilities had sometimes blamed the government for not acting in time. However, to stir up the sense of responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture in that field we had to have the emergency debate about a week ago, that somewhat clarified the question.
The object of Bill C-162 is to empower the government to grant advance payments to grain producers to enable them to better finance the drying of damp grain and provide storage otherwise than in an elevator.


I suggest that this legislation could have been more generous. However, it could not have changed the weather in any way. The government members say: Well, everything depends upon the weather; there was too much rain in the fall and this winter, the weather is too cold. Indeed, such things are not controlled by the government but from above. The Progressive Conservative members said to the government: You have failed to act m time. You waited until the cold weather had set in. They blame one another. The Liberal members say to the Conservative members: When you were in power, things were not much better, for you also had problems, such as grain drying. What did you do then?
Mr. Speaker, we must forget the past. There is surely no question of drying the grain that was used up as it does not exist any more. Let us speak instead of the 1968 crop for that is the grain that has to be dried.
I believe the problem facing the western farmers is a financial problem. They could not get the equipment needed to dry their grain.
That is the reason why they asked the government to grant them cash in advance to enable them to afford the costs of drying the grain and of putting it into the elevators so that the ships would not leave Vancouver half empty. It might have then been possible for us, in the east, to have grain in fair condition at the proper time since there are, allegedly, several empty box cars waiting for this grain.
So we have a problem within the country. On the one hand, the western producers are complaining and, on the other hand, we, in the east are waiting for grain in fair condition that would enable us to produce milk, butter, cheese, meat, etc., so as to meet the needs of our people while helping those who are starving in the world.
This afternoon, we were once more reminded in the house of the so-called starving peoples so, they do need our contribution.
I remember that in 1940-45 everybody was talking about the war effort. We had to do our bit to save Christendom, to save civilization, to save our markets in Europe. Today we are asked to bring our contribution, not for war but for peace, in order to give assistance, in a spirit of mercy, to the peoples who need it most urgently and which we could help with our wealth and with that wheat which is such a problem for us when it comes to distributing it.
February 4, 19S9	COMMONS
Bill C-162 may not be very generous, still it is a step forward. Producers will be able to benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, the passing of this bill must not be delayed, but we must not either be accused of dawdling and punishing the western farmers while making interminable speeches in the house. It does not take two hours to speak one's mind and say what one thinks about a subject. It is a matter of coming out with it, of speaking frankly, and as a great general would say: Let us get to the bottom of this and find the real cause of the situation. For my part, as an eastern consumer of cereal, as a dairy producer, as the member for a rural riding, as spokesman for the people of eastern Canada, I can say that our party is in favour of this bill being passed as soon as possible. We agree that once it is passed three months should not he spent in drawing up regulations while the producers wait again. We should get into the habit of reaching our decisions and applying our laws more rapidly, specially when the western producers are waiting.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I am in favour of this bill and why, when it is put to the vote,
I shall vote for it gladly.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: In rising to speak in support of Bill C-162, Mr. Speaker, I feel the government deserves a severe scolding for their gross lack of inaction by not showing leadership in tackling the grave accumulation of tough and damp grain which many members on this side of the house have drawn to the attention of the government constantly. The government has brought in at this late date a measure which can only be described as a confession of incompetence.
It would be unrealistic to pretend the measure is not welcome. Under the present situation it is a necessary measure. I believe it would not be necessary had it not been for the situation created by the government. This situation could have been avoided, or at least relieved to some degree. This government continues to bring forward legislation aimed at bailing itself out of a mess created by its own policies.
The government put an 11 per cent sales tax on housing. We now have a minister of the government stating in a public report that
DEBATES	5139
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act this tax should be removed. Then, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) says, "Over my dead body".
The government entered into an agreement with France. We now have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) becoming annoyed because the province of Quebec takes action under the same agreement. These are only some of the complications which this government has created.
The grain situation is the worse mess this government has caused up to the present time. Last November a motion to adjourn the house was moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) to debate the question of damp grain. Nothing was done. This problem was raised during the discussion of the estimates on agriculture, at which time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) accused the opposition of being publicity seekers and attempting to damage markets. What has the Minister of Agriculture done to procure and establish our markets? He has readily attacked the opposition on every occasion we brought the matter to his attention. His only solution was that he had faith in the western farmer's ability to dry the grain, despite the serious difficulties being encountered.
It is with a feeling of sorrow and desperation that I refer to the incredible mishandling by the government of the current year's grain shipments. There was the grain handlers' strike this past summer which wasted six weeks of valuable time. The government did absolutely nothing and grain deterioriated in the field and the grain piles on the prairies grew higher. The strike was followed by inaction on the part of the government with regard to the problem of drying grain. There were no incentives, no encouragement or no co-operation in the handling of driers and a 3 bushel quota of damp grain in effect plugged every available storage facility without consideration being given to the drying capacity available.
The Japanese are now demanding indemnities because of damp and second quality grain. They are also demanding compensation for ships tied up for days in Vancouver harbour. This is because the government failed to do anything about the moving of box cars. A Conservative Member of Parliament raised the matter in the house and boxcars were then brought from the United States and rushed to Vancouver. What good were they
February 4, 1969
5140	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act then? We now have the Japanese going to Australia for a large wheat contract which should belong to Canada. Many of my own neighbours have had their incomes cut in half because of the government's refusal to take any action in this serious situation. While the farmer's income is cut, his expenses continue to rise. The farmer is getting it at both ends.
It is a tragedy and a damaging blow to Canada's economy that a large part of an entire year's grain crops and sales have been sacrificed because of bureaucratic bungling. Because of failure to organize transportation we not only face the loss of markets, but we have lost markets. The government refused to move to organize rail facilities to transport wheat to Vancouver. They failed to get the right grade to the right place at the right time. While millions of dollars in wheat went begging in Canada, box cars which should have been available were out of the country picking up a few bucks for the railways. If the railways are going to act in this manner, then they must be brought to task by the government, and that means a government capable of doing the job. The present government is more concerned with questions of manners and morals than the livelihood of the western farmer. Little wonder farmers all across western Canada are sick at heart at the way the situation is being handled.
Many farm leaders have expressed concern with regard to difficulties the farmers will experience in 1969, such as the rising cost of operation, loss of markets and loss of reasonable return due to deterioration of their grain caused by climatic conditions. Mr. Speaker, 1969 is here and, believe me, it is difficult on the prairies. Business is lagging, unemployment is rising, automobile and machinery sales are down, accounts receivable are running at an all-time high and becoming stagnant. Above all an ever-growing lack of confidence is being experienced in the future of farming and business enterprise. What about the future? According to Japanese reports, 117,000 tons of Manitoba No. 2 wheat contracted for December and January have not arrived in Tokyo. Can any country run its business that way? This government has allowed the Wheat Board to float by itself and to carry the whole load. The government has not helped or supported the board in any way. It was too concerned with its abortion bill. Surely, it is time we got back to the real 

