1969-01-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, an extensive study of passport security has been conducted by the Department of External Affairs over recent months in which, I might say, the advice of other departments of government has been received. As a result of these studies, a decision has been reached by the government to introduce a number of changes in Canadian passport requirements. These are summarized in an announcement which I am making today and which I now table for the information of hon. members in both our official languages.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-159, to amend the Criminal Code (duty of attending physician).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that in cases where deliberate neglect or abuse is present, the physician called in to treat a child patient will be made aware of his obligation to report the case to the legal authorities, namely the police, as one way of putting an end to mistreatment of children, which seems to have become endemic in our society.


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

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-160, to amend the Criminal Code (control of motor vehicle).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so as not to penalize drivers who realizing that they are intoxicated or that their ability to drive is impaired, are wise enough not to drive and to stop their car immediately and refrain from continuing their journey in their present state. I might add in this regard that since the United Kingdom changed their Criminal Code in this regard, I would hope the Minister of Justice might consider sending both these bills to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


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

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

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the government contributed financially to the Economic Improvement Corporation of Prince Edward Island and, if so, what is the amount of such contribution since the establishment of the Corporation?
2.	When is it intended to conclude an agreement with the Government of Prince Edward Island on an economic improvement program for the province?
3.	Will such a program be based wholly or in part on the recommendations of the Economic Improvement Corporation of Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the department of Forestry and Rural Development as follows: 1. Yes. $331,164.82.
2.	Discussions aimed at an early agreement are presently taking place.
3.	The program would be based in part on the recommendations of the Economic Improvement Corporation.

January 22, 1969
Questions


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-POLLUTION BY AQUATIC WEEDS
Mr. Rock: 1.	Do floating aquatic weeds in the International Section of the St. Lawrence River, Lake St. Francis and Lake St. Louis contribute to the pollution of these waters?
2.	Were there floating aquatic weeds present in those areas during the duration of the Seaway strike from June 21st to July 14th and, if not, what would account for their absence?
3.	Were there dense mats of floating aquatic weeds in these waters immediately after the strike was over and are there any at present and for what reasons?
4.	Do floating aquatic weeds deplete oxygen and contribute to pollution when they deposit on bottom of lakes or in bays and decompose?
5.	Does the accumulation of floating aquatic weeds cause growth of weeds in areas where there was no previous growth?
6.	Have floating aquatic weeds when decomposing contributed to the spread of algae in those waters?
7.	Do floating aquatic weeds form high coliform densities close to the shores of Lake St. Louis, Lake St. Francis and of the International Section of the St. Lawrence River?
8.	Has any federal department or agency made any water test or pollution counts in these waters and, if so, what were the results from 1957 until present?
9.	Has the International Joint Commission or any federal department or agency, investigated the question of whether floating aquatic weeds that are appearing in the waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway are caused by the turbulence provoked by the propellers of large ships while travelling through certain channels in the St. Lawrence Seaway?
10.	Has the International Joint Commission or any federal department or agency, ever investigated the question of whether floating aquatic weeds contribute heavily to the pollution of these waters and induce algae growth?
11.	Are Canadian federal agencies collecting water quality data in the waters under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and, if so, what are the results?

Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs: 1. The growth of aquatic weeds results from increased fertility of surface waters and therefore can be considered to result from pollution. The weeds themselves can be regarded as pollutants since their decomposition imposes an oxygen demand on the water and nutrients are released in the course of their decay.
2.	The river was surveyed before and during the strike and the usual growth of aquatic weeds was observed for that period of the year on 31 ranges from Kingston to Cornwall.
3.	This condition has not been observed during water quality studies of the international section.
4.	Yes.
5.	This is not likely, suitable bottom substrate is probably required to support growth of aquatic weeds.
6.	This phenomenon was not observed by the Department of National Health and Welfare in their surveys on behalf of the I.J.C., but the possibility of such an occurrence is real.
7.	This phenomenon has not been observed, but the release of nutrients through plant decomposition may well stimulate bacterial reproduction. Pathogenic organisms are unlikely to reproduce because temperatures encountered in the river are generally lower than those ideal for the reproduction of pathogens.
8.	The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources monitors water quality immediately downstream from the Robert H. Saunders generating station at Cornwall. Samples are collected bi-monthly for analysis of physical and inorganic chemical components. Data compiled since October 1967 indicates moderate fertility which is considered to be attributable in part to the innundation of arable land by the formation of the Lake St. Lawrence impoundment.
The Department of National Health & Welfare has been surveying the water quality of the international section of the St. Lawrence River since 1965, under an investigation by the I.J.C. Interim reports of the Commission to the Canadian and U.S.A. Governments have indicated the water quality of the St. Lawrence River to be generally good, with local pollution occurring near waste discharges. A comprehensive report on Lakes Erie, Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence is in the course of preparation for the International Joint Commission by its Water Pollution Advisory Boards. Following receipt of this Report, the Commission will conduct public hearings and formulate its report and recommendations to the two Governments.
9.	No.
10.	No formal study has been initiated, although experience indicates that these weeds probably do contribute to pollution and induce growth of algae. Water quality is only affected significantly near points of discharge of inadequately treated wastes. The problem of excessive quantities of aquatic weeds, which are indeed a nuisance and interfere with water use, is a result of natural and cultural enrichment of these waters, i.e.

January 22, 1969

the addition of such substances as nitrogen and phosphorus, through natural drainage, precipitation and directly from waste discharges. This matter will be treated extensively in the report to be submitted to the

11.	No collections by Canadian federal agencies are made in the locks and canals of the seaway.


CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL, BOAT FACILITIES
Mr. St. Pierre: 1. In the period 1957-58 to 1966-67 inclusive, how many wharves, docks and similar small boat facilities, costing not less than $5,000 or more than
Questions
$250,000, were constructed for fishing vessels and pleasure craft in the following areas: the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia?
2.	What was the total departmental cost of such works in each of the four areas?
3.	To what extent did provincial governments or other bodies participate in the capital cost of such works in each of the four areas?
4.	Are charges levied for (a) fishing vessels (b) pleasure craft in each area and what are current fees?
5.	Is there an estimate available for the number of fishing vessels and pleasure craft in each of the four areas and, if so, what are the estimates?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Transport as follows:
ATLANTIC	QUEBEC	ONTARIO	BRITISH COLUMBIA1.	434	160	160	792.	$21,150,442	$4,865,000	$3,713,200	$3,786,3003.	$166,837	Nil	$25,447	Nil4.	Charges are levied for fishing vessels and pleasure craft in each area pursuant to Schedule of the Government Wharves Regulations made by Order in Council P.C. 1964-104 of 23rd January, 1964, as amended. The current fees, which are the same in all areas, are as follows:(A)	Fishing Vessels: (i) moored at any float at a harbour: (a) per day or portion thereof, per foot of length, 2d; (b) per month, per foot of length, 40<f; Cii) moored elsewhere than at floats and not engaged in loading, unloading, or other commercial activity, per 24 hours or portion thereof: (a) on Sundays and statutory holidays per foot of length, Id; (b) on other days, per foot of length, 2d; (iii) minimum side wharfage, 50d. The Regulations provide for the exemption of payment of side wharfage in respect of any fishing vessel tying up to a wharf solely for loading supplies, including fish bait, or for unloading the vessel's catch of fish.(B)	Pleasure Craft: Pleasure craft are charged the same rates as fishing vessels, but no exemptions are granted.
British
Atlantic Quebec Ontario Columbia
5.	Fishing
Vessels 22,071	2,509	1,626	7,746
Pleasure
Craft:	85,000 193,500 761,000	285,000


WHEAT BOARD JURISDICTION OVER RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED
Mr. Souiham: Is the government giving consideration to having Rye, Flax and Rapeseed placed under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board and, if so, when will this action be taken?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The question of placing rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board continues to receive consideration.
DANIEL MacISAAC-POSITION AND SALARY


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond): 1.	Is Daniel Maclsaac on the staff of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	If so (a) what is his position (b) what is his salary (c) how long has he been in his present position?
3.	What is the nature of his duties?
4.	What are his qualifications and to whom does he report?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. (exempt staff).
2.	(a) CR 4; (b) $5,727; (c) Since July 6, 1968.
3.	To assist in general office work; including correspondence, enquiries, and to travel with the Minister.

January 22, 1969
Questions
4.	(a) Secondary school and university training; (b) Directly to the Minister.


SASKATOON-HUMBOLDT-OFFICE FOR MEMBER
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has an office been opened or is one being opened in Saskatoon for the Honourable member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, the Minister without Portfolio?
2.	If so, and if payment is being made by the Government of Canada, what is the estimated cost of operating the said office for (a) personnel (b) rental (c) other expenses?
Mr. Yves Forest Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): 1. Yes.
2.	(a) $2,691 (salary for one part-time clerk);
(b)	No rental payment being made as the office is located in a Crown owned building;
(c)	To date, the cost is $2,093.20 which is as follows: Minister's furniture, $1,223.00; Secretary's furniture, $371.00; Electric typewriter, $499.20.


AID TO MUNICIPALITIES TO OFFSET EDUCATION COSTS
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government contemplating any direct financial aid to municipalities to offset (a) the cost of education in the field of primary and secondary schools (b) the capital cost of educational (i) buildings (ii) facilities (iii) equipment?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO QUEBEC SOCIAL ALLOWANCE FUND
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the government contribute to the social allowance fund of the Province of Quebec and, if so, what is the amount of its annual contribution?
2.	What was the government's contribution to the fund (a) during the past fiscal year, and (b) during the past five years?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. See accompanying attached table.
2.	See accompanying attached table.
Federal Contributions to Quebec Year	Program	Total

1967-68 Old Age Assistance	8,401,864
Blind Persons Allowances 1,631,232 Disabled Persons Allowances	8,292,666

Year	Program	Total $ 12,291,269
1966-67	Old Age Assistance	
	Blind Persons Allowances Disabled Persons Allow-	1,714,789
	ances	8,535,524
1965-66	Old Age Assistance	15,941,412
	Blind Persons Allowances Disabled Persons Allow-	1,840,978
	ances	8,821,586
1964-65	Old Age Assistance	16,589,045
	Blind Persons Allowances Disabled Persons Allow-	1,892,813
	ances	9,090,736
1963-64	Old Age Assistance	13,860,075
	Blind Persons Allowances Disabled Persons Allow-	1,642,869
	ances	8,081,258
1962-63	Old Age Assistance	13,793,745
	Blind Persons Allowances Disabled Persons Allow-	1,662,937
	ances	8,577,890
Federal	Share of Payments made	to Quebec
under the Unemployment Assistance Act During the Fiscal Year 1967-68 and the Previous Five Fiscal Years
Year	Amount
	$
1967-68	Nil *
1966-67	33,286,898**
1965-66	24,573,655**
1964-65	41,015,897
1963-64	39,439,412
1962-63	33,579,397
* Payments made under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act through the Department of Finance. **Payments reduced by $26,562,595 due to tax abatement under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
*** Payments reduced by $20,149,002 due to tax abatement under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.


MICROWAVE RELAY TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What is the present capacity of our existing terrestrial microwave relay telecommunications system?
2.	Does the government have any forecast regarding the capacity utilization of our present terrestrial
January 22, 1969

microwave relay telecommunications system for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years?
3.	Is the proposed satellite system less expensive or more than the present microwave setup and over what distances?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as communications is concerned:
1.	There are currently two main terrestrial national microwave radio relay telecommunication systems in operation: the Trans-Canada Telephone System; and the CN/CP Telecommunication System.
The capacity varies; however, there is a working minimum of five, two-way broadband radio frequency (TV equivalent) channels in use today throughout the major portion of these coast-to-coast systems, including their many spurs.
The above systems are located south of the 55th parallel. In addition, CN/CP have placed in operation a broadband microwave route from Alberta through Northern British Columbia and the Yukon to Alaska. This system has one two-way working channel (300 circuits) at present.
2.	Forecasts of additional utilization for the microwave systems for several years into the future are very difficult to make because other technological forms of communication may become more attractive and because the total demand for service is difficult to predict. Using present growth rates the total utilization of all systems might double every five years, but it does not necessarily follow that this growth rate would continue in future.
The additional potential capacity of these national microwave systems if and when augmented, coast to coast, could be up to 23 twoway broadband channels, of which 11 would extend for approximately 2/3 of the route length.
Each of these channels would have a capacity in both directions of one television signal or a varying quantity of 600-1200 voice-data circuits per channel. The CN/CP Alberta-Yukon system could be augmented to carry 4 additional channels.
3.	A direct comparison of costs of a satellite system and a terrestrial microwave relay system is very difficult to make because the two systems are not directly comparable. In general, the cost of a terrestrial microwave system is proportional to distance, whereas
Questions
satellite system costs are independent of the distance between earth stations.


AIR CANADA AIRCRAFT
Mr. Paproski: 1.	(a) What is the current number of aircraft owned by Air Canada, by type (b) of this total, how many are in operation on scheduled services, by type (c) are any of the aircraft currently owned by Air Canada not in operation and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Have any sales of aircraft been completed by Air Canada to date in 1968 and, if so, what aircraft have been sold, to whom and at what price?
3.	Of the aircraft owned by Air Canada, how many have been offered for sale, by type?
4.	(a) What aircraft does Air Canada have on order, by type, and what are the expected delivery dates for these aircraft (b) of the aircraft Air Canada presently has on order, what parts of each type are being manufactured in Canada (c) what is the value of the orders, by type of aircraft and by manufacturer, referred to in Part (b) ?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Transport and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) 39 Viscounts; 23 Vanguards; 29 DC-9s; 28 DC-8s. (b) 33 Viscounts; 18 Vanguards; 29 DC-9s; 28 DC-8s. (c) 6 Viscounts and 5 Vanguards are retired.
2.	During 1968 6 DC-9-14 aircraft were sold back to McDonnell Douglas Company, at a price arrived at during confidential negotiations for replacement aircraft.
3.	Six Viscounts and five Vanguards.
4.	(a) 9 DC-9s, 1 in late 1968, 5 in 1969, 3 in 1970, 13 DC-8s, 6 in 1969 and 7 in 1970, 3 747s in 1971. (b) It is anticipated that structural components, electronic equipment and auxiliary power units for L-1011 aircraft will be manufactured in Canada, (c) Since contracts are at present under negotiation, it is not possible to define the value of the orders resulting from the L-1011 program. However, it is anticipated that the following Canadian manufacturers will be major participants: Northwest Industries Limited, United Aircraft of Canada Limited, Fleet Manufacturing Limited, Bristol Aerospace Limited, Canadair Limited, Canadian Aviation Electronics.


NATIONAL PARKS-POINTE FORILLON, GASPE
Mr. Cyr: Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development plan to create a national
4606

January 22, 1969
Questions
park at Pointe Forillon, Gaspe and if so (a) what will be the federal government's contribution to the project and has an estimate already been announced (b) does the project require a special agreement with the Province of Quebec (c) will the work begin in 1969 (d) is there any delay in carrying out this project and, if so, does the responsibility rest with the government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development plans to establish a National Park on Forillon Peninsula near Gaspe, as provided for in the Federal-Provincial agreement for the Development of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine signed by the two governments at Rimouski last May. (a) In an appendix to the Federal-Provincial agreement, the projected federal expenditure for the development of the proposed National Park is given as $8,300,000.
(b)	Yes, as the Province must provide the land required free of all encumbrances in keeping with general policy in this regard.
(c)	Planning studies are envisaged for 1969.
(d)	Yes, the federal government is quite anxious to proceed but the final arrangements are not completed.


WHEAT-COST OF GUARANTEED FLOOR PRICE
Mr. Douglas: What was the cost to the Government of Canada of the implementation of the guaranteed floor price for wheat which was in effect between August 1, 1967 and July 1, 1968?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A total amount of $3,435,811.


HUTTERITE COLONIES
Mr. Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley): 1.	How many Hutterite colonies are there in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
2. How many of (a) these colonies, or (b) individuals in these colonies, pay income tax?
3. How many of these colonies receive (a) Family Allowances (b) Old Age Pensions?
4.	How many individuals in these colonies receive
(a)	Family Allowances or (b) Old Age Pensions?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 
the Departments of National Revenue and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. According to the 1961 Census of Canada, there were 11 Hutterite colonies (771 individuals) in Saskatchewan and 61 Hutterite colonies (5,370 individuals) in Alberta.
2.	Hutterite Colonies, whether incorporated or unincorporated, are not taxable entities as they do not receive income on their own account. However, each member of a Colony must include in his income, for purposes of the Income Tax Act, his share of the profit attributable to the farming or other business activities carried on by the Colony of which he is a member. A statement on this subject was tabled in the House on November 6, 1968, but was incorrectly referred to on page 2469 of Hansard for that day as a statement on Disciples of Luther.
3.	and 4. This information is not available.


ARCHITECTS SERVING NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	In respect to the reply to Question Number 525, what are the reasons for limiting the membership of the Advisory Committee on Design to the National Capital Commission to architects located in Ottawa-Hull, Montreal and Toronto in view of the legitimate national interest in the national capital?
2.	Why were architects from other major Canadian centres excluded?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Membership on the National Capital Commission Advisory Committee on Design is neither (1) assigned nor (2) restricted according to location of residence in Canada.


MEMBERSHIP IN PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Mr. Orlikow: Is consideration being given to the possibility of Canadian membership in the Pan American Health Organization, with or without membership in the Organization of American States and, if so, what steps have been taken to accomplish this purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The possibility of Canadian membership in the Pan American Health Organization, which is both a specialized organization of the O.A.S. and the regional office for the Americas of the World Health Organization, has been under study in the Departments of External Affairs and National
January 22, 1969	COMMONS
Health and Welfare for some time. This proposal is currently being reviewed as part of the government's general review of Canada's policy in Latin America and in the light of budgetary and other considerations. As indicated in the question, this proposal is distinct from the question of Canadian membership in the O.A.S.; membership in PAHO is open to Canada regardless of membership in O.A.S.
DEBATES	4607
Questions


CROWN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
Mr. Beaudoin: To March 31, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, how many people were employed by Crown Corporations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Number of People Employed by Crown Corporations March 31, 1960-67
Agency	Proprietary	Other	Year	Corporations	Corporations	Agencies	Total1960	9,455	129,355	1,916	140,7261961	9,300	123,309	2,000	134,6091962	8,975	121,583	2,064	132,6221963	8,579	119,057	2,183	129,8191964	8,231	119,919	2,610	130,7601965	8,368	122,496	2,833	133,6971966	8,632	124,328	3,277	136,2371967	8,934	129,440	5,918	144,292
Source: Federal Government Employment-April issues, (DBS Catalogue No. 72-004)


RICHMOND, QUE.-NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Are there any newspapers, daily, weekly or periodical, which are subsidized by the federal government and printed in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what newspapers specifying whether they are dailies, weeklies or periodicals
(b)	what is the amount of the grant or subsidy paid by the government to each newspaper and what is the annual circulation of the paper (c) what are the names, telephone numbers and addresses of all directors of such periodicals, weeklies or dailies?
2.	On what basis does the government subsidize newspapers, daily, weekly or periodical?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. No.
2. Traditionally, Parliament has sanctioned special rates of postage for newspapers and periodicals to encourage the development and growth of the Canadian publishing industry. These postage rates, to the extent that they do not cover the costs of postal handling and distribution, represent a subvention provided these publications.


RICHMOND, QUE.-WAR VETERANS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many Canadian veterans of the First or Second World Wars, residing in the federal Constituency of Richmond, are between the ages of 65 and 70?
2.	How many of the veterans' widows, residing in the federal Constituency of Richmond, are between the ages of 65 and 70?
3.	How many veterans reside in the federal Constituency of Richmond?
4.	How many war amputees reside in the federal Constituency of Richmond?
5.	What criteria does the Department of Veterans' Affairs apply in paying pensions to war amputees?
6.	What is the total sum of pensions paid in the federal Constituency of Richmond, how many veterans are resident in Quebec, and what is the total sum of pensions paid to the latter?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Statistics of the number of veterans, disabled veterans and veterans' widows are not maintained by federal constituencies.
5.	The Department of Veterans Affairs does not itself pay pensions. The criterion applied by the Canadian Pension Commission with

January 22, 1969
Questions
respect to pensions payable under the Pension Act is that, if an amputation was incurred during or attributable to wartime service, pension is paid under that act.
6.	Statistics are not maintained of the total sum of pensions paid in federal constituencies. It is estimated that on March 31, 1968 there were 138,000 veterans resident in the Province of Quebec. The annual liability for disability pensions payable to veterans resident in Quebec on March 31, 1968 is estimated at $24,808,500.


ZAMBIA-ESTABLISHMENT OF MISSION
Mr. Fairweather: At what approximate date does Canada intend to establish a mission in Zambia?


Mitchell William Sharp: No date has been set for the opening of a Canadian mission in Zambia, Mr. Speaker. The current commitments for the extension of Canadian representation abroad, particularly in Francophone countries, have strained the personnel and financial resources of the Department of External Affairs. Nonetheless, the opening of a resident mission in Zambia retains a high priority.


RICHMOND, QUE.-ADULT RETRAINING STUDIES
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	In connection with the administration of adult retraining studies, what is the name of each director of courses for each municipality in the Constituency of Richmond?
2.	How many adults are undergoing these retraining studies, what were their ages and occupations before entering the course?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The hiring of teaching personnel is the responsibility of the Quebec Department of Education, and the Department of Manpower and Immigration has no information in that connection.
2. (a) As at December 20, 1968, the number of adults registered for these retraining courses was 277. (b) Age: 5 aged 17 years; 16 aged 18 years; 10 aged 19 years; 10 aged 20 years; 17 aged 21 years; 7 aged 22 years; 3 aged 23 years; 9 aged 24 years; 7 aged 25 years; 8 aged 26 years; 6 aged 27 years; 8 aged 28 years; 8 aged 29 years; 5 aged 30 years; 6

aged 31 years; 9 aged 32 years; 11 aged 33 years; 11 aged 34 years; 6 aged 35 years; 9 aged 36 years; 9 aged 37 years; 7 aged 38 years; 4 aged 39 years; 8 aged 40 years; 10 aged 41 years; 10 aged 42 years; 6 aged 43 years; 6 aged 44 years; 4 aged 45 years; 5 aged 46 years; 8 aged 47 years; 7 aged 48 years; 5 aged 49 years; 3 aged 50 years; 4 aged 51 years; 2 aged 52 years; 3 aged 53 years; 2 aged 54 years; 1 aged 55 years; 2 aged 57 years-Total 277.
(c) Occupation at time of registration: nursing aide, 2; helper, mechanic, 2; apprentice, electrician, 3; apprentice auto body repairman, 1; apprentice mechanical draftsman, 1; apprentice, machinist, 1; apprentice, carpenter, 2; apprentice, plasterer, 1; apprentice plumber, 2; surveyor, 1; lumberjack, 1; truck-driver, 6; pedlar, 1; janitor, 1; custom sewing (ladies) 1; clerk, office-general, 4; clerk, sales, 3; clerk, parts (auto), 1; dressmaker, 1; farmer, 145; cook, short order, 6; household worker, 8; cabinetmaker, 1; forestry operations, 1; tinsmith, 1; spinner (textiles), 4; farm manager, 1; instrument man, 1; day labourer, machine shop, 1; day labourer, footwear, 2; day labourer, construction, 28; day labourer, pulp and paper, 15; day labourer, plastics, 1; day labourer, general, 1; day labourer, roadworks, 1; operator, sewing machine, 3; operator, bulldozer, 2; operator (beater), pulp and paper, 1; operator, power saw, 1; painter, 1; attendant, service station, 2; attendant, cloakroom, 1; receptionist, 1; serviceman, electrical appliances, 1; waitress, 4; welder, 4; bookkeeper, 2; salesman, general, 1; glazier, 1-Total 277.


UPPER MUSQUODOBOIT, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for the construction of a Standard Revenue Post Office at Upper Musquodoboit, Halifax County, Nova Scotia?
2.	When will a contract be awarded, and to whom?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Curtis and Gordon Swinamer, $27,500.00; Merle MacEachern, $28,886.00; Whalley Construction Limited, $32,500.00; Stanley Reid Construction Limited, $43,774.50.
2. Contract has been awarded to Curtis and Gordon Swinamer.
January 22, 1969


INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbenl: 1. For each fiscal year, what have been the number of projects and the annual expenditures of the Industrial Research Assistance Program of
Orders for Returns
the National Research Council since the establishment of the program in 1962?
2. For each fiscal year, what have been the annual expenditures of this program shared by the federal government and Canadian industry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Summary of Expenditures ($000's)
Fiscal Year	No. of Projects Min. Max.	
1962-63	0	651963-64	60	841964-65	79	1101965-66	105	1401966-67	122	1511967-68	122	1591968-69	138	177(to 21 Nov. 1968) TOTAL	262
Total
Contribution
Total Grants		Reported
Approved	Expended	by Industry843.9	537.3	918.82,093.1	1,603.6	2,503.83,010.0	2,171.3	2,975.84,088.0	3,306.3	4,564.65,293.6	4,199.0	6,262.76,361.6	5,086.9	6,828.27,212.1	6,100.0	9,264.3(Est.)	(Est.)28,902.3	23,004.4	33,318.2(41%)	(59%)1.	Eight additional projects have been approved as of 21 November 1968 but were deferred for lack of funds.2.	Projects may be approved and start at any time during the fiscal year. Generally, they terminate at the end of a fiscal year. Hence, the minimum and maximum number of projects in effect have been given for each year.3.	Companies are not always able to spend the full grant due to recruiting difficulties or construction delays.4.	Industry's contribution covers only the reported funding during the period of IRAP support. This does not include funding to complete the research project if it must extend beyond five years, or to develop products from the research results.


Mr. Caouette: 1.	In each of the proprietary Crown corporations, who is presently in charge of collecting information on language proficiency of the staff and what position does each hold at the present time.
2.	Who is responsible for recruiting staff in each of these corporations?
3.	Is he (a) bilingual (b) French-speaking only
(c)	English-speaking only?
Return tabled.


HOSPITAL GRANTS, TORONTO
Mr. Robinson: 1. Has the federal government made any grants to hospitals in the Metropolitan Toronto area in

January 22, 1969
Motion for Adjournment the past five years and, if so, how much and to which institutions was it paid?
2. Does the federal government have any commitment to provide grants for hospitals in the Metropolitan area and, if so, how much and to which institutions are they to be paid?
Return tabled.


GRANTS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	What are the terms and conditions for grants provided under the Department of Industry's Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology?
2.	For each fiscal year since the program's inception, what have been the annual number of projects and expenditures of this program, shared by the federal government and Canadian industry?
3.	What is the total federal government expenditure commitment to this program in the current fiscal year?
4.	Are changes presently contemplated in this program regarding either cost-sharing and repayment provisions or rate of interest provisions?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I ask
leave, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin, in accordance with the terms of revised Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the virtual bottleneck and paralysis of wheat movement in Vancouver Harbour, due to the failure of the government to work with the railways in scheduling box cars, leading to a situation which has already resulted in the loss of a 17,000 ton contract and which may result in the loss of others; which has caused damage and economic loss, since some ships have been tied up for as long as a month, paying demurrage charges as high as $2,500 a day; which has brought about stagnation in the movement of wheat at a critical time for western farmers; and in connection with which the government, yesterday, in the person of the minister, refused to take action.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie has given notice as required by Standing Order 26 of his intention to move the adjournment of the house to discuss the matter raised in his proposed motion.
An hon. members know, the provisions of Standing Order 26 have been radically altered in the new rules of procedure of the House of Commons. Under the terms of paragraph (5) of Standing Order 26, in determining whether a matter should be given urgent consideration, the Chair takes into account the extent to which the proposition concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or would come within the scope of ministerial action, and also the probability of the matter being brought before the house within a reasonable time by other means. Additionally, the Chair must have regard to other considerations, many of which have been established as the practice of the house in previous years, before the enactment of the present Standing Orders.
The question raised by the hon. member, it seems to me, does concern the administrative responsibilities of the government.
As far as the opportunity for the question being raised before the house within a reasonable time by other means is concerned, the Chair must have in mind the fact that in the present state of its business the house is not likely to have available certain opportunities which on previous occasions would have provided a vehicle for a debate on this question. As an example, there is no current debate in respect to the Speech from the Throne. We learned from the Minister of Finance yesterday that there is some uncertainty whether or not there will be a budget debate within the near future, and the estimates are not likely to be tabled until some time in February.
There is another matter which I think may be of some importance, and that has to do with the alteration in circumstances surrounding emergency debates before the enactment of the current Standing Order 26. Before the present order was brought into force, in considering motions to adjourn under Standing Order 26 the Chair always had to weigh the importance of the proposed motion against the necessity of setting aside government business for the day and it was much more difficult to justify the granting of a motion under Standing Order 26 when that would have the result of delaying current important public business. To a considerable extent the revised Standing Order 26 reduces the relative significance of this factor.
January 22, 1969

In deciding whether or not to allow the motion the Chair must, of course, take into account the actual problem sought to be discussed. Is it of national importance and is it urgent?
In my opinion the new circumstances indicated by the questions asked in the house yesterday, by the concern expressed by the minister himself when replying to these questions, and by the hon. member's statement, indicate that a strong case can be made in favour of the proposed motion, on the ground of urgency of debate.
Therefore I am inclined to put the question to the house in accordance with the standing order for the reasons stated, that the matter is important, that there is urgency of debate, that the opportunity for debate within a reasonable time is restricted, and that public business is not impeded.
The question before the house is the following one. Has the hon. member leave to move the motion for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by him?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Discussion of the proposed motion shall therefore stand over until eight o'clock this evening, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 26.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as I understood your ruling you set the motion over until eight o'clock this evening. As I understand it, we do not sit on Wednesday evenings.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will read the Standing Orders he will notice that this is a provision of Standing Order 26. When a motion of this sort is moved on a Wednesday we sit at eight o'clock.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 35, 36, 40 and 53?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

NOISE LEVELS, TORONTO AIRPORT EXPANSION Motion No. 35-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any maps and diagrams in the possession of tile
Motions for Papers
Department of Transport which show what changes will result in noise levels in the surrounding inhabited areas should plans for the expansion of Toronto International Airport be carried out.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government. I think it should be pointed out, however, that the sketch desired by the right hon. gentleman refers to the major expansion proposed for Toronto International Airport in the Parkin report, and in that respect is no longer relevant. But as I say, the motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that motion No. 35 be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda or other data in respect of an agreement between the Government of Canada or the National Harbours Board, or any other agency or department of government, on the one hand, and the Kaiser Corporation on the other.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. lady concerning this motion and she has agreed to limit it to include the agreement between the National Harbours Board and the Kaiser Corporation concerning the use of the port of Roberts Bank only. On this basis the motion is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that motion No. 36 be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a document entitled "Local Government on Indian Reserves" prepared by the policy and planning directorate of the Indian affairs branch, dated August 4, 1967?
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
January 22, 1969
Motions for Papers
Speaker, the Policy and Planning Directorate of the Indian Affairs Branch drafted, on August 4, 1967, a document on the local administration of Indian reserves entitled "Local Government on Indian Reserves". This document marked "Confidential for discussion purposes" contains interim views and comments on local administration and on organization mechanisms to ensure the carrying out at headquarters of duties pertaining to local governments. This document was intended for field officials and I do not think that we could table it in the house since it is a departmental document prepared for internal administrative purposes.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the document in question was distributed by an official of the department to someone other than an official and therefore has been given some public distribution. Because the document may be classified as a confidential document of the department I take it the minister is asking me to withdraw the motion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because of prevailing circumstances I should appreciate the hon. member's withdrawing his motion.


Frank Howard: I wonder if with the unanimous agreement of the house I might have leave to have the document in question tabled, and then withdraw the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is suggesting an irregular procedure. Perhaps the motion might be allowed to stand and the matter might be reviewed by the hon. member and the minister in the meantime. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



SASKATCHEWAN-DETERRENT FEES BY CANCER PATIENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan with respect to the application of deterrent fees on cancer patients under the hospital insurance plan.
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have

talked to the hon. member about this matter. We do not have any correspondence or documents relating to that aspect of the problem with which his motion deals and he is aware of that now. In the circumstances I wonder whether he might consent to withdrawing the motion.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: On the
basis of the minister's remarks, Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSINGENGINEERING FEASIBILITY

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the Minister of Public Works said he would reconsider the matter I had raised in my motion No. 62 last week, which had to do with the Stanford research study. Is the minister now able to table the document I referred to?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, a decision in this matter involves the Minister of Transport and I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with him.


Mr. Baldwin:: Try to get him here more often.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I know I express the pleasure of all hon. members of the house in welcoming back the Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope he finds himself in good health, well able to discharge his duties to his department and to render all possible assistance to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
January 22, 1969	COMMONS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minisler of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this stage to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who, I think, spoke on behalf of all hon. members when he welcomed me upon my return here from the hospital. I can tell him that the operation was a complete success and that within a few months I will be able to carry out my duties as before.

I should also like to thank all hon. members who sent me notes while I was in the hospital, and assure them that they helped a lot in bringing me back here so quickly after my operation.



If I risked my life in that operation, Mr. Speaker, it is because it was not my intention to lead the life of a disabled man, but rather to be in better shape still to discharge my duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



EDUCATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises from surveys showing that the recruiting effort by business and government has been substantially reduced on university campuses. It is estimated that 88,000 persons will graduate from universities this year, which is a record. Bearing that in mind, may I ask the minister if he will make a statement on motions in the near future to reassure the country that the economy will be able to absorb these new graduates, as well as to indicate what policies the government will follow and what programs it is prepared to undertake to ensure we do not lose to the United States or some other country a high proportion of this year's expected 88,000 graduates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Leader of the Opposition is asking the Minister of Finance to make a very general statement of a type which ought to be made on
DEBATES	4613
Inquiries of the Ministry motions. But if hon. members think the question ought to be answered, and there is agreement for that, perhaps the minister might be allowed to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize if my question is not clear. I meant to ask the minister if he would make a statement on motions at an early date.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as always I shall be very pleased to consider my hon. friend's suggestion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask whether the specific question of the problem of finding employment for and using the talents of this large graduating class emerging from our universities this year is now before the cabinet in specific form?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I of course cannot say what is and what is not before the cabinet. However, speaking without having read the report that my hon. friend has mentioned, I believe that Canada will be able to absorb all the good young people whom our universities can produce in the future.



POLLUTION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a recent, major accident on the Mac-donald-Cartier Freeway which was alleged to have taken place in major part because of air pollution, and in view of the report this morning that the International Joint Commission is concerned with the pollution of the St. Mary's River by two large Canadian corporations, will the minister inform the house whether legislation will be brought down this session to deal with environmental pollution, and standards for clean air and clean water?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that this whole matter of air pollution was discussed at the last federal conference of health ministers. At that time we undertook to try to arrive at standards and criteria this year and, in consultation with the provinces, see if they can be applied across the country in a uniform way.
January 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry If that entails legislation the government would consider it, and hopefully, this year.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary on the same subject to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to implement a recommendation by a member of the Fisheries Research Board that the government ought to establish a single federal agency to deal with the problems of pollution across the country, or is that agency now in the Department of National Health and Welfare?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, so far as one over-all agency to deal with this question is concerned, that would be a decision for the government to make. As the situation now stands the studies on air pollution are being conducted in the Department of National Health and Welfare. We have been doing quite a bit of work in this field up to the present time. We have been discussing the matter with the provinces and, as I say, subject to getting agreement on certain standards in our consultation with the provinces, perhaps we might be able to bring in legislation this year.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another supplementary question, this time if I may to the Minister of Justice. Will his department look into the allegations contained in the report of the International Joint Commission and consider laying charges against the two corporations for polluting the St. Marys' River, if they are doing so as alleged by the commission, and will any other steps be taken to follow up that disclosure by this important international body?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes, sir, we will certainly look into it. If charges are to be laid the matter might well fall within the purview of the provincial attorney general.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell the house if he will make investigations on the mining rights presently owned by some financiers in the far north of Quebec, who are not only interested in seeing the future international

airport built on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in order to meet their needs better, but who have recently paid the cost of a study conducted by a certain firm in collaboration with five federal members of parliament, in order to prove that the future international airport should be located at Sainte-Scholastique, in the constituency of Deux-Montagnes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can ask a question but not make a speech.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to know whether the Minister of Transport intends to make investigations, in order to find out the relation between the possession of mining rights and the study now in progress, the object of which is to prove that Sainte-Scholastique should be chosen as the site of the future international airport.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lotbiniere):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Without prejudice to you and without judging your intervention, I think that the question that you let go unanswered is in order, and I suggest that the Minister of Transport would be in a position to answer it. We are therefore expecting an answer from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Earlier this session a question was asked of the minister regarding what the government proposed to do to prevent the hijacking of aircraft. The minister said the matter was under consideration. I now ask the minister what proposals if any Canada is putting before the present meeting of IATA in Montreal regarding the prevention of hijacking of aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will have to take that question as notice. I am not sure whether or not there are any formal proposals being put forward. I can say however, that this is a matter of continuing concern, particularly in view Of the large number of hijackings which have taken place in the last few months.
January 22, 1969



AIRPORTS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house whether the studies which his department has been undertaking recently regarding the future needs of the Toronto international airport have led the officials of that department to the conclusion that the present Malton site can be sufficiently expanded to look after that airport's needs for the next 15 or 20 years in the supersonic age, or have they come to the conclusion that an additional site is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. gentleman in those terms is similar to the question asked by the hon. member for Shefford. I suggest it should be rephrased, because it is not acceptable in its present terms.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked the minister whether the studies recently undertaken by his department have enabled him to come to the conclusion that the present Malton airport site can be sufficiently expanded to look after the needs-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the question obviously suggests its own answer.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister's department considering another site to look after the future needs of Toronto international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to this question is a matter of public record. As my hon. friend undoubtedly knows, if he follows events in respect of the Toronto international airport, we announced recently that the limited expansion which would take place there would be sufficient to accommodate traffic into the early 1980's and that soon, within perhaps a year or two, we would choose a site for an alternate airport which would look after the expansion looking beyond that date.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister giving serious consideration to the area I suggested earlier, that is the Picton area, where there is an excellent site which would accommodate all the needs of the department?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are certain inherent liabilities which are obvious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
29180-293J

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



QUEBEC-LOCATION OF INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I assume the hon. member for Shefford, has a modified question to ask too.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Minister of Transport is ready to answer, could he tell us whether it is true that the Quebec government was only advised on September 10, 1968, of the official decision taken by the federal government, to build a new international airport in Quebec, in spite of the fact that Messrs. Baribeau and Bean-haker's studies had been going then for over a year and a half?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question as put by the hon. member is in order. All he is asking is that a statement made outside the house be confirmed or denied. In this sense, I do not think it is in order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to discuss this matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who reports for the C.B.C. I have received a number of communications, as I am sure have other members, regarding the degrading and demoralizing program on the "Festival", series called "Neighbours and The Basement", which appeared on the C.B.C. on January 15. Has the minister inquired of the C.B.C. whether or not the admonition of the Prime Minister that government should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation should apply as well to a publicly owned corporation. This particular show, I am told, was degrading, demoralizing-and worse.

Kon. Gerard Pellefier (Secretary of State):
Mr. Speaker, for the portion of the right hon. member's intervention that constitutes a question, my answer is yes.
January 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the dispute between the Indians of northern Manitoba and the Manitoba Hydro in respect of the flooding of a large number of Indian homes as a result of hydro development, is the department assisting the Indians concerned by paying for their legal and any other expenses which they may have.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know what the problem is and the officials of my department in Manitoba do their utmost to assist the Indians who are in the unhappy situation of being unable to find some ground for understanding with the Manitoba government.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the specific question whether the department is considering paying the legal costs in respect of counsel whom the Indians have employed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of this aspect of the matter but I shall inquire.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he or the government have obtained an inkling as to the agenda for the Paris-Quebec talks.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Do I have the agenda?


Robert Muir: Have you obtained an inkling concerning what may be on the agenda for the Paris-Quebec conference?


Mr. Trudeau:: The French authorities have notified us of the meetings that are to go on. In a protocol sense they have behaved compatibly with our understanding of international law. We are assuming the discussions 
will be on subjects which are covered by the agreement between France and Canada, the accord cadre, and we hope this assumption is a correct one.


Robert Muir: May
I ask the Prime Minister whether the question of bilingualism is among the subjects that will be on the agenda and, secondly, whether the Prime Minister plans to invite a delegation from Brittany to discuss matters of mutual and cultural concern.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (Sf. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister in a position to reply to the request of the Consumers Association of Canada that there be a federal investigation into the alleged high profits of the grocery trade in western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this is a question of a general nature. Perhaps the question might be placed on the order paper. If my interpretation of the question is wrong, I would see to it that it is placed on the list of questions for consideration at the time of adjournment.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I point out that this request was made of the government in the last few days by the Consumers Association of Canada.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The communication from the Consumers Association of Canada was relative to the annual report of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act. I have proposed that there be a meeting between the C.A.C. and the Director of Investigation and Research, because I think there is some misunderstanding in the C.A.C. relative to the powers, duties and functions of the Director under the Combines Investigation Act. I am also meeting this afternoon with representatives of the Consumers Association to discuss with them the white paper on price stability, which I tabled before Christmas. I am sure the subject will be pursued with them.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: In view of the minister's indication that the Combines Investigation Act cannot be used
January 22, 1969

for this purpose, will he work with the appropriate ministers in the prairie provinces to effect such an investigation of grocery-prices.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I had one meeting before Christmas with the Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan, who was the chairman of the three provincial ministers who were asked by their respective premiers to look at the recommendations of the Batten report. I proposed that Mr. Heald, the Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan, hold a meeting with the three provincial ministers in respect of that royal commission report.


ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO TRIBUNAL
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can advise the house as to when he proposes to appoint the final two members to the anti-dumping tribunal?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, they will be appointed as work develops for the tribunal. I understand that to date there has been only one case referred, and the members we now have are adequate for the work load. The idea is that as the work load increases we will extend the board membership to five members.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If it becomes necessary to increase the board membership to five, can the minister assure the house that the other two appointments will be given to well experienced businessmen?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I believe the appointments to this board are men of as high calibre as any board we have in Canada. I have great confidence in every person appointed to this board.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of regional development when the house may expect to receive the long awaited bill in respect of the establishment of his department, so he can proceed with this important work?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: As soon as possible,
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker; and we are anxious to produce the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it possible for the minister to give the house some estimate in terms of days or weeks as to when this might happen?


Jean Marchand: I am ready to discuss the matter with the house leader, after which perhaps I can give a more precise date.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Transport in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister whether the government's review of Canada's foreign policy included a study of the possibility of increasing our activities under our external aid program. The minister said he would draw this important question to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I expressed the hope that there might be a statement on this matter this week, and I wonder whether it is now ready?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the specific question is yes. This is part of the government's review of foreign policy, and we are considering both the quantity and the quality of our foreign aid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate when it is expected that Canada will reach the target of 1 per cent of our gross national product in respect of foreign aid?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot be precise, Mr. Speaker, but like the Minister of Finance, I should like to say "as soon as possible."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is in order.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General.
Since many of my constituents have complained about numerous delays in the mail delivery, could the Minister indicate to the
January 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry house whether steps will be taken to improve the service?


Mr, Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question which has been raised on several occasions these last few days.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked last Friday, which was taken as notice by the then acting minister? I asked whether the Minister of National Defence would inform the house as to the purpose of the discussions that are taking place this week between the Canadian chief of the defence staff and the French chief of the joint staff, reportedly on matters of strategy and procurement, and specifically whether this had any connection with the review of Canadian defence policy, and implied either Canadian procurement of supplies in France or joint procurement projects between France and Canada.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to answer all parts of the question in a manner satisfactory to the hon. member. I can say generally that the chief of staff took advantage of this trip to Brussels last week as a result of an invitation extended to him by the joint chiefs of staff of France, but there is no implication so far as procurement is concerned. We are not contemplating buying anything from France at this moment, and I should say there is no connection with the review that is taking place. I think this meeting is specifically concerned with some training manuals in French, which the Canadian forces are trying to produce in Canada.