things of life. Canada cannot tolerate disruptive mismanagement on the part of the federal government. Certainly the provincial governments will not tolerate this for any length of time.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Seven Japanese ships, among the 30 odd ships waiting in the Port of Vancouver, got sick of waiting. The Japanese, as we know, are no fools. They are the smartest businessmen in the Orient. They have taken a great interest in Canada, and have invested a lot of money here. The Japanese are prepared to buy our wheat, but they insist on the same high standards which they follow in their own affairs and if we do not deliver they will shop elsewhere, as they are now doing in Australia.
There has never been a time when the affairs of the western farmer have been more poorly managed by the government. The government simply let a whole year's grain crop drift away and we wonder if this is going to keep on because, if it does, then the western farmer will be in the same position as the eastern farmer. The policy announced by the government for the eastern farmer is to take him off the farm and put him in the welfare office in the city. The western farmer does not want that and will fight for his right to enjoy the prosperity he has created by his own sweat.
We have witnessed a whole year's crop flushed down the drain by Ottawa mismanagement. Here it is February and the government has finally managed to persuade the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to go to Vancouver. It is too late to do much this year. We have been witnessing events which have sadly shaken the faith of farmers all across Canada.
Certainly all hon. members welcome the fact that the minister is now concerned. If the efforts of the opposition have done nothing more, I believe they have enlightened the minister on the fact that he has a massive job to do. It is encouraging to see that, for the first time, he has really taken the bull by the horns.
The situation in my own area, that is the federal constituency of Vegreville, is that we do have orders. As a matter of fact, we have many orders. We have some box cars loaded but they are stacked along the sidings. I have here a letter from a constituent of mine who states that in his area they have had only 14 box cars since August 1, but have had none since November 1.
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
Many farmers have made deliveries only on the unit quota. The elevators are filled, mostly with damp grain, and there is no movement of grain whatsoever. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, you cannot operate a farm on the strength of a cash advance and a unit quota delivery. The results of this situation are a critical shortage of cash, stagnation of business resulting in the future outlook for our economy being disgusting, and a complete demoralization of all avenues of business. I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with all his good intention of creating a just society, must be equally disturbed at the whole mess of the grain markets, handling of grain, and in particular the lack of foresight in solving the damp and tough grain situation. I hope that he, too, takes the bull by the horns and gets some action. The passage of this bill may be a start.
Meanwhile the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce continues to smile. He says he is serious when he is smiling but, Mr. Speaker, the farmers in my area are not smiling. To them, Liberal years are lean years. They will continue to be lean years until the government can organize quickly and provide encouragement and co-operation in solving this desperate situation. We need leadership and we need action. We need action with responsibility and sincerity.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: as bad as the hungry thirties? The predicament in which members of the western farming communities find themselves has developed from several causes. The first is the indifference and inaction of the present government toward the problems of western Canada. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who resumed his seat a few moments ago, outlined some of the action opposition members in this house have taken as far back as last September in an effort to draw to the attention of the government the situation which existed. Since we realized what could develop, we kept the government briefed on the situation.
As I mentioned in a previous address, I had the honour to represent our party in moving a motion to adjourn the house on November 28. This was followed by an emergency debate on December 5. All these things, coupled with a statement by Mr. McNamara, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, which received quite wide press coverage, alerted the government. So, they cannot say they did not know the problem existed. This is one area in which I think the government can be most severely criticized. Secondly, we must admit that the weather aggravated the situation; but as was pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) this afternoon we have always had to contend with the weather. Weather is always a problem and will always continue to create emergencies in the agricultural industry. This is no excuse. The government must be prepared for such a situation.
I was very interested, and in fact quite surprised, I might say dismayed, when I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) a couple of weeks ago tell the house what the government had done to meet the serious emergency which faces us now. In listening to him, one would think that nobody else ever faced an emergency. I am not known to be partisan, but the minister brought up this topic concerning the wonderful record of his party in respect of what is being done now. I should like to refer to the year 1961 when the hon. minister was not sitting in this house. At that time we had the lowest water table in the history of western Canada. Some livestock farmers were faced with not having any opportunity to provide fodder or maintain even their basic herds. At this time farmers were queued up at the stockmarkets at western points disposing of even their basic herds. This sale of stock started to depress the market by one cent or two cents a pound. We all
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act know what would have happened had action not been taken in this regard.
I was a member of the standing committee on agriculture at that time when the former member for Qu'Appelle, the then minister of Agriculture, called an emergency meeting of the committee. We held two meetings as a matter of fact, one on Friday and one on Monday. As a result of these emergency meetings we established a program. This is relevant, Mr. Speaker, in so far as this bill is concerned because I shall refer to action taken at that time which should have been taken under present conditions. We made an announcement that all the P.F.A. benefits, the full amount of $800, should be allocated to the farmers. We also co-operated with the ministers of agriculture in the three provinces. We put a ceiling price of $20 a ton on fodder so that there would not be a tendency for people to try to exploit one another.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
At the same time we set a ceiling price of $15 a ton to the farmer and provided a subsidy of $5 a ton equally divided between the provincial government and the federal government; in other words, $2.50 each. We also re-enacted legislation to move haying machinery from one place to another in order to provide fodder wherever needed. The federal and provincial governments co-operated in this program to pay 50 per cent of the freight charge for moving the haying machinery or fodder into position.
We made arrangements with the community pasture managers to send pelleted feed from eastern Canada to provide sustenance for our livestock in these pastures. These are only a few of the emergency measures that were taken within just two days. In the result, when the program was announced publicly on television and radio and in the press it immediately quelled the fears of western farmers; they stopped their mad rush to market with cattle that were not properly finished, and within three days the market had regained its normal strength. In fact, the market went up 24 cents a pound bv Christmas. These results were achieved, and we saved the day by concerted action. I enumerate these points in order that the Minister of Agriculture may realize that he will not get away with the remarks he has made about this emergency, namely, that his government is the only one that has done anything in situations like this.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The next problem is the lapse of the international wheat agreement and the loss of grain sales, with resulting low incomes to farmers so they have been unable to finance the drying of a large quantity of wet grain. This has been one of our major problems. The catastrophe facing western Canada results in part from the lapsing of the international wheat agreement which has created serious financial difficulties in our part of the country.
As members from the west know, we are plagued with large surpluses of dry grain in storage. This has been caused by the inaction and indifference of the government at the Kennedy round of talks at Geneva two years ago. I was interested in listening to the comments of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), my neighbour in western Canada, who was trying to paint a bright picture out of the very dim one that we have out there. I do not blame him for that; it is his prerogative and, I suppose, his duty because he is a member of the party which forms the government.
He referred to the fact that last year we had a 25 per cent increase in sales over the previous year. But it must be remembered that we had last year only 30 per cent of the sales we had the year before. Therefore, an increase of 25 per cent last year is really an increase of only ri\ per cent, or a quarter of the 30 per cent. This is a very meagre increase and does not solve the problem at all. We have to go out and make wheat sales if we are to solve the basic problem underlying western agriculture.
I bring these facts to the attention of the house just to keep the record straight. We have heard a great deal about the Grains Council; the minister made an announcement about it on motions today. This is all well and good, and naturally I will support anything that will help to develop, maintain and continue the maintenance of sound agricultural policy in this country. But I am afraid this council will be only window dressing if it is to meet just once or twice a year and has on it people already involved in the grain trade.
I cannot for the life of me, and I hope I am wrong, see what the council will achieve in these circumstances. The council should use its influence, I suggest, to immediately try to reconvene the International Grains Council so that the international wheat agreement can be put back on the rails. It is all well and good to say the agreement has been re-established, but we are not deriving any benefit from it;

February 4, 1969
our competitors are selling their grain and we are sitting back with our bins full of grain.
My fourth point is that the order of the Wheat Board opening up a three-bushel quota on wet grain to terminals has created great difficulty in agriculture. It has choked up our drying facilities for three months and eliminated all possibility of moving dry grain into position to meet world market demands. The question is, who demanded that the Wheat Board take this action? Was it the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), or the Minister of Agriculture? Surely, it was not the Wheat Board alone that decided to make this order. I have known Mr. McNamara, the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board, for many years and have great difficulty believing that he would give this order. I am afraid he must have been pressured into it by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or somebody who was not familiar with the problem. In any event, Mr. McNamara made this unwise decision as a result of pressure from somebody. The result of the decision was that the pipe line was immediately choked up with wet grain. Anyone who knows the situation in western Canada realizes that we have about 25 million acres of wheat under cultivation. A three-bushel quota means 75 million bushels of wet grain immediately going into what we refer to as the market pipe line.
Mr. McNamara, in his statement of November 28, said that the total drying facilities at all the terminals, Vancouver, Fort William, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon was only 12 million bushels per month. Is it reasonable for a man in Mr. McNamara's position to make a decision that would mean the moving of 75 million bushels of wet grain into terminals that could not dry a quarter of it? Somebody told the Wheat Board to make this decision, and I would like to find out who it was. I hate to think it was the Wheat Board alone that decided on this action; therefore I ask the question of the minister.
The fifth problem is the serious shortage of box cars and other rolling stock to move grain into market positions, and the resulting large number of grain ships sitting empty in the port of Vancouver. These ships are costing farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars in demurrage charges and a serious loss of grain markets because Canada has been unable to deliver this commodity.
The sixth basic problem, and a prime reason why agriculture is in serious trouble, is

February 4, 1969	COMMONS
that we have three ministers involved in the affairs of agriculture. It is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. I ask, Mr. Speaker, how can one man serve two masters? We have had this problem in the past and this is a case of history repeating itself. In 1958, under the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), whom I had the honour of serving at that time, we had 750 million bushels of grain piled up all over western Canada. When we raised this problem with the then minister of trade and commerce, he said it was the responsibility of the department of agriculture and his department did not have to worry about it. We went to the minister of agriculture, who said the minister of trade and commerce sold the produce of this country.
We did not fool around; we took the Wheat Board from the minister of trade and commerce and placed it under the control of the minister of agriculture, at that time the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and started to get action. The Wheat Board, which is the body primarily responsible for moving our grain, should be under the jurisdiction of the minister of agriculture. This is where the Wheat Board should be, and it should stay there.
The seventh point, and I think one of the most serious matters in connection with this whole problem, is a psychological one. I have listed these points in numerical order, and because this is the seventh I do not mean it is the least important. As I have said, this is a psychological problem and when you get psychological problems in a depressed area, the over-all problem is aggravated. The problem is that farmers have become very discouraged with the situation because of the inaction of the government. Government action in this field has been too little and too late.
We find the Prime Minister of this country saying in Winnipeg at a $50 a plate dinner for the Liberal party that his government-he said this to the farmers in answer to a question-was not responsible for selling grain and it was up to the farmers to sell it. This was the last straw. After all, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his department, or somebody in Ottawa, must take the initiative. The farmer cannot himself take it. The inaction of the government has resulted in the serious and difficult situation of western agriculture and is the basic cause of the trouble.
DEBATES	5145
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act [DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is all right for me to criticize and enumerate the causes of this problem, but what should we do about it? I feel that the $600 that we are providing now is a start, but it is not enough. It represents about 10 cents a bushel for the farmer who may have grain to market, but the cost of drying his grain amounts to about 20 cents a bushel. An average farmer would have around 10 thousand bushels of grain, and at the cost of 20 cents a bushel he would have to spend about $2,000. The $600 might help, but it does not go far enough.
Some time ago I indicated that we should provide an outright grant in an emergency. At that time I suggested an acreage payment because in 1959 that is what we gave when millions of bushels of grain were under snow. We also did that in 1961 at the time of the emergency to which I referred a while ago. We also used acreage payments on another occasion, but this extra incentive of an outright grant or acreage payment was just enough to give farmers the encouragement they needed and to make them feel we were interested in helping them.
I also suggested on several occasions that we should provide a co-operative plan in conjunction with provincial ministers of agriculture to subsidize the movement of machinery. We did that back in the hungry thirties and also in 1961. We should have done it in this case so that drying equipment would be moved into place. The latest figures show that around 3,200 pieces of drying equipment exist in western Canada but that only 900 are being used. When one starts to question the reason behind that one finds that a large number of farmers have not the wherewithal to pay for transportation to get the dryers into the area where they should be used. As a result, we are losing much valuable time which could be used if equipment were put to work until the end of April, when we are really going to have a serious problem with grain starting to heat. At that time the warmer climatic conditions will cause the damp grain to heat, and everyone who understands agriculture will know to what I am referring.
We should be utilizing every piece of equipment immediately until the end of April to get over perhaps part of the emergency. But even then, we stand to lose millions of dollars worth of grain in western Canada. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mentioned this afternoon a figure of $36 million in Alberta. We must remember that even
February 4, 1969
5146	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act though Alberta produces a large amount of grain, Saskatchewan produces more wheat than Alberta and Manitoba put together. I am not saying this to brag, but wheat happens to be our chief agricultural commodity. So if Alberta is faced with a loss of $36 million, we can say we are faced with a loss of $72 million, to use a compararable figure, and Manitoba faces a loss of $36 million. If you add up these figures, you can readily understand some of the difficulties and problems that we have, as well as the loss they may be incurred as a result of this emergency situation in western Canada.
So I am in favour of this legislation and, although it is too late and too little, there are many things that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), and the Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), together with their colleagues could do to show they are really interested in agriculture. I hope they will take further action in this respect.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have no problem supporting amendments to Bill No. C-162. At the same time the remark made by the Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) that in some cases a shortage of ready cash and credit may be impeding the drying operations is the understatement of the year. This fact should have been realized way back last fall, and brought to the attention of the government. I was particularly interested in hearing the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) a short while ago refer to the fact that finally the government has taken the bull by the horns. I suggest the farmer is getting fed up by the amount of "bull by the horns" action that is taking place and he is prepared now to see some real action take place. We know about the belligerent attitude of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) last fall when these questions were brought to his attention forcibly. Then, he refused to give us any answers. He told us: "There is no use crying yet, boys, you are not hurt", but the farmers and the minister knew then that the farmers were going to be hurt and that something had to be done.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister Without Portfolio are familiar with agricultural problems. I agree that possibly they would have liked to do something if they could have convinced their colleagues of the necessity for action. I was very pleased to see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce go out


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have had a rather long discussion on the grain situation on the prairies while proceeding with the second reading of this bill. We have heard hon. members opposite repeating for the third or fourth time speeches they made earlier in the house. I am happy to see the prose is slightly improving as they go on, although the text does not change.
The debate was led off by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and perhaps I should refer to a few of the things he said. He was kind enough to ask whether I was in the habit of saying in Saskatchewan what I have been saying here about the grain situation. I should like to reassure him about that. He referred to a speech I made in which I may not have mentioned the grain situation. But, of course, he overlooked one I made two days before at the Farm and Home Week in which the grain situation was the sole topic.
DEBATES	5147
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
I have no trouble discussing this issue with the grain farmers in Saskatchewan because if the situation is put to them in the way I see it they end up agreeing with me. I find no difficulty in understanding that the mail received by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) should be rather different from the mail which I receive. He receives mail along the lines: don't you think it would be a good idea to give us something. While I get mail from people who say they are getting on with the job, and asking for suggestions and comments as to how they can best help themselves. This is the key to the present situation.
I might add that the right hon. member for Prince Albert-I refer to this to set the record straight-made reference to a couple of portfolios in connection with myself. This is typical of the right hon. gentleman's performance, one at which the country has often marvelled, when he takes a half truth and runs a long way with it. The difficulty in this instance is that the part of the truth involved was even less than usual and the distance run was far greater than normal.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that there is an extremely serious cash and credit position affecting agriculture on the prairies, that there is a serious cash shortage and a serious extension of credit. This has resulted in the difficult position in which farmers find themselves when tackling the work of drying grain. Hence, this legislation. I have no doubt, however, that the cash and credit situation is a symptom of a deeper problem. I should like to refer hon. members opposite again to something I have suggested to them once before, namely, that they are doing the cause of western agriculture no good at all by homing in and complaining and panicking about every issue from which they think they can get a political advantage. When I said "panicking" I did not mean the farmers. I was speaking about the panicking of hon. members opposite in a political way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to point out to hon. members opposite that in the process of doing this they are debasing the coinage of their argument throughout the rest of Canada about the fundamental problems of agriculture.
I am happy to say that several members opposite did get the message and did deal with the fundamental issues affecting the
February 4, 1969

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act serious economic position in which agriculture finds itself. This is a long term situation. It is a situation which has existed for years, though it has varied in intensity and seriousness, depending upon a number of things. A bumper crop can stave off the difficulty for a while but essentially the problem is an underlying one. Hon. members opposite attempt in a very petty way to assess blame from the vantage point of their hindsight two or three months later, but it does no good to the cause of agriculture.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could ask a question at this point?


Mr. Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldf):: I would prefer that the hon. member put any question he might wish to ask at the conclusion of my remarks.


Gerald William Baldwin: We shall have a lot of time in committee.


Richard Russell Southam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a statement criticizing members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Again,
members of the opposition have used the 3-bushel quota in an attempt to assess blame in connection with that. I should like to draw their attention to the many months which went by after that quota had been brought into effect before they began to think they could use it for petty political advantage, though they welcomed it at the beginning.


Mr. McIntosh:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: He is a stooge. The minister cannot impute motives to the opposition and you are allowing him to do so, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He is not.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Oh, sit down, stooge.


Otto Emil Lang: This has been their tactics throughout. Now again, instead of simply welcoming the bill and allowing it to pass, they point to this fault and to that fault, with the benefit of two month's hindsight. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) referred to the bill as a pretext and a farce. But I have no doubt that if he is in the house he will vote for it.