REQUEST FOR REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SAFETY
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is in a position to give us a report of the results of the advisory committee on the safety of drugs?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can
[Mr. Latulippe.l
obtain a copy of that report when it is ready and table it in the house, if that is satisfactory.


FINANCE
Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in relation to a question I posed to his parliamentary assistant on December 19. I asked whether he would make available to the house the economic forecast which was made available to provincial premiers.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice and answer it on Friday.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the great number of complaints received following the centralization of Unemployment Insurance offices, I would like to ask the minister whether he does not consider this sufficient reason to review that new policy?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, the Unemployment Insurance Commission is a body which reports to parliament through me, but acts in an independent manner, free of political interference. If the hon. member has any concrete evidence that the commission is not fulfilling its role satisfactorily I will be pleased to take the matter into consideration and pass it on to the commission.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would discuss with the commission the advisability of not dismissing long service employees who are being let go because of a reorganization, but keeping them on until retirement takes place, as other government agencies have done?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite prepared on motions at an early date, perhaps tomorrow, to explain the procedure I have worked out with the Unemployment
January 22, 1969	COMMONS
Insurance Commission. As I have said on several occasions, no one in the commission will be laid off with less than six months notice, which is double that normally given. I anticipate that, at a maximum, less than 50 people working for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, out of an original 800, will be given six months notice some time in February.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development whether he is prepared to answer the question I posed on Friday, January 17?
I could repeat it if he wishes. I asked the acting minister because the minister was not in the house, whether he had received from the Newfoundland government a report on the proposed development plan for western Newfoundland under the FRED program, amounting to $305 million.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have received this report. It is my view, which I believe the provincial government shares, that it would not be wise to base development measures for the province on the study of this area alone. We all know that the economic problems of the province as a whole are very difficult. In co-operation with Newfoundland officials, my department is currently examining what steps would best lead to the most effective joint development measures for the province.


NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE-POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF OAKLAND FRANCHISE TO BUFFALO
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in relation to the reply he gave to a question asked last Monday concerning the possible transfer of the National Hockey League franchise from Oakland to Buffalo. I ask whether in that answer which in my opinion contained a veiled threat, the minister seriously wants Canadians to believe that in his opinion a transfer of this franchise to Buffalo would perhaps contravene the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, whereas a transfer to Vancouver might not do so.
DEBATES	4619
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking the minister to interpret a statute. I would not think that, asked in those terms, the question is acceptable.


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has already left that impression by saying he hopes that by the time they make this decision-and this indicates his interest in the franchise going to Vancouver-it will not be necessary for him to take action under the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister was not in order in interpreting the statute, and the hon. member is not in order in interpreting the minister's interpretation.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question is related to what I understand was an announcement by the minister a few days ago that there will be a federal-provincial conference on Indian Affairs. If there is to be such a conference, will there be facilities for representatives of the native Indian people, in addition to government representatives, to be in attendance and participate in it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it has not been decided yet to organize a federal-provincial conference on Indians problems. However, we have discussed this with the provincial Ministers of Welfare at last week's conference. When we reach a decision, we shall announce it, in order to determine the best method to get to know the views of the Indians.


FINANCE
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the fact that salesmen of Canada Savings Bonds are presently going around "La belle province" telling people that Quebec will go bankrupt and advising them to exchange Quebec Savings
January 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Bonds against Canada Savings Bonds, could the minister tell us whether he has given instructions to his agents to act like that?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not admit the premise of the question, and would like to take it as notice.


Bernard Dumont: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I was asking earlier-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Fron-tenac raising a point of order?


Bernard Dumont: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
For the information of the Minister of Finance, I tried to give him notice of my question, but unfortunately, I could not get anyone who spoke French at his office or at his assistant's. Because I have been unable to give notice, I cannot get an answer today.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive notice of the question. As I understood the question, there was some action taken by people selling Canada bonds. I should point out to my hon. friend that at the present time we are not selling bonds in the market; the Canada Savings Bond campaign is completed, and was very successful. The only sales of bonds that can be going on are through dealers, where people are changing investments.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Arising from the minister's answer of January 15 to my question regarding the postponement of the expansion of ten of thirteen medical teaching centres in Ontario, will the minister undertake to make a statement as to what policies will be introduced by the federal government to meet the critical shortage of medical personnel, which the recent postponements will only make worse?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any further statement is required. At the last federal-provincial conference of health ministers the federal government

indicated the position we would have to take in the forthcoming year, namely that the expenditures out of the fund for this type of development would have to be limited to $37 million.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Mac T. McCufcheon (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to his statement in connection with a change of plans regarding foreign aid. I wonder if the minister could say whether there are plans for an increased amount of our domestic agricultural products to be used in foreign aid.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that in general our aid is for the purpose of satisfying the priorities established by the developing country. We would be very happy to fit our agricultural products into a program put forward by those countries, if this is their order of priority.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In connection with the cultural happening scheduled to take place in the Laurentians this week, will the question of the 15 commissionaires fired from museums be the subject of any review?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the officials of cultural institutions at their meeting in Val David next Friday and Saturday are to establish their own agenda and I cannot say if this matter will be on it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to the question I addressed to the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State, in view of the concern of veterans' organizations over this matter, seize the initiative in conducting a review?
January 22, 1969	COMMONS


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that matter was never neglected by the Secretary of State.
Every time the matter was brought up, we considered it still more closely. I, myself, read in the newspapers today allegations, contrary to the reports I have received, that some commissioners had lost benefits or even salary, and I inquired about that at once.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris may be sure that this is a matter we certainly have no intention of neglecting.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Supplementary to my first question, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the growing protests from veterans organizations across the country over the injustice of the arbitrary action taken with reference to the commissionaires, would the minister seize the initiative himself and review this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that at least part of his question was not in order. He can only ask a question, and cannot include in it an expression of opinion.


CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, I would like to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris on January 15, with regard to the allegations of the Montreal Chapter of the Film Makers Association, accusing the Canadian Film Development Corporation of having failed to act. I told him that I would inquire and I am now in a position to give him whatever information I got.
At its meeting of December 17, the Canadian Film Development Corporation approved the investment of about $500,000 in the production of two feature films. They are "The Blast" and "The Act of the Heart". In addition, the Corporation is considering applications for three other feature films, fourteen feature film projects, two cases of distribution aid and two of film dubbing. The total investments should reach $1 million by the end of the fiscal year. The board of directors is to meet again at the end of January to discuss further the case mentioned.
DEBATES	4621
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS


REQUEST FOR REPORT OF WOODS COMMITTEE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Has the minister yet received the report of the Woods committee on labour relations and, if so, will he be tabling it in the house before long?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the Woods committee report is at the present time in the office of the Prime Minister, since this task force was set up by the Prime Minister's office two years ago. I understand that the English version is now available to the Prime Minister's office and is being translated, and that over the next several weeks the French version of the Woods committee report will also be available to the Prime Minister's office. As to its disposition, in view of the fact that its recommendations affect many departments and not only the Department of Labour, I would imagine that the Prime Minister himself would want to outline to the house the procedure that he intends to follow with regard to the publication of the report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister make such a statement now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is the time to do it. I must point out to the hon. member as well as to other members that we are again running short of time, and if the Prime Minister made such a statement I am afraid that would be the end of the question period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At
least the Prime Minister could tell us whether the report is going to be tabled.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we will follow the usual practice. First we will have to read it and discuss it, and then we will see if it is in the public interest to table it.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In view of the fact that the term of office of the chairman of the Atlantic Development Board expires at midnight tonight, I should like to ask the minister whether a replacement has yet been made, and who it is?
January 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a replacement has not been made yet.


Melvin James McQuaid: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to make an appointment or to ask the present chairman to carry on for a longer time?


Jean Marchand: This, Mr. Speaker, bears some relation to the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition. Everything will depend upon the moment when the bill is tabled in the house.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given him a brief indication and on which he agreed to make some comment. I wish to ask him whether it is indeed the intention of the Department of National Defence or the chief of the defence staff to abolish the use of naval ranks for those serving in the sea element of the Canadian armed forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I can answer this question in the negative.


FINANCE
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but since I just saw him leave the house I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the government's action in raising interest rates on farm credit loans, veterans' loans and now fishermen's loans, will the minister consider increasing the rate at which the government borrows from the superannuation fund from the present 4 per cent to at least 5 per cent or more?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked before, I think, and is being looked into.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell me whether during his stay in Europe he was able to find new solutions to help the poor in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is far too general. Therefore, I do not think it is in order.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Further to his reply to a question a few days ago about the replacement of the list system for Indians entitled to free drugs with a card system, will the minister say what target date has been set for this change and, if none has been set, will he undertake to report to the house on this matter?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the cards have been prepared now as a result of consultations with the Indian people and other departments. We are spreading them out now amongst the Indian people. We hope that they will replace the list in due course, but there will be some duplication between the cards and the list for a month or so.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether before you call orders of the day-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had a discussion with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning a motion for the production of papers, about which we took some action earlier. The minister and I have agreed to have the motion transferred for debate. If I could have the consent of the house to revert to notices of motions for production of papers I would ask that this be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate.
January 22, 1969	COMMONS


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


Gérald Laniel: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I simply wish to bring to your attention the fact that I rose about fifteen times and that there might be time to allow my question now.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection, if the house will agree to let the hon. member do it. I must say that my attention was directed to the left of the Chair.


Gérald Laniel: Yet it would be the only question that will have been permitted on the government side today, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to ask the following question to the Minister of Transport. In view of all that has been said and written to date about this matter, can the Minister of Transport assure the house that in deciding on a site for the future international airport, firstly, all the economic advantages for the country and, secondly, the real advantages for the airline companies and the passengers who will use them, will be taken into consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making representations to the minister which are similar to those made previously. In that sense, I doubt that the question is in order.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that in the event of an affirmative reply, a site could have been chosen west of Montreal, between the riding of Stormont-Dundas and the metropolis.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and
DEBATES	4623
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Economic Affairs of Bill C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of Bill C-151 but I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about it. This bill is an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and yesterday I listened with interest to some of the debate on the bill.
I am not going to try to cover the ground which several hon. members from the Atlantic provinces covered in connection with the use to which this bill could and should be put. However, I do protest to the minister and the government against the clause in the bill which removes the 5 per cent ceiling on interest rates and leaves it up to the Governor in Council to set the interest rate which fishermen must pay for loans under this act. It seems to me that the government, in this field as in others, is moving in the wrong direction.
A number of hon. members referred to a lack of use by fishermen generally of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I am quite certain that the increase in interest rates, which is bound to come about by the removal of the 5 per cent maximum rate, is going to do nothing to encourage fishermen to take out loans under this act.
I was very pleased to see the minister and other hon. members make reference to the excellent record of fishermen in regard to the repayment of loans under the act. I agree with other members that this should be broadcast widely. It is very interesting to note that in 13 years only nine loans, amounting to a small total of just over $3,000, have not been repaid. I do not think any other group in Canada can match this record, and the fishermen and their organizations can be very proud of the people in their ranks.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In going over the information given to the house yesterday it seems apparent to me that in some parts of Canada fishermen or fishermen's unions are not taking advantage of the loans available under this bill. I should like to pose a question or two to the minister. Has he or his department checked to see why the fishermen and their organizations have not made greater use of this act as a means of obtaining improvement loans? It seems to me it would be logical for fishermen to make the best possible use of this legislation when they needed loans for the improvement of their
January 22, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act fishing equipment. I was amazed to learn of the small number of loans which had been taken out over the years. I would appreciate it very much if the minister when he winds up the debate could tell us why the fishermen in certain provinces in particular appeared extremely reluctant to seek assistance under this measure.
Finally, I repeat my complaint about the raising of the present maximum interest rate of 5 per cent. Throughout this session we find the government doing the same thing in connection with all new loan legislation. In my opinion this is not the way to bring relief to people who apply for assistance and desperately need it.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act are certainly in the interests of the fisheries industry in all parts of Canada. During this debate some hon. members have attempted to suggest there were provincial motives involved on the part of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). I do not think inferences of this kind have any place whatever in the House of Commons.
An unfair inference was drawn yesterday by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that because the minister comes from British Columbia he had in some way worked against the great province of Newfoundland and other provinces in this country. Such an allegation is unworthy of this assembly. An attempt was made to divert the attention of the house from the real merits of the bill before us. It is a good bill, a bill which will provide a great deal of credit to help fishermen to build new boats, to equip their boats better, and to become more effective wherever they may fish.
The number of lending institutions is being increased. The interest rate is being made more flexible and more realistic. If the hon. member for St. John's East had any knowledge whatsoever of economics he would surely welcome this change. Loans may be made for a wider range of purposes than ever before. The minister, who needs no one to defend him because he is doing a good job in the office he holds, invited suggestions from the opposition with regard to a new limit on the total amount of loans to fishermen. Instead of constructive proposals we heard a diatribe unsupported by the facts. The minister pointed out that in 1955 the limit was $4,000 and that in 1965 there was a limit of $10,000. He suggested that perhaps $25,000 
would be a realistic new limit and asked the opposition to make constructive proposals for changes in this area. What did we get? A total absence of constructive thought.


James Aloysius McGrath: The bill is only good for British Columbia.


Raymond J. Perrault: Again we hear divisive talk from the hon. member. It is fortunate we have Hansard because in an earlier year the hon. member, who was then assistant to one of the ministers, made a speech in the house. That was on May 12, 1961. The ground rules were different then, however, when this outspoken Conservative critic was a backbencher supporting a Conservative government. This is what he had to say then; I quote from page 4735 of Hansard:
I realize that all too often people speaking on this subject tend to generalize and to oversimplify, and I hppe that this afternoon I will not be too guilty of generalization, bearing in mind at all times that I do not have a really technical knowledge of this very complex subject.
He was uttering truth, Mr. Speaker. This is indeed a complex question. No one in Canada can remain unconcerned about this problem whether he lives in British Columbia or on the prairies or in the maritimes, because we are a united country.
I trust the hon. member is as concerned about the problems we face in British Columbia as we in British Columbia are concerned about the future of the maritimes. At an earlier period in his political career it seems the hon. member had a more highly developed spirit of candour. He said:
I think you have here the real weakness of the Canadian salt fish industry, the fact that our markets for this product depend upon the stocks or supplies of the European markets. It is a common fact that most of the European markets are supplied generally by their own subsidized fleets operating in most cases in Canadian waters.
Of course it is a fact. It continues to be a fact today. But the same hon. member who told us in 1961 that the problem did not lend itself to oversimplification now asks the Minister of Fisheries to stand up and provide instant solutions to the difficulties of the Newfoundland fishermen. He knew in 1961 when he was defending his own government that this was impossible, that this was one of the problem areas.
The other day the hon. member for St. John's East accused other members of this house of knowing nothing about Newfoundland. "You haven't even been there", he said. Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted to go to
January 22, 1969

Newfoundland. I am going there next month and I hope to talk to some of the people engaged in the fishing industry there. In this connection I might mention that when the hon. member spoke in May of 1961 he was asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the hon. Mr. Pickersgill, whether he had ever visited the research station in Valleyfield, Newfoundland. His reply was:
Unfortunately I have not, because Valleyfield is so isolated and so far away from the main centres of the island that I have been unable to go there.


James Aloysius McGrath: There was no road through.


Raymond J. Perrault: I hope the hon. member was eventually able to get to Valleyfield in his own province and that he will excuse some of us for not getting to Newfoundland when in terms of miles it is considerably farther away from us.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: Oh, the hon. member for St. John's East made a spectacular speech yesterday. If he has any further statement to make, he can make it after I have finished.


James Aloysius McGrath: You can get to Valleyfield now because we built a road there.


Raymond J. Perrault: On another day and on another occasion the hon. member had something else to say about the Newfoundland fishery. These are his words as recorded in Hansard of April 28, 1959, at page 3137:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
This question is a complex one. It has been perplexing the governments down through the years. One has but to look briefly at the history of Newfoundland to see that the economy, up to perhaps a few years ago, was based solely on fish; it was a one-product economy. The folly of this economic condition became evident in Newfoundland during the world-wide depression in 1933, for at that time we found ourselves unable to sell our fish in the world markets-
Now, I am one, sir, who is of the opinion that the future of Newfoundland, and to a very large extent the future of Canada's tenth province, will ultimately depend on the attitudes and policies of this government and the provincial government toward the fishery of Newfoundland.
After three years of Conservative government this is what the hon. member had to say about the then existing situation in the province of Newfoundland:
What do you find today if you go into these same settlements? You will find the little potato field grown over with weeds. He no longer keeps dairy cattle or poultry to supply his own needs. His

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act fishing gear is rotting. His nets have rotted away and in some cases the people have not even bothered to request that the wharf be rebuilt.
That is what the hon. member for St. John's East had to say about Newfoundland after three years of Conservative administration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. Will he resume his seat. It seems to me that I must bring to his attention that the rules of relevancy require that the hon. member refer to the bill that is before the house. We should hear what his views are about the bill before the house, not necessarily what he thinks about the views that were expressed by the hon. member for St. John's East.


Raymond J. Perrault: Fisheries Improvement Loans Act vigour. He said that the government of that day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the rules the hon. member should first resume his seat. The hon. member is again referring to statements made by the hon. member for St. John's East on another occasion. I feel that I have been as lenient as possible in allowing the hon. member to reply to some extent to the statements that he alleges were made by the hon. member for St. John's East yesterday. Having done this, the leniency of the Chair having been exercised to that extent, I think the hon. member should co-operate with the Chair and return to the consideration of the measure before the house.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the point has been made as to the divergence between the statements made when the hon. member was defending his government in facing this problem and the statements that he made yesterday. In his speech we were told that there is a lack of assistance to the province of Newfoundland from the federal government. If the hon. member would become active in supporting this legislation, which is going to increase the amount of money that can be borrowed by those engaged in the fishing industry and make it available at realistic interest rates, he would be making a more constructive contribution on the part of his province than the contribution he made yesterday.
Under the provincial program, 10 per cent of the cost of a boat is available through a provincial subsidy at an interest rate of 3.5 per cent, repayable in ten years. On used equipment there is a 25 per cent subsidy, also at 3.5 per cent interest and repayable in ten years. That was one reason there were only 18 fisheries improvement loans in Newfoundland over the period cited by the hon. member in his speech.
How is this provincial assistance made available? It is because federal government development dollars amount to more than 30 cents for every $1 spent for all purposes in Newfoundland. Yet the hon. member from Newfoundland has told us that the government is doing nothing for Newfoundland and for Newfoundland fishermen, that the minister is, in effect, a liar. He would do better to support this measure, get behind it, and do a

personal public relations job in Newfoundland by encouraging those in the fishing industry in the province to examine the legislation very carefully so as to find out whether or not they may qualify, and thus render a real service to his province. Quite apart from the unparliamentary aspects of some of the inferences that he drew yesterday, it is a fact that the federal government puts up over half the money in Newfoundland's provincial budget.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has implied that yesterday I said things which were unparliamentary. I maintain this is not so. At no time was I called to order by the Chair for saying things that were unparliamentary. I submit to Your Honour that the hon. member should withdraw that remark.


Raymond J. Perrault: If the hon. member is willing to withdraw his suggestion that there was a total misrepresentation of the facts on the part of the minister, then I will consider his request.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot rule on what was said by the hon. member yesterday, but I will rule that it is not unparliamentary to say that an hon. member has said something that is unparliamentary. I would leave it at that.


Mr. Moores:: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order-


Raymond J. Perrault: The measure before the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Frank Duff Moores: I should like to raise a point of order with regard to the hon. member's remark that the Newfoundland government has set up an agency to lend money at 3J per cent. I would not want the hon. member to misinform the house, but I think he will find-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that is not a point of order. If he believes that it is then he might indicate to the Chair under which standing order he is raising it. That might be a little embarrassing for him.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to point out that there is concern on the part of members from all parts of Canada with regard to the plight of the Newfoundland and
January 22, 1969

maritimes fisheries. But aid has been extended to the fisheries for a number of years, and this measure is simply going to improve the situation and make more money available for more purposes at realistic interest rates. The federal government, through all departments -fisheries, public works, transport, unemployment insurance, etc.-puts up the equivalent of more than 40 cents for every $1 that the fisherman gets for his fish.
In 1968-and this relates to the program which is part of the general pattern of assistance-the government had in operation three expenditure programs involving $4.5 million for groundfish, $2.5 million for salt cod and $1.2 million for the resettlement of fishermen. These programs were in addition to the other aid that is provided. This fact was not referred to yesterday by the hon. member.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
If we are going to help any given part of Canada, then there must be a degree of cooperation among members of all parties of this house. The hon. member for St. John's East is either ignorant of the facts or he has chosen to ignore them; and neither condition is acceptable. I urge the hon. member to spend more time in his province promoting and encouraging a greater use of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and less time in pursuing personally destructive vendettas against the Minister of Fisheries and the federal government. It is to be hoped that since he has now made his speech he will support this measure in the interests of the fishermen of Canada wherever they live.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked who the hell was the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. I am wondering what the hell the hon. member is trying to prove with his irrelevant remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may be anticipating the hon. member's remarks but I must tell him, as I told the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, that under the rules hon. members' remarks should be confined to the principle of the bill and should not be personal in any way.