I appeal to members of the opposition. It might be thought I should not be concerned about members of the opposition and the way in which they are debasing the coinage of their case, but I am concerned because they should be spokesmen for agriculture in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to say that the progress which has been made in dealing with the damp grain situation is a real credit to many thousands of individuals. Some of the measures taken by the government have been an important help. I have in mind the accelerated depreciation allowance, the tariff remissions, and co-operation with provincial departments of agriculture in organizing individual enterprise. I should like to pay tribute to the provincial departments of agriculture in a general way, as well as to agricultural representatives and others in the provinces who have done an excellent job in bringing to the attention of individual farmers the best ways in which to dry grain.
I was in Saskatoon over the weekend with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and we were extremely impressed by the manner in which the grain drying equipment which is now there in great quantities is being readied for the great task ahead.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Being readied? Why is it not ready now?


Otto Emil Lang: It is not
in operation because of the weather conditions, but it is being readied, and in an efficient manner. It is being located in many instances near local elevators so that the drying can be done both swiftly and efficiently and so that the equipment at the local elevator itself may be used in the operation to reduce the drying cost. In most cases it was reported to me that the cost of drying is in this way being reduced to eight to ten cents a bushel, or something much less than had been spoken of previously with regard to many operations. In this fashion, individual farmers are capable of dealing with the damp grain situation.
There was a time when they were waiting, hoping that they could deliver more grain to the system for drying than was actually possible. On January 15, the transportation committee issued a release emphasizing that no farmer could expect any additional quota for
February 4, 19B9	COMMONS
damp grain above the three bushels which had been opened by the Wheat Board earlier in the year. This was firm notice to the farmers that the drying job, which could be done at the local level with a significant degree of organization, had to be done; that it was important that the organization be commenced.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Upon receipt of this notice the grain drying equipment began to move into position and to be made ready for operation. I am not in any way suggesting that a serious problem has now disappeared. Neither am I suggesting in any way that those individuals who have performed well in regard to this operation can now let up. The situation will continue to demand an important and all-out effort.
Indeed, it has been discovered that this year's grain may not keep as well as damp grain has kept in past years; that the peculiar frost and damp conditions may mean that the grain will not keep as well in spring weather as it has kept in past times. I emphasize this because it is important that we get on with the job in the quickest possible time.
I should now like to come to the issue that has been raised by some of the members opposite as to whether there should have been a grant to those who have dried grain instead of a loan. Again, I suggest that this is the kind of unfortunate suggestion that is made by hon. members opposite which misleads people who are outside the agricultural community into thinking that the fundamental reason for there being an income problem on the farms is the damp grain situation that exists this year, or it is due to this problem or the other problem.
Although this is not the fundamental problem, people who themselves are not farmers may be misled into thinking it is because of the way the problem has been tackled. It would not have made sense to give an outright grant to those farmers with grain to dry when side by side there may have been a farmer whose crops had suffered frost damage or who for one reason or another had no crop at all. Although one can fall back on the basic economic argument about the need for assistance to agriculture, it should not be tied to the peculiar existence of damp grain this year. I urge that consideration very strenuously on all members of this house.
In the course of the debate, some points were raised which were relevant to the bill itself. Hon. members opposite asked some questions about its operation, and in one or 29180-326
DEBATES	5149
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act two cases about its meaning. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) indicated that he had an amendment which he thought it might be necessary to move and asked me whether I would comment upon the concern he felt. I think I can show him that the amendment he referred to is in fact not necessary and that the cash advances act, as amended, will be adequate to allow for every situation.
Under the act no farmer is in default until a number of circumstances occur. If he has been making his deliveries he is not in default until December 31. The hon. member thought that perhaps this date should be extended. I would point out to him that this is not necessary, because where a farmer wishes so to do he can merge any outstanding balance in this year's cash advance with the cash advance for which he may apply next year and thereby update any outstanding cash advance. This will be the general situation.
There may be a situation where a farmer has an outstanding cash advance but has no crop next year, and therefore cannot apply for a cash advance. As the hon. member pointed out, in those special cases there is discretion vested in the Wheat Board to extend or to waive the ordinary default provisions. In that way, there is adequate provision made for default situations.
If this measure passes in short order, I expect that the assistance available under the act will be extended to farmers early next week. Farmers will apply for assistance on forms supplied to the elevator companies by the Wheat Board, and the cash will be made available to the farmers at the local elevator.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked about the repayment situation. The answer to his question is that the additional amount borrowed under the emergency cash advance provision is added on at the end of the repayment schedule without changing the schedule. This is a question which farmers on the prairies have been asking and which I appreciate the hon. member raising so that the matter can be brought forcefully to their attention.
I think I have dealt with most of the points that I should deal with at this stage, and I urge hon. members to join with me in their spoken intention to see early passage of this measure. May I indicate to all members that I should like to ask for their co-operation and proceed to third reading tonight, as well as complete the next stage.
February 4, 1969

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, pursuant to standing order 54, the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-162, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
On clause 1-Emergency advance payments.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am eager to have clause 1 carried and also to have the bill carried this evening; I assure you and the committee of that fact at the commencement of my remarks. I should like to refer to the minister as the assistant minister of trade and commerce, though that is not his proper title. His position is more like that of a parliamentary secretary except it is an honorary one in that he gets cabinet pay but does little more than that which is done by a parliamentary secretary. His leader does not feel him worthy to have the Wheat Board placed firmly within his jurisdiction. While he may well have been a lawyer and a dean of law, he has been a long time off the farm. His remarks tonight prove that fact beyond the shadow of a doubt. I must warn him that he has lost touch with the basic facts of farming. He said, in reviewing clause 1 of the bill, that the opposition is up to its old tactics and will just not allow the bill to pass. His attitude was that we should welcome the bill and allow it to pass. Why is it that the Liberals of this house are like the Liberals of old? They think they operate by divine right; that everything they bring in is right; that nothing they do should be criticized and that all their actions should be welcomed by those representing farm ridings. The minister's attitude was that we should bow down on one knee and say, "Thank you, Mr. Minister, for bringing in this bill. We now allow it to pass." That is what he said in essence. Why is it the Liberals think they have a divine right to be in power and that everything they do is all right.
e (9:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Give it to them, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said this afternoon that the Liberals brought in this bill too late. They did not act early enough to take care of this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said this afternoon the government should have been aware of the situation as early as October and met it with concrete steps. Instead, they bring in a bill which, in the minister's words, does nothing more than allow farmers $600 on top of the $6,000 they already owe. The minister said, "Don't worry; this may be carried on next year; we do not expect the farmers to pay the loan back next year because it may be carried on." I live and farm in what is commonly called a "next year" country. I am well aware of the effect this type of legislation will have on our population.


An hon. Member:: Speak up there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would not have spoken unless the minister had made some glaring omissions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The catcalls from the government benches show the government supporters are not concerned about this problem. They do not realize the extent of the problem facing western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure that rural voters of Saskatchewan and city voters of Calgary did not elect hon. members to come down here and laugh when agricultural problems touching western Canada are discussed. I am sure those constituents did not send their members here to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If they want to hoot and laugh and make fun-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: At least I speak my mind-


An hon. Member:: Say something.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am. I remember when the farmers of Ontario marched to Ottawa last fall. The tractors rolled up. Some of them were good looking tractors and some of them were poor looking tractors. Some had signs and some were without signs. I remember one tractor that had a sign saying, "Pierre doesn't care." I read that sign and thought how true
February 4, 1969

it was. I thought the "doesn't care" meant the Prime Minister didn't care.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tonight, we are having a lot of hoots and catcalls from the government benches. There are a whole lot more hon. members over there who, along with Pierre, do not care about our agricultural problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has just come back from a trip to Saskatoon, where he was last week end, and was pleased to see a lot of the grain drying equipment now is being readied. I must emphasize the words, "is being readied". I was thunderstruck that a minister would have the gall to come into the house at this time and say, first, "You in the opposition should welcome this bill, support it and let it pass". Then, after returning from his trip last week to Saskatoon he adds "A lot of the grain drying equipment is being readied for the drying of grain." We heard that from the No. 1 minister involved in wheat marketing.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I had the Prime Minister's vocabulary I might say, why the hell hasn't the equipment been readied?


An hon. Members:: Speak up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Of course, I haven't the Prime Minister's vocabulary but I shall still use his words. Why has the equipment not been readied? Why was it not ready two months ago? Why is the equipment not drying grain now? Why is it not working at 100 per cent of capacity today? Why is it "to be readied" or "being made ready"?
The minister may say, "Oh, but I do not accept responsibility for the ineptitude of this minister or that minister. The Wheat Board is the responsibility of one minister and it is really he who is responsible for this. But the equipment is being readied for drying."
It is clear that when it comes to delegating responsibility, the government adopts a scat-tergun approach. Responsibility is given to one minister over there, another minister over here and still a third somewhere else. One minister is responsible for the grain council, and a second attendant from Saskatchewan is given another bit of responsibility.
5151
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act I do not yet know exactly what his responsibilities are. He is an honorary parliamentary secretary; that's just about what he is. He is a so called honorary parliamentary secretary receiving the pay of a cabinet minister and not earning it. If grain matters were the entire responsibility of one minister, we might know where to pin responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the minister can go out to his own riding in the first week of February and then say that grain drying equipment is being readied or to be readied, I say to him he has not earned his honorary parliamentary secretary's pay, which is the same as a cabinet minister's. He said that we on this side had suggested that farmers should receive grants, his attitude being that it would be terrible to suggest grants when some farmers have already dried their grain and others harvested their grain dry. We on this side have suggested that grants should be made available in order to permit grain dryers to be moved to where the damp grain is. Has the government done anything about this? It has not.
We suggested that permits be granted for the movement of damp grain across the U.S. border to drying facilities. The reaction of the Minister of Agriculture was, "That is very interesting-a novel suggestion. Why have we not thought of that before. We will give it consideration." We on this side of the house suggested the removal of tariffs on commercial dryers coming into Canada, a minor item. On farm dryers there was no tariff, because the government had acted on one of our suggestions. I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that the tariff on steel silage bins which can store damp grain or hay be removed; he has not done that, and that is a minor matter.


An hon. Member:: Shout louder.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Words of wisdom are coming from government backbenchers. We in the opposition are always pleased when government backbenchers speak, because they rarely have the chance to do so. I have always believed in free speech and I always encourage government backbenchers to take the opportunity to speak. I welcome interruptions from government backbenchers, because only when interrupting are they allowed to speak. They can interrupt me all they like.


An hon. Member:: Speak up.
February 4, 1969

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry government backbenchers suffer stiff hands to close their mouths, because the cabinet and the Prime Minister are doing just that in keeping them silent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: You are a sick man.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A good many catcalls are coming from the government side. I have just listed four steps which ought to have been taken. The government has only acted on one of them. Hon. members of the opposition have suggested, and we suggest once again, the setting up of a transport controller to control the movement of grain at Vancouver. Although the government has weighed the pros and cons of the issue, it has not acted. When the Pearson government took office some years ago there were 60 days of decision. This government is prepared to have four years of indecision.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government says they are reviewing the grain handling problem. I say they are reviewing so much they cannot review the grain program. They have handed to a grain council the task of reviewing the marketing, research, production and transportation of grain. We have never been informed who is paying for this review. Will it be the farmer or the government? That question has not yet been answered.


An hon. Member:: They know the answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not condemning this bill. As the minister has suggested, if we don't like it then we don't vote for it. This bill, we admit, is a step in the right direction but we state categorically that it is far too late.


An hon. Member:: Too little, too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is proud because of the fact he went to Saskatoon to review the grain handling situation. I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who is from the province of Alberta, and is fairly knowl-edgable in some phases of agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -is he concerned about the forecast by the Alberta Department of Agriculture that Alberta farmers may lose $36 million if the grain is not dried before

spring? There are approximately 76,000 farmers in that province. One can see that $36 million divided amongst 76,000 farmers amounts to a sizeable loss of money per farmer.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) sits smug in his seat. Some hon. members call him Scrooge. He really doesn't care because he knows eventually he will get it all anyway.


Mr. Benson:: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The farmers do not receive too much. In any case, if they did he knows he will get it all when the farmer dies. I would like the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture to make a study of the age of Canadian farmers. How gleaming and smiling the Minister of Finance is when I suggest the farmer's age. He knows how quick he will own the land, and then he will be able to say to the Prime Minister, "Now we own the land, we have to sell the wheat. The farmers are working for us". That is the attitude he has adopted.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to Bill C-162.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.


James Hugh Faulkner: I also ask the hon. members of the committee to bear in mind the hon. member's time is limited and he should be allowed time to make his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I apologize for straying from Bill C-162, Mr. Chairman, but if you could only understand the concern of western farmers with regard to the estate tax,-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -the number of letters which I and other members receive concerning estate taxes-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When I see the gleaming look in the eyes of the Minister of Finance, I cannot help being diverted.


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I would simply like to say to my hon. friend that if I am gleaming over here it is only because of my friendship for him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I have found him to be a courteous person with whom to discuss matters but a
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
difficult person to convert or change his opinion. There is a question between the two of us. The minister says the special burden on the farmer is not undue. Any lawyer will realize these terms are debatable and argumentative. I am not a lawyer but I would like to defend the fact that the estate tax is a special burden on the farmers.
May I return to Bill C-162? I have suggested five specific things the government should do. They have done one. I should now like to make the sixth suggestion. They should have consulted with the municipalities and offered a bonus for moving the large commercially operated grain driers to the damp grain areas. The government could have facilitated the movement of grain driers, even the ones manufactured in my constituency. Last fall they could have paid a bonus to anyone who purchased a grain drier. The Minister of Agriculture has suggested the opposition never offer constructive suggestions. I now give a seventh suggestion. The government could have paid a subsidy of $50 or $100 to a farmer purchasing a grain drier. The government made no such suggestion because they were not concerned. They threw the problem back in the lap of the farmer. The Cabinet told Mr. McNamara, the head of the Wheat Board, to advise the farmers to dry the grain themselves. The farmers will have to dry 800 million bushels.
We lost grain sales, we lost ships. One ship returned to Germany last week. Another went to Australia to pick up grain and we lost the sale of 500 million bushels to that country. Who is going to pay the demurrage charges on the ships from Japan which will amount to $32,000? The farmers of western Canada will have to pay that unless the government is prepared to pay it. We do not necessarily object to the passage of this bill. The point I am making is that it does not go far enough. The minister says the government is doing a great job, and therefore we should allow the bill to pass. We cannot do this if the minister feels this is the final answer to the whole grain drying problem. I say it is not the only answer to the problems of western Canada.
I have listed this evening seven definite steps which could be taken. The government has taken only one, and that was to remove the tariff on commercial grain driers. There have been less than 100 driers enter Canada since the removal of that tariff which amounts to practically nothing. I say to the minister who is piloting this bill through the House of Commons, if you want to earn your pay then get acquainted with the problem and be
DEBATES	5153
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act determined to convince your colleagues of the seriousness of the problem. It is not good enough to sit with a bunch of trained seals behind you patting you on the back. These pats on the back are not earned. The group is well trained and they pat you on the back for no reason.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We on this side will pat you on the back when you do a job and earn the pat. But when you rise in your place, in the first week of February, and say that the grain drying equipment is being readied you get no pat on the back from this side of the house. This equipment should have been ready three months ago. I say to you that, as a new member of parliament and a new minister, you have a hard road ahead but you will get your share of credit from this side of the house if you earn it, but not unless you earn it.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. I possibly should have done this earlier but I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Crowfoot in the full flow of his adrenalin. Others less charitable might say martinis, but I will settle for adrenalin. In any case, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member chose, and I think it is the third time this session that allusions have been made from the other side, to refer to what I have been doing in this house at a given time. This may, of course, be attributable to the unusual amount of time I spend here by some people's standards, but in any case I would like to record that when I was alleged to be hooting and so on, I was behind the curtain smoking.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, let us establish very clearly that this is not a point of privilege. A point of privilege has to be raised at the very earliest possible opportunity, and certainly I never at any time referred to the hon. member for Calgary South. However, I say to the hon. member that if the cap fits, wear it. I also represent part of the city of Calgary-


Albert Béchard: Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am speaking on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: There is no point of order. If the hon. member has a point of order I would like him to state it.
February 4. 1969

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My point of order is that the hon. member for Calgary South rose to speak on a point of privilege. The point of privilege was, in fact, not a point of privilege. He referred to me as being in full flight in a speech on agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, he boasted about his record of attendance in the House of Commons, which was completely uncalled for. I can only say that, in view of the remarks he made during the election campaign-


Albert Béchard: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -to the effect that Calgary is not concerned with agriculture, today he must have a guilty conscience with regard to the whole subject of agriculture.