John Howard Lundrigan: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the hon. member's remarks misrepresented the facts of a situation. No one will deny that in presenting Bill C-151 the Minister of Fisheries is trying to make an effort, in one form or another, to help the fishermen of Canada ameliorate their
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act circumstances. One of our problems is that the Minister of Fisheries does not know the Atlantic region. His sincerity notwithstanding, he has not had a great deal to do with the Atlantic fishery. It might be a good idea if we had two deputy ministers responsible for fisheries, one dealing with the Atlantic region and one with the Pacific coast. Because there are great differences between the east and west coast fisheries I have heard it suggested that there ought to be two ministers responsible for fisheries who in turn would have deputy ministers. Although no one can say that the minister is displaying no interest in our fisheries it is true that he knows little about Atlantic Canada. I think he will be the first to admit that.
It is well for the minister to understand that our Atlantic fishermen are not looking for handouts or for government of Canada doles. I take strong exception to any suggestion that under Bill C-151 our fishermen will be entitled to receive a form of dole. That kind of thinking is unworthy of some of our better off Canadians who live in industrialized regions. It is unjust for anyone to classify some people in Canada as second class citizens who are satisfied to live on government handouts. Anyone making that suggestion about our Atlantic fishermen is wasting the time of hon. members and of this house.
Several times during this debate hon. members have mentioned that the fishermen of Newfoundland receive 40 per cent of their total incomes in the form of government handouts. Only last month the government of Canada made a so-called sacrifice and shipped 50 million pounds of fish to Biafra. The world looked on and said, "My, what a government they have in Canada; what a great government." The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was happy with the shipment, everyone was happy, and representatives at the United Nations acclaimed the magnificently benevolent attitude Canada displayed toward the suffering people of Nigeria and Biafra. We sent the fish all right, but what the people of the world did not understand was that the government of Canada squeezed the fishermen of Newfoundland in order to obtain that fish at the lowest possible price. It was the fishermen of Newfoundland who made the sacrifice and who shipped that fish to Biafra.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: I wish to place on record what the government did. Officials of the government of Canada asked merchants of the
4628	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Atlantic region to press fishermen for the lowest possible price as a condition to obtaining government contracts for the fish. As a result some fishermen in Newfoundland were paid as little as $13 per hundredweight of fish, the price last year having been $27 a hundredweight. Today we have people in Newfoundland kicking their heels on wharves and wondering what happened to the great benefits this government promised them and to which the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour alluded.
Yesterday evening the minister outlined the aims of this legislation, as found on page 4581 of Hansard. No one will question the ultimate aims of Bill C-151. We all want to see the fishermen of Atlantic Canada and other parts of the country benefit from the legislation. Yet the fact remains that few have made use of this legislation in the past. Merely passing this bill is like saying to our fishermen: There are fish in the water. The fact remains that the oceans are large. The question is, where are the fish? In the past fishermen did not know of the provisions of similar legislation. They did not know they could obtain money. Not many loans were made under this legislation last year, and the hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour and the Minister of Fisheries are aware of that fact. Will it be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Finance or anyone else charged with the administration of this legislation to make known to our fishermen the provisions of this legislation? The government allocated $500 to make known to the fishermen of Newfoundland the provisions of previous legislation. That was not enough. Our fishermen must be made aware of the provisions of this legislation.
The fact is that since our fishermen live in little coves and inlets they cannot receive messages through the mass communications media as readily as the citizens of Toronto or other metropolitan centres. Our fishermen should know of the benefits they can derive from Bill C-151, how they can apply for loans, pay those loans back, and what they must do if they get into difficulties and cannot make payments for a number of years. The government may have to hire public relations people to make known the benefits of this legislation, or it could be done through inspectors. It is a waste of time enacting laws to benefit our fishermen if they do not know of those laws.
Clearly the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour is privy to information not available

DEBATES	January 22, 1969
to other hon. members. Twice during his speech this afternoon-and I think tomorrow's Hansard will bear me out-the hon. member said that this legislation will bring more favourable rates of interest to the fishermen of Canada. I have not seen anything in Bill C-151 to bear out that statement. There is no indication that interest rates will decline or become more favourable. Apparently the hon. member knows something about future interest rates; I am afraid our fishermen do not know what he knows. Hon. members will remember what happened to interest rates under farm legislation recently passed in regard, to interest rates charged on farm loans. There was no guarantee. The frozen interest rate of 5 per cent was lifted and there was no indication what rate of interest would be paid by these people. This is the third occasion in the last couple of months that we have seen the same thing happen.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I do not think we would be too happy, when purchasing a car, about going to a bank and getting involved in a financial transaction without knowing something about the interest rate. I cannot stand here and say to the Minister of Fisheries, to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, and to the house that I am happy with this kind of blind approach to everything. I cannot make such a statement. I am not going to say on behalf of the fishermen in my riding that I am happy with an interest rate when I have no idea what it will be.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour indicates that it is going to be a more favourable rate of interest. I ask the Minister of Fisheries to tell us what the rate of interest will be. I will certainly be happy to find out how much more favourable it is.


Raymond J. Perrault: You could not get money at 5 per cent.


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour has indicated that the fishermen could not get loans at 5 per cent. Apparently the interest rate is going to be a good bit higher than 5 per cent, perhaps 10 per cent or 15 per cent. Yet he says it will be a more favourable rate of interest. Why is he saying that? Why does he not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that the farmers and fishermen are going to pay double for their loans, that the farmers and fishermen are going to be left out in the
January 22, 1969	COMMONS
cold? I say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour: It is all very well for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to go out on blind dates but we want the farmers and fishermen of Canada to know what they are going to pay for money.
I had no intention of speaking at length on this point. I just wanted to inquire as to the favourable rate of interest, and to ask the minister to give serious consideration to telling the fishermen of Canada exactly what are the benefits of this legislation and to what extent they can be assumed by the fishermen of the Atlantic region and the rest of Canada.
Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour made reference to the 3J per cent interest loans which are available in Newfoundland, money which he said is being made available by the federal government-


An hon. Member:: By the provincial
government.


John Howard Lundrigan: -apparently made available by the provincial government but coming from the federal government. I think he made the observation with respect to this little province off the east coast of Canada that it is surviving only as a result of the munificence of the government of Canada. I think that was the observation he made.


Raymond J. Perrault: May I ask a question?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer-yes, ask any question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will
resume his seat, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am stating my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member has the right to ask a question of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and that hon. member has the option to refuse. If that is what the hon. member for Burnaby Seymour stood up to do, I take it that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has refused to accept a question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, I would never refuse such a request from my hon. friend from British Columbia.
DEBATES	4629
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, a number of remarks have been attributed to me which clearly were not uttered by me. I simply suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to engage in the debate he should not feel it necessary to misquote. The hon. member should not misquote me. My point related to the amount of aid received by Newfoundland. The reference was made, Mr. Speaker, that I said in my remarks that somehow the federal government was supporting the province of Newfoundland and providing all the aid down there. That is an incorrect account of what I said and I made no such suggestion. I simply ask the hon. member to be factual.


John Howard Lundrigan: I hope the hon. member from B.S. is not asking me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: -to make a ruling on that.
I would not presume to assume the awesome responsibility of the Chair. The hon. member indicated that there were amounts of money available at 3J per cent from the Newfoundland Fishery Loans Board. This is correct. However, I would just like to say I have had occasion to write to that board on behalf of a number of people who have been hoping to expand their operations through the use of larger craft, better fishing gear and so on, but the reply I got was that there is no money available from that board. The source has dried up. There is no money available because no moneys are forthcoming from the source, whatever it was. The hon. member says it was the federal government. There has not been any money for six months and there is a good indication that there will be none this year. At least, that is the information I received as the result of my inquiries, so I think the person who is really out of order is the hon. member from B.S. and I think he ought to make this correction the next time he stands up in his place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would
request the hon. member that in future when referring to a riding he refer to it by its proper name. It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: January 22, 1969

automatically bring the ceiling down to 5 per cent or less. If the government of Canada some day in the future can borrow money at 3 per cent, then loans to fishermen will be available at no more than 4 per cent. If the government can borrow at 4 per cent over any period of months, then the fishermen will be able to obtain money for less than 5 per cent, and so on.
This interest rate is part of the general rate structure. As interest rates rise this rate will rise and as interest rates fall it will fall. It will always be a preferred rate relative to the rate large corporations would pay and certainly will be preferential over the rate at which small companies might borrow from the Industrial Development Bank and the rate which most small commercial establishments would have to pay on loans made through a bank or other commercial lending institution. This is good legislation in the sense that it gives preference to the fisherman. It gives a preference to him in the sense that he will pay less for money than he would otherwise have to pay.
There are only a few other points on which I should like to touch. There is the question of the maximum loan which can be granted. This was raised by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). This was the reason I asked one of the members what the amount would be that a fisherman would need to finance a new vessel. I would like to know what it would cost a fisherman today to finance a new longliner on the east coast, for example, or a new halibut boat on the west coast. Would the amount be $10,000 or would it more likely be $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000? If this is the amount of money a fisherman must have in order to equip himself with a new vessel including all the necessary electronic gear and so on, then we should consider a ceiling higher than the ceiling of $10,000 which has been in effect since 1965. This, however, is a matter on which we can obtain expert opinion and evidence when the bill is before the committee.
Several members have asked why these loans are not used more. In the Atlantic region, generally speaking there is provincial legislation under which loans are available at lower interest rates than are available now from private lenders. Also in some provinces there are direct grants available as well; in other words, interest-free money which in many cases is given and forgotten by the province. The lender in all these cases is the provincial government. One can perhaps

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act make a case for direct loans by the federal government but we are not discussing direct loans today. We are discussing loans made available by private lenders with a federal government guarantee. This is parallel legislation to the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I do not think there are any other points on which I should dwell now because we should get this legislation before the committee where I am sure all interested members will do their very best to improve it from the fisherman's point of view.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would allow one question?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes.


Jack Marshall: I have had occasion to relate to the inshore fishermen in the forsaken settlements that these loans are available and have asked them whether they have tried to obtain them. It would appear that the culprits are the banks. The banks will not grant the loans because they do not feel these fishermen are good risks. These are the people who are losing out in respect of the benefits of this legislation. I wonder how this might be overcome and whether the minister would consider overcoming this.


John (Jack) Davis: That is a very good question. The private lending institutions principally are banks. The banks do not have as many outlets in some of our Atlantic provinces as they have in Ontario or throughout the west. This is one deficiency. Also the credit unions, insurance companies and so on have fewer outlets, especially in the outport areas, for instance, of Newfoundland. So we do not have the offices we would like to have particularly in areas where small loans of this nature are badly needed.
I think also that we have fallen down rather badly in the sense that the literature describing these loans has not always been available. I understand it has been available on the counters in some of the banks, but I think these loans would be pushed only in areas where the bank manager, for example, felt that he knew something about the prospects of the fishery and of the individual fisherman. I believe the Department of Fisheries should take the responsibility of making this literature more attractive, more understandable and readily available particularly in areas where none of these institutions exist but where perhaps by correspondence or by a visit once in a while a fisherman might be
January 22, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act able to go to a centre and obtain a commercial loan. This is a commercial loan with a federal government guarantee and there is a role for this although perhaps in areas where the provincial government feels it wants to give an added push to the industry it will not be as attractive as it would otherwise be.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, would the
minister permit another question? As the minister will note from my speech, I support this legislation. Would the minister agree that the fact that loans under this act are not used as much as they might be is not because of the lower rates the provincial governments are offering but because the maximum limit is higher under most of the provincial loans. The minister asked how much a longliner would cost. A boat builder informed me that the cost would be in excess of $1,000 per foot. This is an approximate figure. This means that a 60-foot boat would cost in excess of $60,000. Therefore a $10,000 limit will not do the trick.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) Davis: I agree with the comment and I agree also that if we are endeavouring to upgrade the fishery we should be going into bigger, multiple purpose boats. This bill names the maximum loan which any of these commercial institutions may make available to an individual, but the actual amount is still at their discretion. We would want as large a proportion of the total cost of financing under these preferable conditions rather than under commercial conditions with no federal guarantee.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of the record of this legislation in the province of Newfoundland by comparison with the province of Nova Scotia.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but since the inception of this legislation in 1955 the province of Newfoundland has only had 18 loans totalling $23,000. I am sure the minister recognizes that the need in Newfoundland is as great if not greater than in any other province. What steps is the department taking to correct this situation in order to make the benefits of this legislation more available to the fishermen of Newfoundland who so badly need them?


John (Jack) Davis: That is a difficult question to answer. This legislation is national; therefore its terms must be national. There is no preferential clause dealing with any particular region as opposed to others. I think we would


have to consider other sources of credit to deal with specific situations under specific programs, for instance, the specific program relating to the salt fish industry which, as it happens, is confined largely to Newfoundland, or a somewhat broader one confined almost completely to the Atlantic region, the groundfishery program. It is under more selective programs of this nature that we could provide aid to certain regions to focus on regional problems or areas which the hon. member is concerned about at this time.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, following the passage of this legislation would the minister consider the preparation of a special brochure which could be provided to the banks and other lending institutions mentioned in the bill in order that they might be available in these institutions to Canadian fishermen? In my opinion there has been a grave lack of communication between the minister's department and the people concerned. It is obvious from the number of loans made that fishermen are not aware of the amount which may be borrowed. I should like to ask the minister whether he would give some thought to making brochures available to these institutions so they could be on public display.


John (Jack) Davis: I think the brief answer is yes. The Department of Finance circulated a brochure describing the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. It was distributed through certain banks and only available in certain branches where there was a local manager who knew something about fisheries. Perhaps through the fisheries department and in other ways we could get out more attractive literature to be distributed through more channels and, effectively, to many more fishermen. I think this could be done within the present budget of the Department of Fisheries. No doubt we could switch the emphasis from one program to another. I agree we need more advertising of this kind.


Randolph Harding: I am interested in the small number of fishermen in certain areas who have been availing themselves of assistance under this act. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the suggestions which have been put forward. Would a number of loans be rejected in some areas because the applicants were not good risks? Does the minister have any record of the number of applicants who have been turned down? Would a number of rejections result because the applicants were not good risks under this act?
January 22, 1969


John (Jack) Davis: The experience so far has indicated that a fisherman is an excellent risk. On the record at least he is a far better risk than a farmer, and a far better risk than a student under the student loans program. The figures I have seen in our annual reports indicate that a small fraction of 1 per cent of fishermen fail to make their payments on schedule. There was another aspect of the hon. member's question which I am afraid has slipped my mind.


Randolph Harding: Has the minister any record of the number of applications rejected or turned down?


John (Jack) Davis: No, I have not. However, because the government stands behind the loans I would have thought that individual bank managers would look with much greater favour on applications by fishermen. There is a question of commercial judgment involved here. Over and above the minimum guarantee which is set out farther on in the act, there is a risk. There has to be an assessment of an individual and his ability to pay the loan. But one must remember that the federal government does stand behind these loans up to a substantial amount.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of Bill C-152, to amend the Veterans Land Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it may not be necessary to speak at any length on this bill as hon. members are familiar in general terms with the Veterans Land Act. Perhaps I should mention that since the act became effective in 1942, some 117,000 veterans have taken advantage of its financial assistance to establish themselves on farms or small holdings. The total investment of funds for that purpose has amounted to $911 million. At the present time the department has approximately 56,000 active accounts representing an investment of $438 million. These figures clearly demonstrate that the V.L.A. has been a major factor in the re-establishment of Canadian veterans.
Veterans Land Act
The purpose of the proposed amendment in this bill is to provide that certain interest rates charged on moneys lent under the Veterans Land Act may be prescribed by the Governor in Council instead of being fixed by statute. Hon. members are well aware that interest rates in the general economy of the country fluctuate from time to time and have in recent years been somewhat above the long term level.
At the present time the V.L.A. has three different rates, two of them fixed by statute and the third prescribed by regulation. The rate of interest on loans up to $6,000 was established in 1942 at 3J per cent which was close to the cost of money at that time. For loans over $6,000 and under $20,000 the rate of 5 per cent was fixed by statute in 1954. For farm loans in excess of $20,000 the rate is determined by the Governor in Council and since 1964 has been related directly to that charged under the Farm Credit Act. This third rate is currently 7J per cent.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The effect of the proposed measure would be to transfer the rate for loans over $6,000 and under $20,000, which is now 5 per cent, from a statutory to a regulatory basis. It will permit the rate to be established from time to time by the Governor in Council. Hon. members will recall that the house recently considered a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act so that the interest rate under that plan might similarly be prescribed by regulation. The principle in both cases is the same. Following enactment of this measure it is the intention to apply the same interest rates for V.L.A. loans over $6,000 as those that are applied from time to time for the whole amount of loans under the Farm Credit Act.
I should like to emphasize that this measure will not affect the 31 per cent rate on the repayable portion of V.L.A. loans up to $6,000 under part I of the act. This rate has been unchanged since 1942 and will remain on a statutory basis as at present. The conditional grant paid for ten years continued occupancy of the house by the veteran will also remain unchanged. The government recognizes the special position of veterans and regards the benefits outlined in the Veterans Charter as an entitlement for war service in War II or the Korean forces. Part I of the Veterans Land Act is one of these benefits included in the Veterans Charter. Therefore, although the 3i per cent rate is now substantially below the cost of long term money, veterans who

January 22, 1969
Veterans Land Act
are established in the future will continue to receive this benefit.
Under the new arrangement the veteran borrower will pay 3| per cent on the part I portion of the loan and a rate fixed by order in council on the remainder. It will be seen that the average of the two rates will vary with the total size of the loan. For example, under the provisions of the bill a newly established smallholder who obtains approval of an $18,000 loan with interest at 3J per cent and 7f per cent would pay an average rate of 6J per cent on the repayable debt of $14,000. Similarly, a veteran being established as a farmer and obtaining the maximum loan of $40,000 with a repayable debt of $37,200 for a period of 30 years would in the present circumstances be charged an average rate calculated at 7.4 per cent.
I might mention that the new rates will not affect applications received before September 13, 1968, and applications received after that date and approved before the coming into force of this bill will also fall under the old rates. Existing contracts remain unaffected. If, however, additional loans are approved after the bill becomes law, the new rate will apply but only to the amount of the new loans.
The preservation of the statutory 3J per cent rate on part I loans produces an average rate which is materially lower than the interest rates paid for other kinds of mortgage loans. This in my view should be acceptable to the veterans of Canada because it maintains their preferred position in obtaining financial assistance under the act. I therefore trust that Bill C-152 will be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for detailed study.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of this bill for second reading, not because I am happy about still another proposal to raise interest rates, something which has become a way of life under this government and its just society, but because I see at least a faint ray of hope that possibly the government is taking a first step toward making more money available to make the thousands of approved loans that are now pending. We have heard from various ministers as they have piloted bills through the house the cry that unless interest rates are increased the money market is just not interested in making loans. I do not wish to become involved in this argument; it has been thoroughly discussed in the past few months.
[Mr. Dub4.1
I was surprised when last evening I saw the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rise to speak on the fisheries bill. I wondered just what his interest in fisheries could be unless it was something to do with Winnipeg gold-eye.


Stanley Howard Knowles: could make the same speech today.


Charles Humbert Thomas: But he had not
been on his feet very long when I realized the purpose of his remarks. I think he summed up the matter very nicely when he said that we have had a proliferation of bills brought in by the government in the past few months, the farm credit bills, the fisheries bill that we have just finished discussing and now the Veterans Land Act measure, and have now reached th point when any one of us could rise and talk on any of these bills just by repeating speeches already made. This is so because essentially the only thing these bills are designed to do is increase interest rates.
However, I would point out that in this case there is a fundamental difference. The money involved in this bill is not dependent upon the vagaries of the commercial market. The money with which to finance loans under the Veterans Land Act comes from a fund set up by the government at the time the act was amended in 1965. The amount was then established at $380 million and last year it was increased to $530 million. This is the limit of the fund and when it is reached no more loans can be made, regardless of interest rates. Therefore this proposal to raise interest rates will do nothing to increase the money available for loans under the act. It might make the Treasury Board a little more willing to increase the money available. If this should be the case we will at least have done something for the veterans who are in desperate need of housing.
At this point I would emphasize that I am not accepting the premise that there should be no subsidization of loans to veterans. I do not agree that the veteran should pay the full interest rate. This question will be discussed at length when the bill goes to committee. I would also remind the minister, as so many of his cabinet colleagues have been reminded by this side of the house, that the method of determining the rate of interest should be more clearly defined. Under this bill the rate of interest can be determined by the Governor in Council. But how? This is not spelled out. I know that the Minister of Veterans
January 22, 1969

Affairs (Mr. Dube) said that it would probably be the same as that applied under the Farm Credit Act. But this, as we have discussed many times on these various bills, is not good enough. I suggest that when this bill comes before the committee a definite formula for setting interest rates should be established.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think the house should have some assurance from the minister that if this bill passes the Treasury Board will then take steps to provide more money for the director, raising the ceiling of the fund if necessary. We do not want a repetition of 1968 when funds for loans to veterans were limited to about 35 per cent above the previous five-year average. As a result of this, loan funds were exhausted by July in four out of the seven regions. Because of this the director was forced to defer 1,000 loans, amounting to $14 million, until 1969 funds became available.
At present over 150,000 veterans have established eligibility for loans, and it is estimated that from 30,000 to 50,000 of these will be established before the final cut-off in 1974. In testimony before the veterans affairs committee Mr. R. W. Pawley, Director General of the Veterans Land Act, estimated that this would require approximately $100 million a year over the next six years. So I plead with the minister to give us the assurance that once this bill goes through he will see that $100 million is available each year, or as needed. This is what the veteran expects; this is the action he deserves.
I am pleased that the minister saw fit to make no changes in part I of the act and has retained the 3J per cent rate on loans under this section. When the resolution was presented to the house I, along with most people feared that the proposal would apply to part I of the act as well. This would have been a breach of faith with the veteran and would have met strong opposition from the Canadian Legion and from this side of the house. But this objection cannot be raised now, and I would therefore urge that the house dispose of second reading quickly and send this bill to the committee where it can be discussed fully and where any necessary changes may be made.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, members of parliament and the Canadian people have been taken in very badly by the Liberal government in the last
Veterans Land Act
two or three years, particularly the low income groups. A few years ago we listened to the then minister of finance indicate that if the ceiling on the bank interest rate were raised-I can well remember the argument- interest rates would probably level out at about 4 per cent, that we would destroy the secondary lending institutions such as trust companies, finance companies and other institutions, and that the prime interest rate would come down considerably below the 6 per cent ceiling. It is an indication of how little most of us know about finance and about the methods used in financing that we did not even realize we were being hoodwinked at that time. Since then we have been continually faced with increasing rates on loans under specific legislation.
I was very concerned when the interest rate on farm credit under the Farm Credit Corporation was raised because these were long term loans that were being subsidized by the government to enable farmers across Canada to upgrade their farm operations and make them more economic. The same was true of farm improvement loans. Farm syndicates were in a different category because there was no fixed interest rate on such loans and there was some merit in freeing it. The fisheries legislation we have just discussed is in the same category. Loans were subsidized to assist in upgrading the operations of fishermen, particularly on the east coast.
Now we are faced with changes in the Veterans Land Act. In my opinion it is a good thing that the Canadian people in 1945 decided, in establishing the Veterans Land Act, to use this method rather than the old soldier settlement scheme which was so badly abused by governments, and to create this charter in such a way as to permit veterans to establish themselves on farms with special advantages.
I sincerely congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs for having been able to retain part I where the interest rate stands at 3i per cent for loans up to $6,000. I think this is a reward to those who gave up, if nothing else, several years of their lives in the service of their country. It seems there are not many people in the government who have sympathy for the veterans and their problems. Therefore I assume the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be congratulated for having been able to retain part I, especially in view of the fact that the government seems hell-bent on balancing the budget at the expense of the little people. High interest rates will certainly not be a help in this regard. We know that