Albert Béchard: Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I was a little bit surprised this evening to hear the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) accuse the opposition of bad faith and then say that he hoped the co-operation of the house would be given to get this bill passed this evening. Really, Mr. Chairman, the two approaches are a bit conflicting, and we have had the old panic button bit again. I, myself, would like to see this bill go through tonight, not because I am fully convinced it is what should be done, but I think it is all the government intends to do.
I do not intend to say anything about grain movements or that sort of thing. However, I will say that in my opinion the government has failed to tell this house the nature of the problem and how it proposes to deal with it. For example, the government has not indicated how many millions of bushels it thinks we have to contend with under this bill. There has been no indication of the probable cost per bushel of drying grain or how this offer is related to the probable cost per bushel of drying it. The Minister has not dealt with the number of machines and the type of equipment available. These are the relevant facts that I had expected the government to put before the house.
If we on this side are being asked to support this bill, and if our co-operation is requested, then we must consider the kind of information that should have been provided to the house. I am not going to deal further with this matter except to say, as I have said before in the house, that the farmers do not
[The Deputy Chairman.]

come here as beggars or supplicants. This is a serious situation and we expect it to be dealt with in a serious manner.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, in light of the minister's remarks I have a similar feeling to that of my colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar. If the minister thinks for one moment that we enjoy castigating him, I can tell him that we do not. In fact, we think he is a nice fellow.
Starting back on October 14 proposals were made by members in the opposition, both in the Official Opposition and in our group, dealing with this problem. We are not suggesting that our proposals were 100 per cent right. They were made on specific points. A dozen proposals were made by members in this group and by members of the Official Opposition, yet we have never received the courtesy of a concrete reply from government ministers as to how good, bad, adequate or inadequate they thought our proposals.
We do not pretend that our proposals were perfect. We put them forward as ideas, and we would have liked to receive a reply to them. But we did not get that. Instead of a reply from the minister we got abuse; we were told that we speak in bad faith and that we are trying to gain political advantage. Mr. Chairman, in that respect we do not need to say a word because the action or inaction of the government is giving us all the political advantage we need in the prairie provinces.
However, I will say this for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), he is the first and only minister to date who has fairly answered the proposals made by members in the opposition parties. These proposals have been made a number of times since mid-October concerning direct cash payments for the drying of grain and putting it into marketable condition. He is the first and only one who finally said no. We could not even get that answer out of the Minister of Agriculture, although I am sure he was getting that answer from the Minister of Finance.
The minister and the government are perfectly entitled to decide as a matter of policy that they will not make a cash outlay for this purpose. However, it is wrong to use the kind of logic that the minister used when he said that if he makes cash payments to farmers who have grain to dry, then what about the farmer who does not have to dry grain, and what about the farmer who does not have a crop at all?
Let us apply the same logic to the occasion when the Winnipeg flood occurred and public
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
funds were spent on behalf of the city of Winnipeg, and rightly so. The question could then have been asked, what about all the other poor cities that did not have a flood. You could apply the same logic to the case of the steel plant in Nova Scotia when funds were provided to save it. At that time there were lots of other steel plants doing well. Such a logical reason for not providing cash advances does not wash with members of this house.
I submit that probably the Minister without Portfolio, his colleague the minister of Agriculture, and possibly the hon. member for Assiniboia made sincere efforts to persuade the government, and in particular the Minister of Finance, to part with some money but they did not succeed. That is fine if they have done that, and I will give them A for effort. But I refuse to accept the kind of arguments the minister put forward tonight as logical or reasonable against the idea of providing cash outlays to put cereal grains in a marketable condition.
The other day I raised another question. I would still like to know if the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister of Agriculture or anyone else answered the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union request. If so, what was the answer? The proposals by the members of the opposition just did not originate with the New Democratic party or the Conservative party. The Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Alberta Farmers Union, all these ask for the same thing. If the minister suggests they are all wet too, I hope he will stand up and say so. I also wonder whether the minister can assure me, if it is already in the legislation I may have missed it, that it is possible for a farmer to carry over a cash advance in the next year. If such provision is in the legislation, perhaps he would point out to me where it is. If it is not in the legislation, I should like to know whether it is in a regulation somewhere. If he can satisfy me on this point, then I will agree that an amendment to section 13 is not necessary. If he cannot satisfy me on this point, I would hope the minister would look at it again and quickly bring in an amendment to the bill.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a few remarks to the minister, more in sorrow than in anger, in connection with
DEBATES	5155
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act this matter. I recognize his right to give the answer he did on second reading, but I suggest to the hon. gentleman who is now assuming other responsibilities that when the members of any opposition party in the full exercise of their rights and responsibilities criticize the manner in which the government has introduced a bill, criticize the extent to which the bill goes in terms of meeting the problems with which it is designed to deal, that ministers playing partisan politics should not seize on this opportunity to attack opposition members as it seems to me the hon. gentleman did. He talked about half truths. This seems to me to be very peculiar coming from a member of a government which would not recognize the truth if it lay down alongside it.
The former constituency of Peace River embraced within its limits more farmers than any other constituency in this country. It was redistributed and split up, so this situation no longer prevails. I have been content to leave in the hands of my competent colleagues in Her Majesty's loyal opposition the task of criticizing the various agricultural measures which have been brought in. I have not said anything, although at times I felt I should have. However, I believe they have fairly put what people have been saying all over Canada; that is, that it is about time this government got off its big, fat, lazy establishment and did something. That has been the tenor of our criticism and I believe it is justified and rational criticism. I am sorry the government has not taken into account the few hundred dollars which are being paid by this measure, which barely constitutes the amount by which the Minister of Finance and the government have caused inflation in this country. The $600 probably represents the extra cost of living which the farmer has to pay today.


Edgar John Benson: Nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister will have an opportunity to deal with this later on his own measure. Never have we seen with regard to the agricultural problems of western Canada a more flabby, futile, indifferent, inefficient, attitude by a government. The weather has been used as an excuse for not doing what needs to be done. I think this is a terrible example. In the past few days I have had letters from constituents in my area who mentioned meetings which had been held at which the Liberal candidate, among others, had attended. The only solution presented to those meetings was that the poor farmers in the Peace River country could wait until
February 4, 1969

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act some time in the late spring, then possibly the Minister of Agriculture would go there to console them. They could weep on his shoulder. This is small consolation in respect of the problems which face these people.
I think that the minister, who is obviously concerned about seeing this bill go through, might benefit if he would read the contribution made in this house by the former minister of transport, now the President of the Canadian Transport Commission, concerning the piloting of a difficult bill. That gentleman referred to the importance of securing the participation and co-operation of hon. members from all sides of the house.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, unlike my colleague the hon. member for Peace River, I rise to speak on the first clause of this bill more in anger than in sorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, oh, oh! I only wish I could convey to members of the house how angry a great number of the farmers are about the inability of this government to cope with this agricultural problem. I have listened, until I am sick and tired, to the utterances of the two ministers who are in the house tonight to the effect that the members of the opposition who have spoken on behalf of the grain farmers are doing a disservice to the people whom they represent, the western farmers. This is their excuse. Much has been made of the weather, and the fact nobody anticipated this type of weather. These ministers also make excuses about transportation, the lack of box cars, and the lack of sales. Then, when they have anticipated sales they do not know how to cope with them. As one hon. member pointed out boats are sent away empty. This is a disgrace because these things have an affect on the economy of the whole country and not just that of western Canada.
I say to the minister from Saskatoon that he is doing a disservice to the people he is supposed to be fighting for in this house. If he would make the statement he has made about the opposition members to the cabinet, outlining the disservice the cabinet is doing to the grain farmers because of their inability to find markets for the grain and the lack of future planning, then he would be doing a service to the western farmers. He would also be doing a service to his party because the position of the Liberal party in western Canada is now even worse than it was during the last election, and that is saying something. I suggest that the minister should be telling the

cabinet they should review their whole attitude with regard to agriculture since they came to power in 1963 because they have said, time and time again on public platforms, that it is not up to them to sell wheat. These ministers say that for the Canadian Wheat Board should sell wheat and that it was just a circumstance that wheat was sold when another government was in power. When the farmers in western Canada have experienced both types of administration with regard to agriculture, they find such statements hard to swallow. The next time the minister stands on the platform in an election campaign he will have difficulty in putting that argument across.