January 22, 1969
Veterans Land Act
when the government borrows money at 6i per cent and then lends it to the veterans at 5 per cent there is a cost to the taxpayer, but we have some responsibility to the veterans. We established the 5 per cent interest rate when capital was being borrowed at under 3 per cent, and it seems to me that this will balance off so that the government will not lose much in this operation.
The Veterans Land Act has been operated very successfully, both by the present director and the previous one who sincerely believe in the principle of self-help for the veterans. The whole program has been a great success. It seems to me a great shame that we have not been able to maintain over a period of 30 years the same type of legislation for one veteran as against another. The cost of loans under part II and part III will probably run to 7| per cent.
Very recently we increased the interest rate on national housing loans which we now find are running as high as 9.58 per cent. It seems to me quite possible that before long loans under the Veterans Land Act, the Farm Credit Corporation, and our other fixed, long term, assured loans, will carry interest rates of 8 or 9 per cent as well.
The hon. member who just spoke suggested we should not discuss this bill at length on second reading but refer it to the committee. I am of the same opinion because it presents us with a fait accompli and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. The government will need $500 million to meet its commitments and it will have to borrow. It will lend at an interest rate 1 per cent above its borrowing rate, which will mean a rate of 7-2 to 8 per cent. We will have to borrow this money if we are going to make loans to the veterans and meet our commitments.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In my opinion there is nothing the committee can do about it; the committee can only muck around long enough to weaken the position of the minister in retaining the rate of 3J per cent on the first $6,000. It seems to me there is nothing to be gained by sending this legislation to the committee or, indeed, by sending any legislation involving higher interest rates to committees. I think the country has been hoodwinked into believing we have really done something in the seven or eight bills we have recently dealt with, but we really have no influence whatever on their content in relation to interest rates. The rate is actually being set by the Minister of

Finance (Mr. Benson) who determines the government's over-all policy, which is to produce a balanced budget regardless of where the revenue comes from.
As it happens, the funds necessary for these loans are not available from any other source. Take veterans established under the Veterans Land Act, for example. For many reasons, the only borrowing sources open to them are these government institutions. Parliament, in my view, has no say in regard to the changes which are taking place and there is nothing in this bill which warrants sending it to the committee. I would be prepared, and I think members of my party would be prepared, to waive consideration by the committee. The interest rate is a fait accompli and there is nothing else to be discussed. We took part in a discussion concerning the Veterans Land Act a year ago when we were told there was a cut-off of applications for benefit under the Veterans Charter. We know how many applications there are, we know the need which exists, at least approximately, and there does not seem to be much that we can change in this connection.
I think we should let the country know that the government is failing to honour its commitments. Some of those commitments were made, it is true, by people who have gone from this chamber. But the commitments with respect to the Veterans Charter were entered upon not by one party alone but by every political party in a non-partisan manner. The commitment was by the House of Commons, by the government as a continuing entity, and it should remain in effect as long as there is a need for the benefits of the charter.
It is a breach of faith, in my opinion, when the interest rate is changed-a rate which was obviously subsidized as a result of decisions by people who knew what they were doing and wanted to give some return to the veterans of Canada for the services they had rendered. We have reached a sad pass when we have to ask veterans to pick up part of the tab because we in Canada have not been able to keep our financial institutions in line with the needs of our people.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, to speak briefly this afternoon on Bill C-152, may I begin by drawing attention to the fact that when ministers speak in closing debates on bills with a similar provision they invariably suggest that the funds required by the people who need to borrow cannot be made available as formerly because
January 22, 1969

the terms are no longer acceptable to the major financial institutions. This bill is another indication that the money people are telling the government of the day exactly what to do and where to get off. I agree that the minister is to be congratulated on retaining a rate of 3J per cent on that portion of each loan up to $6,000. I feel that in the other bills which have come before us consideration should have been given to a provision of the same kind, but there is nothing we can do about that now. Only time and elections will provide the answer.
There is just one point I should like to dwell on. How have we allowed ourselves to become so deeply involved with the banks and the finance companies? Every time we turn around we find the banks and finance companies telling us what to do. And up to now there has not been a government big enough to put these institutions in their place. In my opinion this country is run entirely by these financial institutions and it is high time we in parliament had a say, through the government, in setting interest rates.
How is it that these finance companies, and the banks especially, always show such huge profits? We have read the latest financial statements of some of the banks and we have seen that while interest rates are rising their profits are constantly increasing. No one argues that individuals who invest their money are not entitled to a fair return, but I submit that a fair return on investment means a rate of interest which the people of Canada can at least afford to pay. It is time the government did something about this and used a stick on these institutions.
Another question bothers me when I consider Bill C-152 and similar measures in which interest rates play such an important part. What are the financial institutions really contributing to the welfare of our society in general? Somehow they get money out of the people, lend it back to them at high interest rates, and up go their profits. It seems to me these institutions provide nothing tangible for the benefit of the society in which we live. We know that the farmers, the fishermen, the labourers of this country, produce food and contribute to the general well-being. I suggest that until real thought is given to our monetary system the people of Canada will have nothing to be proud of as far as our financial institutions are concerned. I have never seen anything produced in a bank or a finance company apart from reams of promissory notes, and the paper upon which these are 29180-294
Veterans Land Act
written has been produced by a pulp mill which employs workmen to manufacture the finished product. There is no reasoning behind the system under which we are living.
Having looked at the bill before us and similar bills having to do with interest rates I can only conclude that our economic and monotary system is back in the stone age and that there is no hope of ever getting out of the hands of the money-lenders. This legislation is an example of what will no doubt become the order of the day under the present government. The provision allowing the Governor in Council to set interest rates means that the money interests will control everyone, including the cabinet.
I say that the money institutions are using the big stick on all those who stand in their way and that today there is no one in government big enough to stand against those who are hoodwinking the people into paying high interest rates. It is time the people realized what is happening to them. The people know there is something wrong. No one is representing the people of Canada in regard to legislation of this kind, and this is nothing to be proud of.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I suggest that any government that permits the destiny of this country to be cannibalized by the banks and other financial institutions is highly suspect. Ministers have to present bills to the house in a very embarrassing situation. If only they realized the facts they would not be so ready to stand up and tell us that nothing can be done about the situation, that rates have to be set by the Governor in Council because lending institutions are not prepared to lend money to those requiring assistance under present circumstances.
To add insult to injury, most of these acts provide for a one per cent surcharge for the cost of handling loans. Once again I suggest that this is regarded as another source of income with which to try to balance the budget, a budget that cannot be balanced under the system prevailing today.
I have already said that the minister has done well to keep the interest rate at 3| per cent up to $6,000, but I would seriously urge him when he is alone-I realize he cannot do this when in cabinet-to consider the consequences of the legislation before us. The minister said that the interest is calculated on the cost of money to the government, plus one per cent. The minister is aware of the fact that there is no limit to N.H.A. rates and

January 22, 1969
Veterans Land Act
other rates subject to control by the Governor in Council. The minister suggested that they might come down to 5 per cent but I believe this is nothing more than a myth.
The only thing this government has accomplished since it came to office is the raising of interest rates on every type of assistance to the people of Canada to improve social development. The implementation of the so-called 2 per cent social development tax was just adding insult to injury.
I should like to make my opinion on this matter very clear. It is high time that the cabinet took upon itself the right to determine the destiny of this country and removed itself from the hands of the moneyed interests.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a lecture on Canadian banking affairs. We have been told that the banks are really monsters. I do not have to stand up and protect the banks; they are quite capable of defending themselves. It just so happens that I had lunch today with the manager of one of the Royal Bank branches in Ottawa, and if my hon. friend cares to invest some money in any of these banking institutions they will pay him 63 per cent for his money tomorrow morning. I would simply ask the hon. member how he expects banks to lend him money at 5 per cent when at the present time they are paying interest of 61 per cent and as high as 7 per cent on their trust certificates.
My hon. friend suggested that the banks have not given anything to the economy of Canada, that they have not done a good job or produced any benefit. One thing they have produced for Canada is a whole lot of taxes: 52 cents on every $1 earned by every major lending institution of Canada either goes to Ottawa or to the provincial capital, whichever it may be. So I think they have given quite a lot. As a matter of fact, we should be proud of our banking system in Canada. None of them has gone broke, as happened in the United States not so many years ago. I suggest our banking system has led Canada forward a long way and that we should be proud of it.
To get back to the bill now before the house, I and I am sure many other government backbenchers are sick and tired of the sermons that are periodically delivered to us by members of the opposition in connection with the high cost of money. They blame the government for this. The present bank rate is
[Mr. Skoberg.l
7 per cent. I should like to tell hon. members why it is 7 per cent. It is because the rate in the United States is 7 per cent.
As members of the House of Commons we might as well realize that so far as the financial world is concerned Canada is a mighty small pea in a great big pod. We have very little say in financial affairs. If my hon. friends, along with the rest of the world would get down on their knees and pray for an end to the Viet Nam War and if the war did end they would soon find the cost of money coming down not only in Canada but all over the world. Our United States friends are spending $30 billion a year on that particular mess in which they are involved. Money has to come from somewhere, and this is why the cost of money in Canada is so high.
My hon. friend also suggested that our veterans had been let down by this bill. Other hon. members have said the same thing. As a veteran of considerable experience who spent a long time overseas I am proud of what the government of Canada has done for veterans. No other country in the world has done more for its veterans.
Although it is unfortunate that the cost of money is increasing in Canada, I nevertheless agree with the bill presented to the house by the minister today. The plain fact is that the current rate is a reflection of what money costs and the government cannot do anything about it. The only alternative is subs'dization. I should like to ask my hon. friends whether they are suggesting that all citizens of Canada should subsidize the interest rates charged our farmers, people who want to buy houses under the National Housing Act, or our fishermen under the bill we have just been discussing?


William Arnold Peters: That is exactly what we are saying.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend has answered the question; he says that they should be subsidized. What he is saying in effect is that widows on the back streets of Canada who are living on fixed incomes should subsidize our farmers, fishermen and veterans. I say that should not be so. I say that the cost of financing should be borne by those who receive the benefit of such financing, and this is what is being provided by the bill the minister has put before the house today. My only criticism is that I had hoped the bill could have been presented earlier so that our
January 22, 1969

veterans could have received sooner the benefits of this legislation which is so urgently needed.
Another point that my hon. friend raised in his sermon was that the banks and finance companies should be taken over by the government. What he is really saying is that we should confiscate the banks. I suggest that he is living in the wrong country, that he should be living in Russia. Although they may do such things there, we do not want that here.


John Leroy Skoberg: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw is rising on a point of order.


John Leroy Skoberg: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If it is an intelligent one.


John Leroy Skoberg: That will be determined by the outcome of the next election.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: What about the last election?


John Leroy Skoberg: May I ask the hon. member whether he believes that banks and other lending institutions should be controlled by government regulation in order to limit the maximum amount of profit to which they would be entitled?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The answer to that question is very simple. In his speech my hon. friend suggested that there was a huge area of profit here. I challenge him right now to turn to the financial page of any paper, the Toronto Globs and Mail or any of the Montreal papers, and look at the price today of Royal Bank stock. If he does so he will find that he will make less than 3 per cent on his money. Is that too much? I do not think it is.


William Arnold Peters: That is certainly not the record for last year.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Not for last year; that is the record as of yesterday. I do not have to go back a year or two because I am quite familiar with the profits made by banks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Bruce has the floor.


Mr. Bell:: Hurrah for the banks!
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Hurrah for the people investing in them. I believe there is no better way of investing one's money.
Aeronautics Act
I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill forward. In common with all members of the house I am sorry to see interest rates going up. When I came back from overseas I was one of the first to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act, obtaining money at 3J per cent. I wish all veterans could obtain money at 3J per cent. Unfortunately, the only way governments can control the terrible plague of inflation is by having interest rates as they are. It is terrible to have to say that interest rates should be so disastrously high. No one could be more sincere than I am in hoping that they will come down in the near future. Inflation must be controlled, and our central bank can control inflation only by imposing high interest rates on the country.
Once again I congratulate the minister. Certainly I think all commitments to veterans have been met in Canada. The present bill offers our veterans an additional advantage which will enable them to obtain adequate housing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Hon. James Richardson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
had better be good.


James Armstrong Richardson: -I wish to present to the house for consideration Bill S-14, which deals with amendments to the Aeronautics Act. As hon. members know, this act regulates and controls civil aviation in Canada. Part I of the act is administered by the Minister of Transport and deals generally with the licensing and operation of air crews, aircraft and airports. Part II comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission and deals with the licensing and operation of commercial air services. Part III applies generally to employees who are charged with the administration of the act and also deals with prosecutions for violations of the act and regulations.

January 22, 1969
Aeronautics Act
I should like to describe briefly the main amendments which are proposed under this bill. Clause 2 of the bill would enable the Governor in Council to authorize the Minister of Transport, subject to conditions and in lieu of the Governor in Council, to prescribe changes for the use of facilities and services which are provided by the Department of Transport in respect of aircraft or departmental airports. For example, automobile parking fees at airports must now be established by an order in council. The amendment, however, would enable the Governor in Council to authorize the Minister of Transport to prescribe such fees.
Clause 3 of the bill would authorize the Minister of Transport to delegate to the Deputy Minister of Transport the former's authority to make orders prohibiting or restricting the navigation of aircraft over specified areas during certain periods of time. This is to accommodate military air exercises. To expedite the obtaining of the necessary prohibition orders the Minister of Transport would authorize his deputy minister to make these orders.
Clause 4(1) and clause 9 amend the definition of aircraft in order to exclude hovercraft from the Aeronautics Act, as hovercraft are being brought under the Canada Shipping Act by an amendment to that act which is now before parliament. Because of the manner in which hovercraft operate they cannot be controlled and administered efficiently under the Aeronautics Act. Although hovercraft employ a form of flight one can hardly describe a vehicle that hovers between 6 and 18 inches from the ground as flying. Hovercraft as well as air-cushioned vehicles constitute a special method of transportation and are dissimilar to aeroplanes in almost every respect. They operate in an environment that conventional aircraft do not operate in.
Clause 4(2) of the bill amends section 6 of the act in order to authorize the Canadian Transport Commission to issue temporary licences for commercial air services, an example being seasonal licences or emergency licences.
Clauses 5 and 6 of the bill amend certain sections of the act in order to make it clear that the powers of the commission are confined to part II of the act only. Clause 7 amends section 13, to clarify the power of the Canadian Transport Commission to make regulations of general application with respect to commercial air services. Prior approval of such regulations would not be required by the Governor in Council. However, it

should be pointed out that subsection 2 of section 13 would give to the Governor in Council the power contained in section 53 of the Railway Act to vary and rescind such regulations.
Clause 8 of the bill includes provisions respecting proof of documents in order to provide that copies of documents purporting to be certified by the secretary of the Department of Transport shall be true copies of the original documents on record or issued by the Department of Transport and also that such documents shall be prima facie evidence in prosecutions under part I. This clause further provides that a certificate from the secretary of the Department of Transport stating that no licence or certificate has been issued by the department will also be prima facie evidence in such prosecutions.
Although the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act I have just outlined are necessary and desirable improvements to the act, none of the amendments alters the underlying basis of the act. I therefore recommend Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act, for the consideration of the house, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I arrived in the house too late to hear the minister's introductory remarks. It seems to me that in this bill the government is endeavouring to cure an omission in legislation which recently was the subject matter of litigation before the Supreme Court. I take it that is why clause 7 of the bill has been included. It seeks to cure that deficiency. I do not know whether the minister dealt with that deficiency in his introductory remarks. If he did not I hope he will do so in his remarks closing the debate.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I believe the bill in itself is indicative of a very unfortunate trend to enlarge the areas of rule by regulation. It provides almost unlimited powers, in this case not for the Governor in Council but for an administrative tribunal, to make regulations which are not even required to be submitted for approval to the cabinet. This is a very undesirable trend. I am speaking now of clause 2 of the bill, but more particularly I am speaking of the power which the bill, if adopted, will provide to the Air Transport Commission to make regulations without any requirement to submit them to the minister or to the cabinet for approval. It is an extremely undesirable state of affairs.
Here we have an industry, general aviation-I am not now speaking of the huge
January 22, 1969

international and national carriers such as Air Canada, and Canadian Pacific Airlines but of the industry in terms of the charter operators, both regional and smaller-which is going to be required to submit to regulations which may be made at the whim of the A.T.C. or a member thereof from time to time. It seems to me that this is a pretty untenable business proposition, quite apart from the suffocating atmosphere it imposes on the industry generally. It is completely wrong for a charter operator to be granted a licence under certain conditions which are imposed upon the licence at the time of its issue and then three or four months or perhaps a year or two later have the Air Transport Commission decide in its own wisdom that the conditions imposed upon the licence at the time of its issue are to be further limited. In this position a charter operator simply does not know where he stands from time to time.
One could go into specifics with respect to different classifications of licences that are granted but I do not think it would be helpful in a forum such as this. Suffice it to pick one example. Let us assume that a charter operator is given a Class A licence out of one of the major cities to operate a non-scheduled charter operation from that city. The restriction imposed upon the licence at the time of its issue might be that the operator will be restricted to the operation of one particular category of aircraft. Let us assume that at a later stage, a year hence, technological improvements result in equipment being available that is faster, safer and more comfortable than the type of equipment covered in the issuance of the licence in the first instance. If it wished the commission could turn a blind eye to such technological improvement and say to the operator: The existing limitation stands and this is all you are going to be permitted to operate. If the equipment happens to be a DC-3 at the time of issuance of the licence and jet improvements come along, so be it, because they may interfere with some other charter operator who may be in more favour with the commission.
I do not suggest for a moment that the commission has favourites, but nevertheless that kind of attitude could be adopted. What happens here is that the Air Transport Commission imposes its judgment on the operations of the carrier in place of what the carrier deems in its best judgment to be best for its business.
Aeronautics Act
I know the reason for the legislation and that the desire of the Air Transport Commission is to see that the public interest is served at all times, but I suggest it is not going to be served by the commission having the power, as proposed in clause 7 of the bill, to change, bend and warp regulations as it pleases. It is an unlimited and most undesirable administrative power placed in the hands of wellmeaning servants of the government on the Air Transport Commission, but nonetheless in the hands of people who in effect are making decisions for business that may not be in the best interests of business itself, decisions that may run entirely contrary to those which are taken by business. If the public interest is being served by an operator in terms of safety, comfort, speed and technological advancement, the decisions of those who made the investment which is providing that service should be the government criteria and not those of some administrative tribunal.
I believe the other amendments proposed in the bill are inconsequential, apart from their undesirability in terms of extending the regulatory powers of government and government boards. But the central and important part of this bill is the amendment about which I have spoken and which would cure a deficiency that became the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court. I believe that in attempting the cure the government may well find itself in a very difficult position in trying to control a creature which it has set up. I do not want to exaggerate because I know that the members of the Air Transport Commission at all times devote themselves to attempting to make their decisions in the public interest, but what is even more fearful about this amendment is the all-embracing, encompassing powers that are given to the commission with respect to the control and day-to-day operation and administration of the general aviation industry.
I hope the minister will deal with that aspect of the matter, and I hope that on second thought he will propose an amendment to clause 7 to pare down these rather extensive and, I submit, undesirable sowers which the government proposes to give to the A.T.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are on second reading of this bill, which does not allow for questions and answers, but the minister who is piloting the bill will have the right to speak in closing the debate, so perhaps I might use my right to speak for a