Albert Béchard: Order. I would ask the hon. member to restrict his argument to clause 1 of the bill.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I have deviated from clause 1 but it is a very broad clause. I am sure I can substantiate the statements I have made because I felt the statements the minister made should be answered from this side of the house. He has given his own members a wrong picture. The minister is giving all the eastern members an incorrect picture. The eastern members feel that every time farmers from western Canada receive either an interim of final payment from the Wheat Board that this money comes out of the federal treasury. This is not so; it is the farmers' own money.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The minister referred to grants requested by some members on this side of the house. What is wrong with that? The farmers of western Canada have contributed to every national project in this country, including the St. Lawrence Seaway and the C.B.C., although until last year my constituents had for the previous eight years paid an average of $20 per house per year and did not receive service from the C.B.C. These people did not complain one bit.
There is one disservice the minister is doing the people he represents; he should be trying to paint the proper picture to his colleagues from western Canada on that side of the house and some of those from eastern Canada on this side. Western farmers do not receive the grants which some people have suggested they do. They are losing money out of the wheat pool, and are losing money by reason of the ships being tied up in Vancouver. The farmers will have to pay the demurrage charges in this connection. This money
February 4, 1969

does not come from the national treasury; it comes off the price the farmer gets for his wheat. The farmer suffers the loss in this regard. The minister should be explaining these things to his cabinet colleagues so they may understand the problem. Then, perhaps they would not be cat-calling as they did this evening when members on this side of the house tried to fight for their constituents.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to other business I should like to confirm that tomorrow and Thursday we shall be calling as the first order of business the bill to amend the Estate Tax Act. Perhaps I could also indicate that there have been discussions, and particularly a suggestion, that although the Minister of Justice will himself be occupied at the federal-provincial conference next week we propose to call again the second reading of the omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code. This will be done on the understanding that at a later stage, either that week or the following week, the minister will close the debate. Therefore hon. members interested in participating in the debate have notice that the bill will be coming forward again, probably on February 11 rather than, as I suggested on a earlier date, February 17.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order 40 deemed to have been moved.

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the house the question I asked the other day with regard to vocational training. On January 21 I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) whether additional funds would be made available for vocational training and facilities therefor. He indicated that no additional funds would be allocated for vocational training in technical schools. I then asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on January 24 whether, having in mind his statement that with the elimination
DEBATES	5157
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the municipal winter works program, additional funds would be provided for the upgrading of such technical schools as required them? Would he agree that there should be funds allotted for such a purpose, particularly because of the urgency connected with the situation? My question was not accepted and I referred it to the late show.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the statements made in the house by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In October, the Prime Minister said he had explained that the winter works program would be replaced by programs entailing much higher and much more useful expenditures as far as the economic expansion of the country was concerned. In answer to a question the Prime Minister also said that when the government abandoned the winter works program, it did so because it felt there were other ways in which to ensure prosperity. On September 16 he said that we must terminate any programs which could be replaced by more productive ones, and must defer any which were not immediately essential. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) suggested that our intention was to increase the amount of training during this period.
This program was not introduced in order to help municipalities but to improve the employment position in the winter time. I would suggest that in each and every one of these cases those responsible for making the statements were dealing with the upgrading of people going to technical and vocational schools. It put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) as to whether additional funds would be available, and he answered "no". I now suggest that an answer should be given in the house as to whether or not the additional funds that were said to be allocated for the upgrading of those people who need this type of training will be provided. It appears that no such funds are available. We realize that there is some difficulty in projecting what will be necessary in the future for the upgrading of certain skills, but I suggest that in these provinces where technical and vocational schools are provided there is a definite need for federal participation in view of the rapid movement of employees in this country.
We all realize that there is a great mobility in our society, and it becomes the federal responsiblity to provide funds to upgrade those people who must move. I suggest there is a real urgency in providing this type of
February 4, 1969
5158	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion facility. I am given to understand that the budget has not been increased to provide additional funds for the upgrading of the vocational training which is desperately needed at this time.
I believe in all sincerity that the government, in the statements that have been made in the house, has led us down the garden path in suggesting to us that the municipal winter works program was curtailed in order to provide additional funds for vocational training. If this is the case and no additional funds are being provided, then what was the purpose of the government in suggesting they would cut down the municipal winter works program to provide this type of funds? We knew at the time that the abandonment of the winter works program would curtail employment in the communities as well as on projects that were well planned in advance.
We ended up with more unemployment than was necessary and without the facilities to make the upgrading of these people possible. I suggest that some answer should be given in the house by the minister as to whether or not the government was sincere when it said that addtional funds would be provided for vocational training in this nation.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: It is true that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) asked this question on January 21 and 24. It is also a fact that the government was very sincere when they said sufficient funds had been put away for that purpose to the extent that the budget would allow. In point of fact, retraining funds have been substantially increased in all provinces this winter, well beyond the money that would have been spent had the winter works program been continued. In the Atlantic provinces the increase has been in the neighbourhood of $9 million, for a total of approximately $29 million. When this $9 million increase is set against the total federal winter works expenditure of just over half a million dollars, one can appreciate the impact of this additional effort. In Ontario, the training program expenditures are up by $13.5 million, and in Quebec by $18.6 million.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In the hon. member's own province, the funds have been increased from $5.4 million to $7.6 million. This compares with a winter works outlay of less than three quarters of a


million dollars in 1967-68. The total expenditure on the winter works program for 1967-68 amounted to about $25 million and the increase in the cost of the manpower training program provided for in this year's budget amounts to 100 per cent. So, provision is made in this year's budget for double the money spent on the winter works program. This being the case, no doubt can be read into the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the words of the minister directly responsible when they say the winter works program has been changed to allow for a form of expenditure which would be of greater benefit to those concerned.
Even though the hon. member may not be satisfied by the way in which we are spending this money he should at least, in my view, recognize the effort the government is making in this field, and take a note of the expenditures involved. I cannot say what the next budget will bring, but I am pretty sure that there will be a further increase in the sum provided. It is along these lines that the government intends to proceed to correct some of the problems in connection with which members of the government are reproaching-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, because his time has expired.



ESTATE TAX ACT-INFORMATION TO HONOURABLE MEMBERS RESPECTING LEGISLATION

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question arises out of one I directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on January 29 suggesting a possible leak by members of the government caucus with regard to certain proposed changes in the Estate Tax proposal.
If one refers to Hansard at page 4899, one will find that I asked the minister whether he had authorized the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Smerchanski) and the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Cobbe) to disclose his intention to make certain changes, and bow to some of the opposition to the bill. The minister replied: "No, Mr. Speaker".
The reason I object to that answer is that just by the sheerest coincidence the two hon. members I mentioned had held a press conference at Liberal party headquarters in Winnipeg on the Monday. I am told the hon. member for Portage had appeared on television. And they made statements to the press.
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
I have before me a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 28, wherein it is stated:
Changes in the proposed estates tax bill are expected to be announced in Ottawa shortly by Finance Minister E. J. Benson, two Manitoba M.P.s disclosed at a Winnipeg press conference.
Gerald R. Cobbe, chairman of the Manitoba federal caucus, and Mark G. Smerchanski said the Canadian Finance Minister had decided to bow to the opposition on the bill that had come up from both within and without the party in recent weeks.
First, they dealt with the matter of exemption, and indicated the exemption figure would probably be made considerably higher. The exact figure of $50,000 was not given, but it was indicated the figure would be considerably higher. In the second place, the press were told the revised proposal would include:
An altered method of paying so that estate taxes could, if necessary, be paid over, say, a five-year period-an annual penalty based on "current interest rates" to be charged.
The report continued:
To eliminate the uncertainty about proposed legislation that would not be retroactive to October, 1968, an arrangement whereby the new tax would only take effect from the date it becomes law. Thus, persons in the process of making decisions regarding their estates until then could have an option of whether they prefer the old or the new legislation.
Other statements were made by the two hon. members, blowing their own horns, to the effect that they had put pressure on the minister, and so forth.
That is just so much barnyard fertilizer, Mr. Speaker. We know there was opposition. There has been opposition by mail. There has been every type of opposition from this side of the house. There has been opposition from backbenchers. Those chaps aren't telling us anything. The minister's own members would tell us that they were opposed to many of these things.
Speeches were made on the subject by members on this side, both inside and outside the house. I have heard speeches made before the tax foundation, assessments of the proposals, and I participated in the discussions. But what I am objecting to is members of the government party claiming that they have influence on the minister and are able to zero in on precisely the three points that were announced by the minister in his press release the following day. The coincidence is very close, and is also very touching.