January 22, 1969
Aeronautics Act
minute or two to put a couple of questions to him in the hope that he will speak at the conclusion of the debate and answer them if he can.
First, may I ask the minister whether it is under the provisions of this act that the government is able to exercise any control over the hours of pilots on duty? As the minister knows, certain questions have been asked about this matter in the house in recent days. I recognize that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) said he wanted to get all the facts about the case in question before he made a reply to the house, but I put the question to the minister in these more general terms. Is this the act under which there is supervision over this matter and is the appropriate authority studying this matter in the light of modern conditions and in the light of the strains under which pilots work in modern aircraft?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I recall an incident some years ago in respect of which some of us felt that the crash, even though in that particular instance there was no loss of life, was due to the fatigue of a pilot who had been on duty for an excessive period of time. It is on the basis of that incident that I put this question to the minister and I hope he will answer it if he can.
The other question I should like to put to him would seem to be related to clause 3 of the bill. I suspect this is the type of clause about which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been complaining in that it seems to put authority in the hands of a deputy minister rather than in the hands of a minister, board or commission. Nevertheless, it is being done. I note that it relates to the issuing of orders or directions prohibiting or restricting navigation of aircraft over specified areas. I would like to raise a general question, but I think the easiest way for me to do it, since in this instance one Winnipeg member is talking to another, is to say to the minister there are times when I have had complaints of more noise than seems reasonable from aircraft flying over Winnipeg.
It so happens, since the member for Winnipeg North Centre is speaking to the member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) about this the situation, that it is our two areas from which these complaints seem to come. It seems that the flight paths from the international airport at Winnipeg which go north and west do not bother very many people, but when an aircraft takes off from the airport and goes east right over Weston and the
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
heart of Winnipeg North Centre the noise is a little hard to take. Also, when an aircraft takes off in a southerly direction over River Heights the people of Winnipeg South complain.
I should like to ask whether under these provisions an effort will be made to cope more effectively with this problem. I do not intend to stand here opposing progress and saying that we should not have modern aircraft because they are noisy, but things do have to be balanced and we must be concerned not only about the right of people to have transportation by air but also about the right of people on the ground not to be unduly disturbed. The question is general but this is what I have in mind.
If we were going into the committee of the whole stage I would have waited to put this question to the minister, but perhaps I can do it in this way. When he replies I hope the minister will answer my two questions.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-14 entitled an act to amend the Aeronautics Act is designed to normalize certain administrative procedures since the Air Transport Board has been replaced by the Canadian Transport Commission.
The act now stipulates that the charges for the use of any facility or service are set by order in council. To my mind, that procedure is slow and the new bill grants the minister the authority to propose indicated changes according to the circumstances.
One of the clauses which, in my opinion, concerns a large part of our population, is clause 3 which authorizes the minister to delegate his powers, under certain circumstances, and to prohibit or limit air navigation over certain specific areas.
Should an area be threatened, and should it become necessary to suddenly prohibit civil air traffic in that area, the minister should, of necessity, have the authority to do so.
I also feel that the additional powers granted the minister, under such circumstances, would be absolutely normal, because the minister represents the government and, due to that, has absolute authority in a matter as important as aeronautics.
In an era when the number of air passengers increases very rapidly, it is imperative that our laws be revised regularly with a view to facilitating their application, and to ensuring maximum security to the users of
January 22, 1969

air services as well as to the crew of the aircraft.
Canadian laws concerning air transport are explicit, very strict, and a matter of special concern to the Canadian government. In spite of that, we have to deplore, from time to time, air crashes like the one which happened on February 7, 1968, at Vancouver.
The inquiry conducted by the Department of Transport at that time clearly showed that all the information requested before landing had been given to the crew. In this particular case, there seems to be evidence of some disagreement between the captain and the first lieutenant and of a conflict about the management of the craft.
The present bill is even more specific about a number of aspects of the Aeronautics Act. These changes have become necessary, because of the fast growth in recent years, of the air transport industry.
Other aspects will have to be reviewed in the future. There should be more concern about the number of hours the air crew have to work at a stretch and this should be subject to an inquiry by the Transport Commission. There is no blame involved here against the personnel or the Commission, but we should not underestimate the importance of ensuring the safety of both the crew and the passengers.
I am a layman in aeronautics, and so are other hon. members, and we should take the advice of experts on the question.
However, I think that the proposed amendments designed to provide the Minister of Transport with increased powers, can be accepted.
The legislation on aeronautics is not meant to inconvenience air carriers and their staff. On the contrary, it is meant to ensure the absolute comfort of passengers and crews.
The government has clearly shown its interest in the future of air transport each year by earmarking important amounts to improve or supplement present air transport facilities.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that it is imperative for air carriers to provide the Transport Commission and the minister with all the co-operation that is expected from them so as to give the travelling public perfect service and the security they are entitled to demand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Navigable Waters Protection Act NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-19, an Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Mr. Richardson, for Mr. Hellyer, seconded by-


Gerald William Baldwin: Bring in another minister. You need two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Where is your attendance register now?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in the
interim I wonder whether I could refer to the comments which were made on the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
house adopted the motion so we have to wait-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister did have the right on the previous motion to speak in closing the debate. I happened to be called out to the phone when the debate ended and he did not reply, so I should now like to ask the house to permit the minister to speak and answer the questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AERONAUTICS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this opportunity to thank the hon. members who took part in this debate and to answer some of the questions which were raised. I know that in respect of others we will have an opportunity to consider them in greater detail when the bill is before the committee.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was primarily concerned with clause 7. I
January 22, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act should simply like to point out that this is not an unlimited administrative power as it was described by him. As I pointed out in my introductory remarks, although prior approval of these regulations by the Governor in Council is not required, the emphasis in new section 13(2) is on the power given to the Governor in Council under section 53 of the Railway Act to vary and rescind regulations. This is not unlimited administrative power.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke about the hours of duty of pilots, and of noise. These are matters of concern to us all. The first of these two subjects does come under this measure but the second, noise, does not. I do not think I should say more about them because actually we are not talking here about the whole act and neither of these subjects is a matter of amendment in the bill I have presented.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question at this point? What about the reference in the explanatory notes to clause 3 in respect of the powers provided for directions prohibiting or restricting navigation of aircraft over specified areas? Does that have anything to do with this problem?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, that relates primarily, in fact entirely, to military areas and does not relate to the noise problems we have around big cities.
I should also like to thank the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) for his thoughtful observations. Finally, I should like to conclude this debate, although I think we have given second reading to the bill-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the precedent which has been established here I think we should give second reading to this bill once again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


James Armstrong Richardson: the second reading and ref-

erence to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-19 which I should now like to present to the house for consideration has relation to amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I am certain that all hon. members recognize the importance of navigation and shipping as one aspect of our over-all transportation system. As its name implies, the Navigable Waters Protection Act was originally passed to protect Canada's navigable waters from manmade obstructions.
This act was first passed in 1882. Since that time it has been amended on a number of occasions, most recently in 1956. Changing circumstances and particularly the increase in the size of ships require that a number of improvements be made to the act. While I am speaking about the act as a whole in a general way, it might be worth while to point out that the largest number of applications for approval under the act relates to new bridges and repairs to old bridges, as well as to natural gas and fuel pipe lines, transmission lines and telephone lines. Usually these pipe lines or transmission lines are below the surface of navigable waters, but this act also relates to overhead lines which might block navigation. The other man-made works which are of concern are large dams, causeways, log booms and, of course, wharf and docking facilities of all kinds. In fact, anything that is built in the water that could interfere with navigation requires approval under this act.
The act when amended will be in three parts. Part one is concerned primarily with structures that have been designed for specific purposes. Part two is primairly concerned with obstruction to navigation which results accidentally or inadvertently as a consequence, for instance, of the discharge of solid materials by commercial concerns, which could sink in time to the bottom and become obstructions to navigation. This part of the act is also concerned with abandoned or derelict ships or barges which could become obstructions to navigation.
Part three is concerned primarily with ferry cables and swinging bridges. The amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act proposed in Bill S-19 are designed to bring the act up to date and make it easier to administer, and particularly to ensure that navigable waters remain navigable for the larger ships which are being constructed today as well as ships of shallower draft than
January 22, 1969

those which were in existence at the time the legislation was first enacted.
Perhaps I should emphasize that this is really one of the most important points of these amendments. Ships today are larger; therefore they take more water. They also move faster and therefore sometimes need a wider channel in which to travel. The regulations that were made for smaller ships do not apply or are not satisfactory for today's larger ships.
Some of the amendments which we will discuss are of a technical nature and we will have the opportunity to examine them in detail when the bill is considered by the standing committee. In presenting this legislation I should like to outline the highlights of the bill by referring to the more important amendments which I propose.
Clause 2 includes in the definition of a "work" the dumping of fill and any excavation of materials from the bed of a navigable water. In various areas of the country fill has been dumped into navigable waters without approval first having been obtained under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The act as presently worded did not cover activities of this kind. Clause 3 establishes the time limit following ministerial approval for construction of any work. This will prevent any unnecessary delay in the construction of a work for which approval has been given. Section 4 of the present act makes reference to the over-all work not exceeding $5,000. The amendment which is proposed eliminates any reference to the dollar value of a work.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The reason is that since the act is concerned with the protection of navigable waters, interference with navigation should be the only test applied to the construction of any work and its monetary value should have no bearing on the matter. The amendment proposed will require that all works being built in navigable waters, regardless of their cost, will require approval or exemption. I might elaborate briefly and say that I understand one of the problems with the $5,000 figure was that there was often as much argument about whether the work was worth $4,000 or $6,000 as there was about whether it was an obstruction to navigation. Really, therefore the amendment is going to get at the main purpose of the act.
Section 5 of the act deals with the removal of unauthorized works and with approval of 29180-295
Navigable Waters Protection Act works already constructed. At the present time, if any work is built contrary to the provisions of the act the minister's alternatives are these: (1) to remove the work at the expense of the owner; (2) to give approval to it after a period of five years; (3) to allow it to continue to exist without approval. The proposed amendments to the act, in addition to the power of removal now contained in the act, would give the minister authority to order the owner to alter a work. That is the key change; the work now can be altered and does not have to be removed in total. If the owner fails to remove or alter the work, the minister would have authority to remove or alter it at the cost of the owner and to render the owner liable to a penalty recoverable upon summary conviction.
Clause 7 of the bill extends the authority of the Governor in Council to make regulations under section 10 of the act and provides for a scale of fees for temporary approval whenever immediate inspection trips are required. Provision is made also for a scale of fees for late application for approval; that is, of course, applications which have been made after construction has commenced or has been completed.
I would particularly like to point out that clause 10 of the bill amends sections 18 and
19	of the act. The purpose of the amendment to section 18 is to extend the application of the section to all persons. At the present time it applies primarily to saw mills. The purpose of the amendment to section 19 is to ensure that this section applies to tidal as well as non-tidal navigable waters, and to increase to
20	fathoms the depth of water in which no substance liable to sink may be thrown. The limit of the depth has been increased from 12 to 20 fathoms in order to protect the new, deep draught, bulk carriers now coming into use.
In clause 14 of the bill the penalties under sections 26, 27 and 28 of the act are being revised upward to provide a more realistic figure and to provide the act with more force.
As hon. members know, this bill has been considered and passed in the other place. I should point out also that it was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of the other place.
I would like to conclude the introduction of this legislation by emphasizing that Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, is primarily a bill to tidy up the existing legislation in this field. It does not include major proposals for change of either policy or
January 22, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act principle, but it is useful and progressive legislation and I recommend the bill for the consideration of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before I deal briefly with some of the proposals contained in this bill I should like to bring to the attention of the house a suggestion just made to me by my friend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He suggested that when the government is considering future proposals or changes to acts and regulations of this type, it might well pay heed to the fact that today rivers and lakes are used by aircraft. I know this question is dealt with in other legislative proposals and regulations but it is one that might well be considered further. I mention it because we have just finished dealing with a bill amending the Aeronautics Act. My experience in flying in the north over the last 35 years or so leads me to believe there are circumstances and places with regard to which navigation was thought of strictly in terms of vessels rather than aircraft when this act was passed.
There are two aspects of this bill that I want to very briefly bring to the attention of the house. The first is that the bill is carrying a step further the practice of this government of putting into statutes and bills more and more often the right of the government to act by order in council, to act by ministerial decree. This matter was referred to in the discussion on the bill with which we just dealt and it has been mentioned in connection with other bills. If one wanted to compile a litany of the proposals in which this very iniquitous principle can be observed, he would have only to examine the list of legislative proposals which have been presented to this house over the few months since the 28th parliament met in September.
I shall not detail the bills now because there will be another opportunity, perhaps more suitable and one when I shall be more in order to deal with the question. If one looks at the list of bills we have passed he finds that slowly, insidiously and with great care and planning there has been taking place the pleasant seduction of the twenty eighth parliament by the government seeking and being given rights which in many instances should belong to parliament. To some extent this is observed in the bill we are now considering. It may be nice to have a situation wherein the head of the government is showing to our fascinated eyes spectacular conduct, but while this is taking place and we are (Mr. Richardson.]
looking at what is happening there, parliament is being filched of its rights.
It will be my purpose before this parliament is over to detail in very considerable measure all the proposals in question from the beginning of the parliament to the end and the rights which have been taken away from us. I shall indicate where this parliament has given to the government, without any recourse, discretionary control over so many aspects of our life and society, but that must wait.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with this bill in the light of a particular problem that has presented itself in my area and indeed in the whole of northwestern Canada. I wonder just how effective the Navigable Waters Protection Act is, or can be, under certain conditions which prevail. Some years ago the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada and that of the United States were negotiating with regard to the use of rivers for the production and generation of power in British Columbia. They included the Peace River and the Columbia River. Proceedings had come to a standstill and the governments changed. At that time, the then secretary of state for external affairs, now the leader of the government in the Senate, in his desperate anxiety to see that this project went forward entered into what I believe to be a very reprehensible arrangement with the government of the province of British Columbia to permit an obstruction to be placed across the Peace River in breach of this act.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This has been a navigable river, to my knowledge and from reading history, since Alexander Mackenzie, the first white man to come down the Peace River, cross the Rocky Mountains and go overland to the Pacific. He came down the Peace River in 1791. An arrangement was made under which the province of British Columbia was allowed to place a dam across the Peace River in the vicinity of Hudson Hope. At that time I asked the minister of justice and the minister of public works, who then had responsibility for the administration of this act, whether or not what was being planned by the province of B.C. did in fact constitute the sort of work at which the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act was directed. The answer was yes, it did. On a number of occasions I asked the then minister of public works, the hon. Mr. Deschatelets, now a very distinguished
January 22, 1969	COMMONS
member of the other place and who approached this in a very sincere way, whether any attempt was to be made to compel the province of B.C. to secure the consent which was required under this act.
I will relate this situation to the amendments which are now proposed as I develop my case. Despite the fact that the answers were always in the affirmative and that there was never at any time any suggestion that the damming of the Peace River and the related works for the purpose of generating power were not works to which this act applied, it was always admitted that no application was made and none was ever requested. I think this is a fantastic thing. I talk about this because I can recall the very last case which I had to deal with as a member of the bar. I was to appear for a farmer who had a small cattle ranch in the vicinity of Lesser Slave Lake. A very tiny creek passed through his pasture, so he fenced it in order to keep in his cattle. He got into an argument with the local federal department of public works officials who told him that while this was a small stream it was a navigable stream in the sense that there was a fisherman's boat a few hundred yards up stream. Three or four times a year this fisherman brought his boat downstream into Lesser Slave Lake. This farmer was a man of some principle, and he believed in fighting for what he thought was right. He opposed the position taken by the federal people. The matter went to the Exchequer Court of Canada and it was held, as of course it must be held under the act, that this was a navigable water. So, the farmer was compelled to take down his fence and pay the cost.
Three or four years later the province of British Columbia, because of the fact the then Secretary of State for External Affairs was ambitious to bring to what he hoped would be a successful conclusion these negotiations dealing with the erection of a power dam at Peace River, was allowed to completely disregard the provisions of this act. It was a flagrant violation.
I find that the new bill provides in one of its clauses that where a work has been placed without authority, the federal government may seek to have it destroyed or pulled down. I am not so bold as to suggest that this government would be able to do this, even if it wanted to tackle Mr. Bennet. There seems to be something about the provinces in either extremity of this country. Perhaps it is due to the fact that they sit on the beaches, look 29180-2951
DEBATES	4847
Navigable Waters Protection Act across the waves coming in and in this way acquire the characteristics of King Canute. They feel they can compel anything to happen, even the waves to go back. But for anyone to tackle either Mr. Smallwood or Mr. Bennet is quite an undertaking, and I do not think even a government dedicated to the just society would do this.
There is a change which is proposed here in clause 5 which reads:
Where any work to which this Part applies is built or placed without having been approved by the Minister or is built or placed upon a site not approved by the Minister or is not built or placed in accordance with plans so approved, or having been so built or placed, is not maintained in accordance with such plans and the regulations, the Minister-
This means the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). The Minister of Transport is of course also a very determined man and I do not know what happens when an irresistible force tries to move an immovable body. If this clause means anything, then it means the Minister of Transport would be within his legal rights in making this request of the B.C. government. But we all know this is not going to take place.
Since the dam was completed across this navigable river it has created one of the largest reservoirs in the country, and possibly in the north American continent, flowing back to the Rocky Mountain trench and up and down it for several miles. It will be a tremendously large body of water. In the last two or three years an attempt has been made to fill the reservoir. As a result, every summer the waters of the Peace River have been exceptionally low. It has been a ghastly sight, for anyone who has seen the beauty of these northern rivers, to drive along the course of the river and see what has happened. It is predicted the filling of this reservoir will have disastrous effects, not only on the hinterland between the Rocky Mountains but where the Peace River enters into the Slave River. It will have serious effects on the water level of Lake Athabasca and the whole Mackenzie River system. This has been confirmed by statements made by people living in the Yellowknife and Great Slave Lake area. It is obvious to anyone who travels along the river and has seen what has happened. It is all very well for the officials of the federal government or possibly of the B.C. government to say that once the reservoir has been filled this situation will not recur.
January 22, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act
However, it is not possible to make that prediction with any accuracy because if, during the course of the calendar year there is not the rainfall and snowfall which is required to provide enough water in the dam, then the water which will be released will not be adequate to provide the navigable aspect of the river which is so essential.
I use the occasion of this amendment, as I think I am entitled to do to bring this very forcibly to the attention of the government because it does not simply affect one town and a few farmers; it affects thousands of people who use the river. We hear about the proposal to explore and establish potentially commercially feasible oil development fields in northern Canada and northern United States. It is very likely that the whole Mackenzie Biver system will be dedicated in part to both carrying traffic into that area and possibly taking commodities out. I think it is tremendously important for this reason.
So I hope that because of these amendments, combined with the original legislation, the government will look at this very carefully. I have been in correspondence with the government, but it is quite obvious that the government's view is that the province of B.C. occupies the area and so far it has shown no willingness to give effect to the great number of representations which have been made.
[DOT] (5:50 p.ra.)
I now suggest to the government in the face of this amendment and of the existing legislation that if this bill and the original act are to be considered as being of any value, this is a grave situation which must be dealt with both by the federal government and by the Province of British Columbia.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with a great deal of interest to what was said by the previous speaker in connection with the Peace River. I, too, wonder just how effective legislation under the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been in providing protection for the rivers and waterways which it is supposed to control.
Many of the amendments offered in this bill are good ones, but I certainly endorse the words of the previous speaker when he complained about the increasing use of orders in council by governments in both the federal and provincial fields. In this case, of course, we are referring to the federal field. I notice that in clause seven, of which we have been

given a brief explanation, there is one sentence which appears to be of significance; I hope it means what it says. I reads:
The governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as he deems expedient for navigation purposes respecting any work to which this part applies.
Recently I encountered a problem, as did the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in connection with this aspect of the legislation. I placed a question on the order paper and it was finally answered by, of all people, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). As far as I could make out it had nothing to do with his department; it had to do with navigation along the Columbia River. I should like to pose the following question to the minister because it relates very closely to this bill: just who establishes, for example, the schedule of times at which locks in the Arrow Dam may be used? This is a simple question which a number of organizations in my area have been asking over the last four months. We still have not received a satisfactory answer from the government. I am confident that responsibility lies within the Department of Transport under this legislation. We have been given the run-around from department to department and no one seems to know just who is making the regulations, how they were made, when they were made, and for what purpose they were made.
The other day, in connection with this set of regulations, I asked the following questions:
1.	Was the Columbia River at the site of the Arrow Dam open to year-round river traffic prior to the dam construction?
2.	Is the operation of the lock in the Arrow Dam on a year-round basis and, if not (a) what is the present schedule (b) when was it put into effect?
The answer given to each of these questions was, yes.
Mr. Speaker, this is not correct information. The answers given to this house and to the public of Canada are not correct. The locks on the Arrow Dam are not on a year round sechdule. The schedule is drawn up, apparently, by the British Columbia Hydro Authority, and these locks are open from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on days other than holidays and weekends.
Need I point out that it is precisely at weekends and on holidays that the public wishes to use these locks to take boats into the huge reservoir basin above the dam. Yet
January 22, 19S9

this is when access is being denied them. It is amazing to come here to Ottawa and find the department knows practically nothing about the setting up of this schedule, which, it appears, was drawn up by the Hydro crown corporation back in British Columbia. It makes one wonder what kind of hold the premier of British Columbia has on this government.
British Columbia Hydro pays the shot for the operation of the locks. I want to say here that the entire area below the Arrow Dam is concerned about the schedule and about the use of these locks. We shall not be satisfied with a four or five day week, and only limited opportunity to use these locks to reach the lake, some hundred miles in length, which lies above the dam. If the terms of the legislation before us will not permit anything effective to be done about this situation, I think the minister should take another close look as them.
I notice that a number of sections in the act have been changed. The Governor in Council is again given permission to exempt certain navigable waters from the terms of the legislation. It is in this connection, I presume, that the hon. member for Peace River is encountering trouble.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Randolph Harding: I have other remarks to make on this subject. I see I have half a minute or so left. I notice the act is supposed to prevent debris getting into navigable waters and I presume this includes clearing. I do not know whether the house is aware that behind the Mica Creek Dam, in part of the huge lake formed there-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that it is six o'clock and according to the standing orders I must now leave the chair. The house will reconvene at eight o'clock for the purpose of considering a motion under Standing Order 26.
Does the minister wish to ask a question or make a point?


James Armstrong Richardson: I wonder whether the house would give unanimous consent to complete second reading? I believe the debate is close to completion and there is a meeting of the Transport Committee tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?
Navigable Waters Protection Act [Translation]
Order, please. Does the hon. member for Champlain agree, as do the other members, that the discussion be continued until the house is ready to vote on the motion for second reading of this bill?