Edgar John Benson: It is not close at all. Read what was said.
29180-327J
DEBATES	5159
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know what the modifications are as much as the minister. The exemption was raised considerably. They did not use the figure of $50,000, but it was considerably higher than the $20,000 that they mentioned. With regard to payments being spread over five years, again this indication was given, and also the current interest rates were mentioned. This is precisely what has been provided for, instalment payments. That provision is in the minister's own statement.


Mr. Thompson (Red Deer):: Over five years though.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says in his statement that there will be up to six instalments, but these are over a period of five years.


Edgar John Benson: That is now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not intervening for the purpose of informing the hon. member that time has expired but to remind both the hon. member and the minister that there should be no debate at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I could argue with the minister on this. Previously there was an option. The minister could grant relief in the case of hardship; now it is granted as a matter of right. But the period is five years with six instalments.
There is also an option with regard to the legislation coming into effect. In the case of persons whose estates fall in before August 1, 1969 they can elect either to be assessed under the old legislation or under the new provisions, and as far as the estate is concerned they will naturally chose the more advantageous alternative. This is also forecast. Slightly different words were used, but that was the intent of them.
What I am asking is how these two members were able to call a press conference and announce that these would be the changes to be made about four or five days before the minister actually made his announcement.


Mr. Francis:: They were smart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will take care of the hon. member later.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have only three minutes as opposed to the seven minutes taken by the
February 4, 1969
5160	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion hon. member. First of all, in respect to the estate tax I did not receive a single letter or request for a meeting from any member of the opposition. Secondly, I should like to say that the most frequent submissions with regard to the estate tax dealt with the level of the exemptions and difficulties concerning payment of estate tax, as well as with what would happen to the estates of people who died before the law came into effect. Everybody knew this except the opposition members, who were not paying any attention to what was happening.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister is factually wrong.


Edgar John Benson: I told everybody who made these submissions that I would give them sympathetic consideration, in the same way as I have said I would give sympathetic consideration to representations respecting tax reform in this country. That is all I have ever said to anyone. Beyond that, there was no leak. If my hon. friend examines what people in Winnipeg have been saying he will find they are not even remotely representing what I actually did.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I have been speaking of the three major points submitted to me across the country. Almost everybody knew about those except hon. members of the opposition who seemed to have no interest in the matter and who did not want to make submissions to the Minister of Finance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not factually correct.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have received more than
1,000	letters on the subject.


Edgar John Benson: Why did the hon. member not speak to me about the matter or send me the letters? If hon. members on the other side of the house wish to make submissions I will give them sympathetic attention. That is all I have ever said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.
[Mr. Benson.)



POWER-NELSON RIVER, MANITOBA-ALLEGED HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises because of great concern being felt over something that potentially is very good for northern Manitoba. We have two important rivers, the Nelson and the Churchill, which fall in approximately parallel courses towards Hudson Bay. As is probably well known, it is planned to harness the Nelson River and obtain about 6 million kilowatts of power from it at a cost of about $1 billion. The federal government is taking part in this enterprise by contributing to the cost of 596 odd miles of transmission line south from the power site. This could be a bonanza for the province and for most of us in Canada, but there is another side to the coin which seriously worries me and which has prompted my participation in this debate at this time.
There are experts who are very, very concerned about an Indian community of 100 families who earn an average income of $3,600 a year from trapping, fishing and that sort of thing. That sort of income is very unusual for Indians. These Indians are completely self-sufficient. I believe one man only is on welfare. Everybody else is secure in employment there. The Indians there are in tune with their environment and able to live well.
It is proposed to back up the Churchill River and allow this valley where the Indians live and South Indian Lake to be submerged under 35 feet of water. The Indians living there would have to move away without receiving adequate compensation. There is no sign yet that they will receive adequate compensation. That sort of thing has already happened to one Indian community, and it was ruined by having to move.
The people of Churchill are also concerned about what will happen to them if 80 per cent of the water of the Churchill River is diverted. The federal government is taking some interest in this area. The people there wonder if the river will freeze in the winter. Will there be enough water to service existing sewage facilities? Will shipping be able to come there? Will there be enough water for the whales, and will the whaling industry there survive? Also, will there be enough water to fill existing wells and, as I have already asked, will ships be able to come to the port? I am not a prophet of gloom but I do not believe these questions have been adequately answered by anyone.
February 4, 1969	COMMONS
Another community called Nelson House which consists of 1,200 people is in serious trouble. This community, fairly close to Lake Winnipeg, is in potentially serious trouble. Financial experts feel that, to the Indians at South Indian Lake, their fishing is worth $1,-
171,000	in income, and their trapping is worth $51,000. Those figures might be taken as the basis of any compensation awarded to those people. The industry of the people up there will be ruined because the provincial government will not listen to experts who have looked into the situation. These experts are not spurious or invented. They are real experts whom I can name. A report has been submitted to the provincial government by its own experts. If the government does not listen to them that is its own business, but the loss affects all Manitoba.
The premier of Manitoba says that he will reconsider his decision on the matter. But I am worried in case he is tied to an agreement with the federal government respecting the supply of power lines which may be one of those non-negotiable, non-changeable situations in which the dictates of common sense must be ignored for the sake of a piece of paper. I hope that is not so. From reports I have seen it is indicated that changes that would take place in the development of power, if any of the alternative suggestions proposed by the provincial Hydro authority were accepted, would be infinitesimal when one considers the five or six million kilowatts of power that would be produced by the entire development. Certainly, the proposed changes are not great enough to justify the steps proposed to be taken. Viable alternatives to present courses of action exist. For instance, water needed to produce power could be held or stored in Saskatchewan. It seems, however, that the Manitoba provincial government wants to have control of this water. Other alternatives might be considered. The provincial government might consider taking water from Minnesota or North Dakota. At any rate, we should ask ourselves if we need this water badly enough to dispossess the people I have referred to of their livelihoods.
I hope the federal government is not irrevocably committed to a situation that will allow the provincial government to turn the areas I have spoken of into a swamp that may last for 100 years. In the opinion of ecologists and other experts the swamp will last that long. On the other hand, if the provincial government wishes to hide behind the coat tails of the federal government and do
DEBATES	5161
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion nothing, it should say so. But we should try to compensate those who will lose their livelihoods.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been talking about the problems which have been brought about as the result of the growth and development of our country. As any of our important resources are developed people may have to be relocated, or allocated other places to live. Of course, if resources both under the ground and on top of the ground are to be developed there will have to be a relocation of our people.
The hon. member has touched on something that is fundamental to our thinking. He is concerned about the people from Nelson House and South Indian River and is worried that they will be forced to move because of economic development taking place in their area.
I should like to review some of the arrangements which have been made between the federal government and the provincial government of Manitoba with respect to what I consider a magnificent opportunity for economic development in Canada. I am, of course, talking of the transmission line the hon. member mentioned and the development of the Nelson and Churchill Rivers. The federal and provincial governments arranged to-share in the cost of developing the site. Studies included a complete power survey of the Nelson River and a study of the Churchill River diversion as well as alternative routes. The power development project then proceeded into phase 1. This includes a transmission line financed by the federal government, as the Manitoba government was unable to undertake the project by itself. The line will be made available to the province for operation on a lease basis.
Manitoba's responsibilities in phase 1 include the Nelson River generating stations, the Churchill River diversion, and control of the level of Lake Winnipeg. Studies of the Churchill River diversion were undertaken by consulting firms which delved into all aspects of the situation, including the provision of facilities for relocation of families whose lands might be flooded. Under the agreement, Mr. Speaker, this was a provincial responsibility.
The federal government has committed $170 million for the transmission line project. The province has committed $250 million for
February 4, 1969
5162	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Nelson River hydroelectric development and the Churchill River diversion.
I say to the hon. member the cost of relocating the people affected will be covered by the province. I am sure the province recognizes this. The financial cost and also the human and economic cost of diversion or relocation of the people involved is the fundamental problem. This problem rests with the province in terms of what happens to the people. I feel sorry for the hundred families of the South Indian Lake area who could be forced off their land. At the moment, this responsibility rests with the provincial government. The federal government has not

made a cost-sharing arrangement with the provincial government in order to proceed with economic development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
didn't answer the question.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, February 5, 1969