Mr. Matie:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: Then if I may finish, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out to the department that I presume the reservoir formed behind the dams constructed along the Columbia river system would come under the act.
I want to make it clear to the department that the lack of clearing, for example, behind the Duncan dam is a national scandal. Here is a reservoir basin almost 30 miles in length, and the only portion that has been cleared is a little chunk that is three or four miles from the top of the hydro dam. North of that the situation is a national disgrace and is unparalleled in Canada.
I should not like to see the department exempt basins such as these from the terms of the act. Here is a reservoir basin that covers a much larger area than the original lake. For mile after mile debris is floating in the water; snags are protruding and will do so for generations to come.
The same state of affairs will exist in the reservoir basin behind the Mica dam, where there will be a lake 125 miles long. The plan of the present administration of British Columbia is to flood the greater part of this basin without clearing the land. Millions of feet of trees will be under water and debris will be everywhere. The initial plan called for the cutting through of navigable channels and for eventual clearing, but this will never come in my lifetime or the lifetime of many of the other members of the house.
Again I want to make it clear to the department that I am under the impression that responsibility for this sort of debris does come within the jurisdiction of the department. I think the department has an obligation to insist that B.C. Hydro and the government of B.C. do a proper job of clearing in these areas so as not to litter and clutter navigable lakes and waterways. I have been fighting this sort of thing in the province of British Columbia for years. In this day and age when the preservation of our national
January 22, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act resources is of such great importance it is a tragedy when a provincial government is allowed by the federal government to continue this state of affairs.
Although the opportunity will arise during committee stage to ask further questions, there is one other point I want to make before I sit down. The attention of the Department of Transport has already been drawn to the extremely high stumps just north of Nakusp, some ten feet tall, which will be flooded by the new lake. These will be very dangerous to small craft, particularly in stormy weather, when they may get holed when close inshore. This may result in some loss of life. Therefore I urge the department to check into this situation at an early date, because this coming spring we will see the flood waters of the Columbia river trapped in the Arrow reservoir. These high stumps will then be under water but will remain a potential hazard until the next low water, which will be almost a year later.
I believe that when legislation is passed it should be effective legislation. As the minister stated in his opening remarks, this act, which I believe he mentioned was put on the statute books in 1882, was designed to protect us from man made obstructions. I hope it does just that. Perhaps in his closing remarks the minister could tell the house why the new bill omits the provisions for the checks the Department of Fisheries used to make of navigable waters. For example, sawmills were not allowed to dump sawdust and other debris in the water.
The fisheries department made various checks to see that the intent of the legislation was being carried out, and as I say I understand that these provisions have now been eliminated. I should like to know whether some other check has been provided to take care of this sort of thing. Perhaps the need for this kind of check has disappeared, but I would certainly welcome an explanation in this regard.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: I have only a few remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, to stress a few points.
Of course, some constructions undertaken by some individual owners may affect navigation. However, it is rather the exception when such constructions are undertaken by individuals. In most cases, they are works carried out by provincial governments or by municipalities. At this level of government, it

is generally possible to get along with the responsible authorities.
I should like to point out some natural causes that may also affect navigation, as is the case in the Champlain riding.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The Champlain river which flows into the St. Lawrence between Champlain and Batis-can carries some deposits which sink to the bottom of the river. Indeed, it is often necessary to dredge it at that location.
On the western side of that river have already been built-I do not know if it is through the good offices of friends or others- some wharves which have deflected the course of the river, so that property owners on the other shore-whose property is also adjoins the river-have seen their land so extensively eroded, that it is now in danger.
I have asked the department to look after that case. I have been told that the government responsibility is about 25 per 100 and that they would be prepared to assume 25 per 100 of the cost of the works which have become necessary due to natural causes or navigation.
Now, it will be understood that if it is necessary to undertake some works, let us say of some $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000, it is impossible for small wage-earners who make $5,000 to $6,000 to undertake those works. Consequently, the 25 per 100 contribution offered by the government would compel the property owners along the shore to pay $75,000 in the case of works amounting to $100,000.
I believe that, in such circumstances, the government should assume the entire responsibility. It is very well for the engineers to decide-and perhaps at times some pressure is exerted on them-that such effects are only partly due to navigation. When navigation or merely natural causes, such as the flow of a river, are eroding the land, it seems to me that we should be more reasonable and help those who suffer those losses.
It happens at many places along the St. Lawrence river, and particularly in my constituency. Therefore, I would like those considerations to be taken into account, and if, as shown in the bill, we do not want anything to obstruct navigation, navigation or navigable waters should never, in any way, cause damage to the waterfront owners.
The owners cannot interfere with navigation, but the reverse should not take place either.
January 22, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: If he speaks now, the minister will close the debate.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and all hon. members for going past six o'clock and allowing this debate to be completed today. Considering the hour, I will, simply sum up by saying that I have noted carefully all of the points raised by hon. members. We will have an opportunity to discuss them in detail when the bill is before the committee. I would like to reply briefly to one point raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). May I point out that B.C. Hydro did not apply for approval of the Peace River dam and the act contains no provision under which a province may be compelled to seek approval.
With the thought that we shall be discussing this bill in committee may I ask the house to give this bill second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: The time being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.

It being past six o'clock, I now leave the chair.
The house will resume at 8 p.m. to consider an adjournment motion under the provisions of standing order 26.
At 6.14 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to standing order No. 26 the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korehinski), seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) moves that this house do now adjourn.
Grain


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind telling you that I feel somewhat like the man who had been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail but who said, "If it were not for the honour I would not be here." It is indeed an honour at any time to speak in this house, Mr. Speaker, but it is disgusting that I have to resort to this technique that we have developed in the form of a new rule, disgusting that I have to rise in my place in order to focus attention on the lack of activity on the part of a government that apparently is willing to sit by and watch a situation develop without raising a finger. This government has allowed a serious decline in our wheat sales and the economy of the western farmer has been so eroded that there is very little hope for them. A situation has been created that effects the over-all economy of the country.
There are many who apparently express annoyance at having to return to sit in this house tonight during what would normally be a free Wednesday evening. To them I make no apology. I merely make use of a rule that apparently everyone wanted. But it was not the rule that caused the situation. It was the government's paralysis that demanded the action I have taken.
Today at Vancouver harbour there are 33 vessels either berthed, waiting for a berth or waiting to be passed for loading, emphasizing the emergency nature of the situation. Yesterday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said the situation resulted from weather conditions and the unexpected growth of exports. This indicates that the critical phase was reached suddently, so far as the minister was concerned.
There is no doubt what happened. It was the complete bogging down of transportation facilities. This represents a genuine emergency and because the estimates have been passed there is no other opportunity to deal with it. It is not my intention, however, to debate the new rule, but 1 would bring to the attention of the house the government's total failure to realize and acknowledge the seriousness of the situation so far as the economy is concerned.
Failure to deliver on wheat contracts will drastically affect the economies of both eastern and western Canada. We are now in a position where our customers are wondering whether we can deliver. This is the latest in the sad story of mismanagement.
It was not very long ago when we read headlines such as, "Japan Gives Wheat From

January 22, 1969
Grain
France Tryout." Earlier in the year, shortly after the strike of lakehead handlers, there was another headline, "Wheat Buyers Soon May Ask if We Can Deliver." That was in the Financial Post. Once a sale is lost it cannot be regained. One man's loss is another man's gain.
The James Richardson and Sons letter dated January 17 stated in part:
The Japanese were also interested in 17,000 tons of Canadian wheat on their weekly tender but this was unavailable due to port congestion at Vancouver; they did take one cargo of Australian wheat.
That indicates that we have lost that sale. As I have said, one man's loss is another man's gain. Apparently the government is willing to go along with the present conditions. Apparently the government is not willing to accept its responsibility.
Let us review the situation. The Wheat Board sends out its salesmen and they make the sales. The Wheat Board is told when the customers would like the grain delivered. It knows the type of grain that is required. It receives notice several weeks in advance that certain ships have been nominated to deliver the cargo. It has ample time to check where the type of grain is that is required. After all, the Wheat Board invested in a computer. Then, the Board informs the railway companies that X number of cars are required to deliver certain types of grain at certain destinations. The railway companies then arrange and spot these cars, and deliver as requested.
But what has happened? As early as November 15 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced in the house, with some satisfaction to all of us, that China was to take 58 million bushels of wheat between December and July, 1969. The Japanese market became available because the Japanese refused shipments of grain from the United States since that grain was tough and not suitable for milling. There was a ready market. We had the grain, if not from this year then from last year.
Southern Alberta, which is closest to the Vancouver harbour, has adequate supplies of No. 2 wheat. I understand that there is a demand at Vancouver port for No. 2 wheat, No. 4 wheat and No. 5 wheat. Again I ask, what went wrong? After all, the Wheat Board had acquired a computer and knew where the grain was. It is supposed to be more efficient now. Why send salesmen abroad if we do not arrange our own affairs to meet the customers' demands?

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The government refused to accept any responsibility for spoiled and damp grain. This is part of the problem. Its failure to act at the time of the strike at the lakehead is another part of the problem. Terminals were congested, and when damp grain was harvested the terminals were rearranging their space instead of being prepared to dry grain on a 24 hour seven day basis. This they did not do immediately. Why is there no dry grain at the west coast terminals now? Last fall the Wheat Board authorized a three bushel quota immediately for delivery of damp grain. There was a big rush by a few farmers who lived near elevators. They flooded the elevators and filled the available space. Fortunately, a few were able to deliver their three bushel quota. Many are still waiting to this date. Because of the rush to get grain through the terminals congestion developed. The situation should have been analysed. The Wheat Board should have opened a one bushel quota, have taken delivery and indicated what the capacity for drying was. Then, as more grain was required another quota could have been opened. The government kept dillydallying with their plans to assist in the drying of grain. We in the opposition kept telling the government the farmers were short of cash and could not dry grain.
Many farmers were deceived into thinking the Wheat Board would take all their grain when the three bushel quota was announced. They expected that by spring a six bushel quota might clean them out of damp grain. Many waited. They hoped that between the end of December and spring they would deliver at least another two or three bushels? What has happened? Nothing has happened since that initial flood. A survey on January 3 indicated that only 47 million bushels have been dried on farms. Yet an estimate indicates there are 350 million bushels of tough or damp grain on the farms. It is interesting to note why grain was not dry and why it was not available at the Vancouver terminals. I should like to quote from the Manitoba CoOperator dated January 16, 1969. The article states:
Of the 1,800 delivery points surveyed, 703 agents reported lack of availability of dryers in their area . .. too cold to operate dryers at 358 points, 210 agents said it was too expensive and 132 replied that farmers hoped to haul to country elevators or use the high moisture grain as feed.
My personal experience in my constituency, which has an abundance of damp grain, indicated there was no cash in the hands of the
January 22, 1969

farmers. So, they did not dry. The Saskatchewan government analysed the situation. In an article in the Regina Leader Post of December 20, 1968 written by the Leader Post staff there is a report about a proposed program of the Saskatchewan government. The article reads in part as follows:
The proposed program would pay the full cost of fuel, either propane gas or fuel oil, up to the maximum amount used, based on receipts provided by the supplier of the fuel, in all cases where the farmer does his own drying of grain ... the plan proposes to pay 50 per cent of the cost assessed by the custom dryer up to the maximum cash payment with a limit of six cents a bushel.
The plan would also set a limit of $300 total in payments to a grain delivery permit book holder-
And so on.
It was obvious to the Saskatchewan government there was a lack of cash. Obviously, the federal government wanted to wipe its hands of the matter and leave it alone. At the end of December the government finally realized there was a lack of cash and announced that a special loan would be made available for the drying of grain. That was at the end of December. Between sessions something happened. This is the seventh sitting day since we returned from the Christmas recess but the government has not even seen fit to give first reading to a bill that would allow special loans for drying. I, personally, asked the house leader when he might have a discussion with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and he replied that discussions are going on. My goodness, how difficult it is to get through to some ministers! Even if the bill were passed, some time must elapse before regulations and forms could be delivered into the hands of country elevator agents. This has been the case in respect of the cash advance proposal that was passed in this house early in June. This will happen again. Another month goes by and the Government wonders why there is not adequate dried grain at Vancouver terminals.
What has happened is another example of failure to plan and to foresee the obvious. When one realizes that the number of boxcars available for transportation of wheat is 1,000 below the figure for last year, it becomes obvious that the situation is one of slipshod management by the government.


An hon. Member:: A hell of a mess.


Stanley James Korchinski: You can say that again; if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can say it you can say it.
Grain
Once again, wheat is piled high on the prairies; the farmers face an uncertain future. The minister makes excuses and the Prime Minister's only concern is about his extracurricular activities. If the Prime Minister devoted as much time to wheat as he does to dates we would not have this problem. Instead in Winnipeg he asked why we should sell wheat. He stated that it was the farmers' problem. This is the heart of the problem. The government just does not care. It is a hands off policy. Some call it laissez-faire; I call it lazy fare.
The government's policy has created a situation in which we now face the loss of contracts. It has been a catalogue of dismal mismanagement. I tell my N.D.P. friends, who are quick to oppose management at the drop of a hat, that the two month long strike last summer when the government sat in a state of rigid paralysis resulted in a congestion of grain which did not help. Last year the lakehead terminals shipped 373 million bushels compared to 356 million bushels in previous crop years. Last year Canada's sales volume dropped from 25 per cent to 20 per cent under this government's mismanagement. Further drops can be expected if this attitude on the part of the government persists. The following quotation is from the Montreal Star of November 6, 1968:
Wheat and flour exports in the crop year ended last July 31 were the smallest since the 1959-60 crop year. They totalled 336,000,000 bushels against 515,000,000 bushels a year earlier.
Once again wheat is piling up on the prairies. The minister makes excuses. The government obviously is quite prepared to see things go by the board. What do we need? We need several things. We badly need a government that cares about the welfare of the farmers. This we do not have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: We badly need a minister who will take things into his hands and instruct the trade concerning what must be done. We need some kind of a minister. We had a similar situation before. When the Progressive Conservative party formed a government we had our problems. When the China deal was arranged we realized there were transportation problems. The transportation problems had to be faced. There was a shortage of facilities at the west coast. But we had a minister who was willing to act. At that time Alvin Hamilton was the minister. He called the trade together and set out the

January 22, 1969
Grain
problems. He obtained the assurance that the utmost co-operation would come from all, the railways, the terminal operators and the unions. It worked. There was no strike and deliveries were made on schedule.
Even Jack Pickersgill, the former minister of transport, tried his best to face up to the problem and see that adequate transportation was available. He called a meeting at Winnipeg.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The present minister does nothing but sit in the house, afraid to even venture to speak for himself. He has told us that everything is all right because God is on our side. It is time for the government to wake up. There is no co-ordination, no initiative, no desire to learn and no results. In the meantime we see headlines such as "Grain sales slow over holidays"; "Doesn't the government realize what is happening?"; "farm machinery sales show sharp decrease". This article indicates that sales have decreased in Saskatchewan by 21.8 per cent, in Manitoba by 18 per cent, in Alberta by 17.8 per cent and similar decreases for the other provinces. Does the government not realize how depressed the industry is?
I have another article which indicates that the average earnings of doctors in Canada in 1966 was $24,993; engineers and architects, $21,200; lawyers, $21,000; dentists, $17,200; accountants, $13,900; investors, $7,000 and other professionals, whatever they may be, $6,800. Even self-employed salesmen earned $7,600; business proprietors, $6,000; teachers and professors, $5,700; federal government employees, $5,600 and fishermen and farmers about $5,000. This is the situation, yet the government is quite prepared to lose markets for farm produce. What has happened to the leadership in this country? The Prime Minister goes off to London, treating his visit as a sort of honeymoon. What happened to his promises of 1,300 million bushels of grain sales in the next three years? Mr. McNamara expressed the fear-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member but according to the provisions of Standing Order 26 the hon. member's time has now expired.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I say in conclusion, if the minister feels the job is too big he should resign.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would say at the outset that the

government has a serious responsibility to answer the question which has been put, and to indicate to this house how it proposes to deal with this very serious situation. It should indicate how it proposed to solve the grain marketing problem which affects not only western Canada but this country as a whole. If it will discharge that responsibility, then we should start to move this grain.
We, on this side of the house, have outlined actions to meet the situation which exists. We have done so on a number of occasions. We have pointed out the situation which was building up and stated on at least two occasions what could usefully be done. I suggest that the standing committee should meet with representatives of the Canadian wheat board to examine this matter and to determine what useful position could be taken.
The only answer we have ever been able to receive to our questions from the minister is that the officials of the wheat board would prefer to appear before the standing committee in March. Of course, if this is the minister's answer he is responsible for it and, I suppose, entitled to make such a decision.
On another occasion, I asked the minister whether he would consider doing what has been done before, that is appoint an individual to go to Vancouver to co-ordinate activities there. The minister said he had answered this question five times. I do not recall asking it five times, but apparently he answered it that often. He also said that he could not agree that a single individual should have all these problems dumped on him. I would hope that every crew on the west coast would dump its problems on such an individual. Perhaps if these problems were considered jointly we might find a way out of the impasse we have experienced. This might expedite the movement of grain.
Such a co-ordinator could meet with representatives of stevedoring firms, unions, wheat board officials and members of the board of grain commissioners and, last but not least, he could meet with railroad officials, because I am convinced some of the blockage exists there. He could impress upon them the seriousness of the problem.
Such an individual should be vested with the authority and confidence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and could operate much more effectively than a committee or subcommittee. The government seems to be very strong in favour of committees and subcommittees, dialogue and
January 22, 1969

communication, but in this case what we require is some action.
Let me describe the situation briefly to the house. According to the information I have, 20 ships lay at anchor in the inner and outer harbours at Vancouver. I am told that 19 of those ships are waiting to load grain. Fifteen of those ships are waiting to load higher grades, particularly No. 2. A few ships which arrived in Vancouver in December have made new arrangements to load lower grades of grain.
I have also received information that ten million bushels of grain are loaded and on the way to Vancouver. Of this amount 5,500,000 bushels are No. 2 Northern. These figures may not be exact, but this is the general situation which exists at this time. I have also been informed that the type of grain required is not in position and that from 200 to 400 cars are being unloaded per day at these terminals on the west coast. Last Saturday these terminals did not operate because there were not enough cars. These terminals are capable of unloading 600 cars per day.
In spite of these figures, we are in a better position at the port of Vancouver than we were several years ago when a similar situation occurred because the new Saskatchewan Pool terminal, with its great capacity, is available for the movement of grain through that port.
[DOT] (8:30 P.m.)
If we look at the other end of the grain picture we see that at the lakehead there are in store 41 million bushels of grain. The total capacity of the storage facilities is 90 million bushels. No one has explained why that capacity is not being used and storage space remains idle. It should be filled. We should be moving grain into the lakehead for the purpose of ensuring that the dryers keep operating and the grain is stored until the summer months when the weather warms up and drying could continue.
Let us look at the car loadings picture. I will give the house the figures for a five weeks comparison as between 1968 and 1967. In 1967, in the five weeks from December 6 to January 3, according to the Board of Grain Commissioners we moved 28,696 carloads of all grains. In 1968 in the same 5 week period we loaded 21,311 cars with all grains. There is a difference there of 7,385 cars in a five-week period. I would like to know why we moved less grain this year than we did in a similar period last year.
Grain
It is important that we get the answers to these questions tonight. It is more important that action be taken to solve the problem. There are some extenuating circumstances in this situation. We all know there are large quantities of grain with which we have to contend. I expect that the Canadian Wheat Board has made additional sales as a result of the strike at the gulf ports of the United States. I expect that additional sales have been made for one or two other reasons.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why we should not meet these conditions. We must be prepared to meet such conditions when they exist. We should gear our transportation system so we can meet this kind of emergency and deliver the product that we have for sale. We on the prairies operate at the end of a long pipe line and it is absolutely essential that this pipe line operate efficiently. It is of little avail to tell our farmers to be efficient, which they are, and to operate on very narrow margins, which they do, if the rest of the grain-handling industry is not efficient enough to move its product to the market when it is ready to be moved. This is what we are talking about tonight, the efficiency of our transportation and grainhandling system.
I am reliably informed that there is dry wheat at inland terminals which has not even been moved to the west coast to meet this demand. We should be using unit trains and making an all-out effort to meet the circumstances that exist. The failure to plan adequately to meet this situation is evident. We are in a highly competitive world market. We have always lived with the situation of being in a highly competitive world market. We know that this situation exists. We have known since the Kennedy round negotiations were completed that we would be in a tough marketing and negotiating position. This was evident. No sooner were those negotiations completed than the Americans and the French were cutting prices and we were fighting for markets. This should have been an added reason for being on our toes and missing no bets whatsoever.
When one considers the situation that exists on the west coast and at the lakehead, one has serious reservations as to how well the job is being done. I speak as a farmer whose neighbors have grain stacked up on their farms and whose very livelihood and wellbeing depends on the grain being moved to the market and being sold. We are not satisfied with the answers we have received

January 22, 1969
Grain
in this house. This is one reason why I fully support the motion made this morning, namely, to have a full discussion on this matter. We have a cash advances program, but cash advances were not designed to move grain; they were designed to leave grain on the farms and to temporarily take care of the farmers while the grain stayed on the farm. The cash advances program is a temporary panacea; it is not a cure for anything. This program will not cope with the problem we face.
I am concerned about one aspect of this matter. We will have plenty of committees but not enough action. It is proposed that we have a National Grains Council. This will be a debating society. It will form more committees. Those committees will form subcommittees. We in this house will be trying to find out what the committees and subcommittees will be doing after they are formed. We do not need a National Grains Council; we need action. We need someone to put together the institutions and organizations we now have and make them work. We need co-ordination of the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain commissioners, the railroads and the elevator companies in order that this grain is effectively moved and sold. I do not wish to make light of the task that faces the Canadian Wheat Board or the Department of Trade and Commerce to which the Canadian Wheat Board is responsible. To some extent I know the nature of that task because at one time I sat on the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board; therefore I have some knowledge of the task it faces.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that an all-out effort has been made to solve the transportation problem. I am not convinced that an all-out effort has been made to move box cars to the west coast and the lakehead in order that grain may be moved out of this country. I am not satisfied that the job has been done effectively. I will be very happy if this evening the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) or the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) rises and convinces me that the job of transportation has been done, is in good hands and is going ahead. I would have more confidence if they had done what was done by a previous minister of trade and commerce in a Liberal government. In a similar situation he appointed a transport controller, the late Mr. Milner, and
[Mr. Gleave.l
gave him the job of seeing that the railroads moved the grain.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I would be much more satisfied and much more sure that the job was going to be done.
In closing, I want to say that these are the essential things which I think should be done, that is the appointment of a controller to see that the grain handling agencies are coordinated and can do this job effectively.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, the motion which led to this urgent debate reads in part as follows:
-I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the virtual bottleneck and paralysis in wheat movement in Vancouver Harbour due to the failure of the government to work with the railways in scheduling box cars, leading to a situation which has already resulted in the loss of a $17,000 ton contract and which may result in the loss of others; which has caused damage and economic loss, since some ships have been tied up for as long as a month, paying demurrage charges as high $2,500 a day; which has brought about stagnation in the movement of wheat at a critical time for western farmers; and in connection with which the government, in the person of the minister yesterday, refused to take action.
A few years ago, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, asked the Conservative government of the day to take emergency measures to build grain elevators in all Canadian ports to store the feed grains which the farmers of Eastern Canada need, and to prevent the type of situation we are now witnessing.
I know that out West it is often said that the quantity of feed grains used in Eastern Canada is very small, but I also know that it would have helped to relieve the congestion in the port of Vancouver had the construction of grain elevators been authorized in the East. Then, the bountiful crops of western grains could have been stored because in the East we use feed grains to feed the animals, even when the grain is damp or of inferior quality.
I had even suggested, in 1962, that we buy a ship to move the surplus grain in order to store it at Berthier-en-Bas, very near Quebec, as it is done in some countries when grain is plentiful and is stored for the more difficult years to come, this product which is essential for feeding our cattle which provide us with our daily food, as well as the grain of a superior quality in order to send it to those who need it to eat three meals a day.
January 22, 1969

Because the Conservative government of the day did not want to listen to the just requests of the official opposition-because we were asking for reasonable measures-the official opposition is forced to-day to ask for an emergency debate to advocate methods of insuring the export of grain, since the port of Vancouver seems to be congested. As I was asking then, grain elevators should have been built as far as the lower St. Lawrence area, that is at Baie Comeau, Sept-lles, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup, Berthier-en-Bas, Trois-Ri-vieres and even in the Saguenay area, in order to allow the people of the Lake St. John district to store the surplus grain of the western producers in a place where it would not be wasted. If this theory had been accepted, the problem would have been solved automatically.
When the Liberals took office, they suggested to appoint a Minister of Agriculture for eastern Canada who would have solved all those problems. If we must discuss today the problem of the accumulation of grain at the port of Vancouver, the difficulty to export grain to the countries that are waiting to get their orders, it is because a Conservative government did not want to see the situation in order to help our people in 1962, refused to keep its promises, like the present government that promised to appoint a Minister of Agriculture for the East, with a view to solving these storage and grain distribution problems.
I wish this emergency debate would last all night and would go on to-morrow because, according to the new rule, there would be no limit to the discussion. This has happened in England. I saw it also recently in Paris: the debate went on until 5 o'clock in the morning, on an important problem. I wish this discussion would last forever so that people would at last recognize that even if we, of the Ral-liement Creditiste, are not listened to, we are still causing the voice of the people to be heard. It is the voice of truth, and it would be normal, for those on this side to lend an ear to it more often, so that they would know exactly what the people want.
I was expelled from the house in 1962 because I was demanding justice for the Eastern farmers and I was asking that the Western farmers be allowed to ship their grain to safe places so that it could be used one day by people who would need it. Victim of that unfair treatment, of that difficulty, and that humiliation, I am not at all ashamed, and I would not hesitate to do it all over again for
Grain
the welfare of our fellow citizens. It is imperative at times that the truth be heard in this house.
In 1963, and in 1965, the then government made promises, and did so again at the last election campaign. One could read in the newspapers a statement which I compare with those I made in 1962.
I will quote this statement word for word to show that if equal distribution had been allowed across the country, we would not have all these problems that face us today in respect of grain accumulating in Vancouver and we would not even have to talk about the problem of distribution arising from the lack of cars, as for the grain to get there in time before harvest around September 15, for distribution across the country, space would have had to be found to store that wheat which might feed humanity tomorrow. In fact, if every Canadian got his fair share, as it should have been long ago, we would have prosperity and not all the present problems.
So, I shall quote this newspaper article showing, as I said, that we are asking for fair things not always accepted, even ridiculed at times, but which become realities after a few years of thinking. Here is what is said exactly in this article from the "Meunier Quebecois" of December 1968:
Truly, for some time, a lot of talk not to mention money has been wasted on the grain elevators in the Quebec harbour. We will not blame this one or that. We must consider the facts and judge positively. Is the present situation to the advantage of the farmer and the Canadian taxpayer? Let us recapitulate this matter from two years back-
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As for me I would rather say for the last seven years. In fact, we have asked for fairer measures in 1962. I am reading on:
In January 1967, the National Harbours Board publicly announced that the grain elevator in Quebec was going to be rented or sold by tenders. Tenders were called and BUNGE OF CANADA LTD rented the elevator for a 10-year period. This lease provided for two renewal options at a rental rate to be determined by the National Harbours Board. Rental for the first ten years amounts to about $915,959 yearly.
At the same time, the National Harbours Board announced that it had received two bids following the public tenders and that the bid made by BUNGE OF CANADA LTD-
-an American company-
-had been found the most favourable.
That company that had intended to build a grain elevator at Sept-lles in Quebec, had abandoned that project, independently of whether

January 22, 1969
Grain
it bought the elevator in Quebec or not. The company had also announced that it was ready to sell its property at Sept-Iles even to a competitor.
The National Harbours Board announced further that the elevator at Quebec "would continue to be operated as a public elevator with an operation permit from the Board of Grain Commissioners".
Upon request, BUNGE gave a written assurance to guarantee that the shippers of domestic grain would have free and full access to the elevator.
Further, BUNGE gave a firm assurance that not only a space would be reserved for the domestic grain, but that additional space would be built for storing grain whenever necessary.
These two points were to be part of the lease, and in the property rented by Bunge, there was a piece of land on which new warehouses were supposed to be built for domestic grain when the elevator would further expand.
Apparently, the National Harbours Board wanted to suggest renting the elevator, since they had realized they could not use those warehouses at their full capacity. We may wonder what made them reach this decision since a few years before, extra storage space had been built to hold 4,000,000 bushels.
The idea, in building these grain elevators was to placate the opposition that was seeking redress. It was not heeded and these elevators were built only to be rented the next day to an American company thus allowing a few capitalists to get richer still. We, as members of the Ralliement Creditiste, will not stand for this any more, for, in our opinion, instead of giving way to the excesses of capitalism, we should, as I said before in this chamber, establish co-operative organizations to prevent the shameful abuses that prevail too often. I go on quoting.
What steps did that "National Harbours Board" take to induce shippers and exporters of domestic grain to use these new modern facilities that had just been built?
It would be interesting to know what surveys have been made in that connection. According to a press release at that time, the National Harbours Board claimed that the situation of the said elevator had been jeopardized in 1958 when the government allowed Cargill to build an elevator at Baie Comeau. A conclusion which is-
-logical or-
-preposterous-
-if you prefer-
-for if the Government felt that the situation of the elevator was threatened in 1958, why then did it build additional facilities in 1960 and again in 1965. In other words, after the Cargill construction, the National Harbour Boards doubled its capacity, modernized the elevator, and having spent the taxpayers money, rented the elevator to-
-a company by the name of-
-BUNGE without taking into account the needs of the farmers of the Quebec area.

Today, the serious problems of storing grain in the port of Vancouver should not surprise us, for in a country which produces more than 600 million bushels of wheat, it would be perfectly normal if elevators were built all across Canada. Let us recall those years when Joseph had provided for the storage of enough wheat to last the seven years when his people went through a difficult situation. If one day that same situation were to be duplicated the world over, we could ship wheat to those who would need it, in order to feed the human race who has to have at least three daily meals.
The article keeps on thus:
As another excuse, he indicated that for the local business around Quebec, the elevator would be in competition with that of Trois-Rivieres once the new bridge were completed and that it was expected there would be special rates to deliver the grain directly from the West to the province by railway. Barely a year and a half later, it is obvious that all those forecasts and promises from the National Harbours Board were impossible.
Just like my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste, I am still wondering why Western grain does not get more rapidly to Eastern Canada, in order to meet the requirements both of bakers and farmers in the East and in order to clear ports such as that of Vancouver which, usually due to a lack of box-cars, so it seems, are unable to do the job.
Our proposals are sound, but the government does not want to listen to our demands, and as a result there are urgent debates such as this one tonight in order to find a solution similar to the one we have been advocating for seven years. Even though we have been laughed at, in an attempt to prove that we were wrong, our way of thinking is substantiated and now is the moment to prove the truth.
I am sincerely sorry that the farmers of Western Canada are in trouble. I have been to that part of the country and I know the value of its contribution to our trade. Per-sonnally, being a former farmer, I am well aware of agricultural problems in Quebec and in Canada. I am in a position to say, since the previous legislators did not do justice to our people and we now represent the official opposition from Quebec in the parliament of Canada, that we are asking that our people be treated fairly.
Although at the present time, attention is drawn only on the problem as it affects the Western farmers, it does affect Eastern Canada too. Farming is heading for disaster, because we have been unable to convince
January 22. 1969

Western farmers to ship their grain to Eastern Canada. If we could achieve that end, it might cheek separatism, which is feared by several hon. members, because it is no use preaching to a hungry man. At the present time, Eastern farmers are miserable on their parcel of land, because they do not think it possible that this grain which could be sold at a lower price in Eastern Canada, will one day bring them some profit.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
They will have nothing to do with socialism, with a government that controls and they do not want to be told one of these days to do such or such a thing. Indeed, there is proof of that in the fact that they objected to the renting of the Quebec elevators to an American company that probably created some of the problems concerning grain exports. We lost, as was said in the motion today, 17,000 tons of cereals that could have been sold and such a sale would no doubt have contributed to our country's prosperity.
But because justice is being denied, because the economic power of electoral funds dictates the course followed by the parties in power-Tories or Grits, they are of the same making because they go to the same source to get elected-it is possible the day after the elections, with a majority government, to have laws passed that encourage those financiers and bring about disasters like the one we are witnessing now in Canada.
I will therefore keep on reading the article I quoted a while ago, giving you a few more details on what we are going through at present in eastern Canada, when we would have liked so much to help the people in western Canada. People may think what they want, but we are ready in Quebec to help our fellow citizens. We are ready to assist other Canadians who, as everybody knows, also want to make reasonable profit and benefit from the income of their farm, which would enable them to live decently, in a democratic way. Now problems like the one in the Vancouver harbour are created, which shows that when the government rented the Quebec grain elevators to an American company, it not only created storing problems, but also contributed to increase the control of American companies over the Canadian economy. In fact, a spokesman for the Federated Cooperative said one day: If we had not been here, our control on grain would have been done for. An American company
Grain
was then coming to Eastern Canada to control the distribution of grain and this is the effect that we must bear today while we have to tackle problems like the one in which we are involved at this time. I shall read further the article to which I referred earlier:
It must be noted that up to the end of the 1966 shipping season about half a dozen shippers were competing with the Quebec market; this was the best guarantee for the local consumer that he would get the most reasonable offer.
At the end of the 1968 shipping season, there was only Bunge with the exception of one or two other shippers, who were moving grain to the Quebec elevators. The tenant systematically discouraged the shippers, as well as the shipping companies, from going to Quebec to unload the domestic grain-
It is not surprising that we should know the problems which are ours today.
-because he was trying to impose conditions forcing the shippers to give him three days notice before the loading of the ship at the Great Lakes ports, to give the name of the ship, the quantity, the grade of the grain and the date of arrival of the ship in Quebec.
With such information, the tenant could get in Quebec an advantage on the market by adjusting his price in order to compete in the best possible conditions.
A permit was issued by the Canadian Board of Grain Commissioners under section 134 (1) of the Canada Grain Act with different clauses.
This brought about more confusion at the elevator because the permit itself was interpreted in an ambiguous way by the Canadian Board of Grain Commissionners.
In a brief about the Quebec elevator, Mr. V. Martin, secretary and executive manager stated, for instance, "Bunge is allowed, though under no obligation, to take a ship out of turn. On the other hand, if a ship turns up, and there is no other one in line, and there is room in the elevator, Bunge has to unload the boat without any consideration for other plans or commitments.
In October, one of Bunge's competitors on the local market in Quebec, taking into account the above mentioned conditions, sent a boat to Quebec with 960,000-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Bernard Dumont: Just a few minutes more, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the last speech has cheered me

January 22, 1969
Grain
up. Sometimes I have doubts about my competence, but having listened to the last speaker I was reminded of the famous words of a well known gentleman, who said, "When I look at myself I am a bit embarrassed, but when I compare myself with others I am cheered". At one point we were getting rather far from Vancouver and from the situation that exists there.
The motion which we have before us is full of impressive phrases, such as "paralysis in wheat movement in Vancouver harbour", "loss of a 17,000 ton contract", the possible loss of others, "stagnation in the movement of wheat". The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), with his usual enthusiasm, added additional big phrases, such as "serious decline in our sales" and "nothing is moving". That is about the mood that he has tried to create, though I am sure most of the house and the country does not agree with him.
The hon. member is making mistakes, though involuntary and unconscious ones, I am sure. He is also guilty of some exaggerations. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) and myself will demonstrate this tonight. However, in doing so none of us will deny that we do have a serious situation here. The Wheat Board says that we have 31 ships loading or waiting for grain in Vancouver. Others have said there are 29 and 30, and someone said 33, but the official figure is 31.
I should like, first of all, to try to define the problem. At the root of the grain movement problem this crop year is the fact that farmers harvested last fall all time record quantities of tough and damp grain, and the quantities which must be handled are double that of any other year. This is regrettable but the government could not do anything to prevent that situation. It is well known that government can do many things, but it cannot change the weather.
The second fact which must be borne in mind is that the handling of high moisture grain is a slow, time consuming process. As an example-and this is only an example- terminal operators are finding that in some cases it takes several hours to unload a boxcar of high moisture grain, as opposed to minutes for dry grain. Again the government cannot change this situation.
Unusually severe winter weather has greatly cut down on the efficiency of railroad equipment. As an example, yesterday in Edmonton the temperature was 40 below zero,

though had the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) been there it might have gone up a few degrees! This means, for instance, that a diesel engine normally capable of hauling 80 to 100 cars of grain can haul only 30. Again that is a situation that the government, however capable, cannot change.
Another factor is that the demand for Canadian grain from westcoast ports has been stronger than could have been anticipated. I have already said that; I will repeat it and provide the house with statistics on the subject in a moment. The desire to move the largest possible volume of high moisture grain to Vancouver terminals for drying and for export purposes has conflicted with efforts to meet this increased demand for dry grain.
I have already said that we have here a conflict between two very desirable objectives and purposes. One is the movement of maximum quantities of damp grain to terminal elevators for drying and export; the other very worth-while objective is the achievement of maximum exports. As I have indicated, we have had some unexpected export commitments to meet on top of expected export commitments. That is a situation to which I have often referred and has to do with Chinese and Japanese sales as well.
The simplest solution would have been to cut back on sales from Vancouver. After the results of the harvest were known, the Wheat Board was aware that there would be serious transportation and handling problems this year. The Wheat Board could have taken the easy way out and simply limited sales to safe levels. Instead they opted to maximize sales and tried to solve transportation problems. Had they not done so, hon. members on the other side would be accusing us for the loss of sales, and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) tonight accused us in fact for the loss of one sale in particular. His allegation is not correct.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Woolliams:: You lost more than one sale.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One can imagine what hon. members of the Conservative party would have said if the Wheat Board, acting on conservative principles, had been afraid to take any chances. Hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party would have been among the first to accuse the Wheat Board or most preferably the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, for not being daring enough.
January 22, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I notice the gold dust twins don't agree with you.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In business you have to take calculated risks, and take the consequences.


An hon. Member:: In what kind of
businesses?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In all businesses, including politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What was done by the government is well known. As soon as it became evident that a crisis had developed in western Canada after the harvest last fall, the Wheat Board announced an advance delivery quota of three bushels per specified acre. This allowed for a quick movement of high moisture grains to terminals, and allowed dryers to begin operating at capacity.
I still remember the charming voice of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) shouting across the floor, "Get the wheat to the dryers." And I still remember the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) shouting to me, "Go out and sell, sell, sell wheat." That is exactly what was done. I am not blaming hon. members for their attitude. The government has supported the actions of the Wheat Board in what has been done. The right steps have been taken. I am not condemning hon. members for having shouted their advice to me. They were right to do so. The risk the Board took was a calculated one. That is all there is to it and there is nothing wrong with it. But when you take risks you also take the consequences.
The grain industry set up a committee in Winnipeg to co-ordinate the movement of high moisture grain.


Mr. Horner:: How long ago was that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: At the beginning of this situation, in the fall. I am talking about the Winnipeg Transport Committee and not about the committee set up in Vancouver, which is more recent. No doubt hon. members on the other side of the house consider they have revelations from God himself which enables them to anticipate history. My memory is good and I can remember hon. members on the other side of the house telling us to subsidize wheat left in the field. They knew it would not even be harvested.
At any rate, the transportation committee was created. Terminals and railways were given targets to achieve on a weekly basis.
Grain
Each week these targets were reviewed and where short falls occurred the reasons for those short falls were and are examined. When a short fall is due to controllable circumstances corrective action is immediately taken. On November 26, when the Wheat Board held its press conference, the farmers were told the situation was difficult and that they would have to dry a lot of their own grain. Full investigations were made into the possibility of utilizing additional facilities, such as the terminals at Duluth and dryers in southern Ontario. That investigation disclosed that costs of using such facilities would be far higher than the costs incurred in drying grain on farms.
A subcommittee of the main committee in Vancouver was created in Vancouver under the chairmanship of the Vancouver manager of the Wheat Board to do the same work as the committee in Winnipeg was doing. I think the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) will explain what was done.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes. You raised interest rates.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He will explain what was done in order to make available to farmers interest free cash advances so that they would not be financially handicapped when attempting to dry their own wheat. In addition, the duty of 15 per cent on imported stationary dryers was remitted; income tax regulations were amended to provide accelerated depreciation allowances for farm grain storage facilities and grain drying equipment; the government waived the provisions of the labour code to allow for 24 hour a day, seven day a week terminal drying, and at the moment all terminals are operating seven days a week 24 hours a day. I could go on listing what we did.


Gerald William Baldwin: And do not forget what you are going to do about estate taxes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But we are being accused of doing nothing. The motion says in part, "the minister... ref used to take action." We have been taking action all along.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some action.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I now want to talk about the sale of wheat to Japan. As I have mentioned in the house on a number of occasions, the House of Commons is not a market place and it is not in the interest of producers to discuss individual sales transactions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How did the transaction we are considering go wrong?

January 22, 1969
Grain


Jean-Luc Pepin: Does the hon. member disagree with that statement?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I disagree with the government's entire policy. Quite frankly, it has no policy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member's former leader, when he was prime minister, said in the House of Commons as reported at page 880 of Hansard for February 15, 1962:
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on a vote that took place yesterday but the hon. gentleman knows very well that throughout the years It has never been considered proper to reveal the particulars of agreements or transactions entered into by the wheat board. To do so would be to depart from the regular principle and would be of benefit only to those who are competitors.
If I were not so pleased to be on the government side of the house I might enjoy the experience of being on the other side for a few days to enjoy the game of telling the government, as hon. members over there do, that we should provide more subsidies, sell more of this, and do this and that without having to take the responsibility of what would happen if those suggestions were implemented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I came well prepared, Mr. Speaker, and I can quote chapter and verse to hon. members on the other side. Hon. members said that the Wheat Board ought to give advance quotas for damp grain; that damp grain ought to be given priority in box car movements. They emphasized at the same time that we should not lose a single sale, and so on. I do not see why hon. members are complaining because their suggestions were carried out. Hon. members ought now to take their share of the responsibility for what has happened. We have taken chances-


Mr. Gundlock:: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has the option to refuse.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am just warming up. The hon. member for Mackenzie accuses us of not having made one particular sale. As I said before, it is not the practice of the house to talk about specific sales, as the former leader of the Conservative party said. He stressed the value of that tradition. I hasten to add, however, that shipments of Canadian wheat to Japan this year are considerably above last year's level, being at 17.1 million

bushels as compared to 12.5 million bushels in the August to December period last year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Peanuts.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not see why we should be accused of having missed one sale when 5 million more bushels this year than in the corresponding period last year have been sold. I don't want to break an old tradition but I might indicate to the hon. member for Mackenzie that the sale he assumed was lost has not been lost.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Press reports at times can be wrong and this is one occasion. I am not saying that the sale will not be lost. I am saying that it has not been lost and that the Wheat Board will see to it that a maximum effort is made so that it won't be lost.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, since apparently members have only 20 minutes in which to speak, I wish to state that the debate we are having is partly on the functions of the minister. I do not want to quote Dawson and other learned authorities because if I did so I would be accused of going back to my former profession. But on reflection I ask, is it the function of ministers to replace the proper authorities? Is it my job to run the wheat marketing system in Canada, to tell the Wheat Board what to do, to command or, using the word used by the hon. member for Mackenzie, to instruct? Is it my job to instruct the members of the Wheat Board? Is it necessary for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to instruct the Board of Grain Commissioners? I don't believe that because if it is our job to instruct then obviously we don't need these boards.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We will tell you your job.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am just trying to reason with the opposition members and this is sometimes difficult.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not the function of the minister, the way I look at it, to run Crown agencies. That is the way that traditionally these things have been looked at. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is familiar with these theories. I am quite sure that when he was premier of Nova Scotia he did not actually tell everybody in the provincial
January 22, 1969

government what to do. I know some people say he did but I don't believe that.
The function of the minister is to support the organizations for which he is responsible to parliament, to bring the different parties together when need be, to do everything to help these parties in the accomplishment of their tasks and this, Mr. Speaker, has been done in these grain difficulties by the members of the cabinet.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) says that we should discuss, I think I quote correctly, the efficiency of the grain handling system in Canada. I am old enough to know that when things go well people go on their knees to praise the transportation system in Canada. Now that the weather has not been as kind as we all would like it to be, now that some difficulties have arisen I think this is a poor moment to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the transportation system. I remember very well the praises accorded to the transportation system when things went well.


An hon. Member:: When was that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Anyway, I can say honestly that the ministers of the government have given the proper wheat marketing and transportation authorities the fullest support we could. We have given our complete co-operation and I do not think anybody will say differently. But of course-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the minister's time has expired unless there is unanimous agreement of the house for him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will conclude by saying-


Bernard Dumont: I object, Mr. Speaker, because I was not allowed to continue my remarks earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is a matter of consent. There is the consent of the house to allow the minister to continue, whereas that was not available earlier.


Bernard Dumont: As unanimous consent is necessary, I object.


An hon. Member:: You have nothing to say.
Grain


Bernard Dumont: I was not allowed to continue my remarks a short while ago. It is now my turn to object. I also asked for unanimous consent, and it was not given.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dauphin.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion, and as its seconder, I would like to express my concern with the problem. In my opinion, the present situation of our wheat exports at the port of Vancouver is an indication of the chaos, lack of direction and failure of the government to one of the main segments of our economy in western Canada, a segment that is vital to have an agricultural policy that will benefit the well being of our nation.
On January 21 the President of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, in an address to the annual joint conference of the Dominion Grain Association and U.S. Lake Carriers Association, stated that Canada's position in the world wheat trade is precarious and unlikely will ever again be as good as it has been in recent years. I would hope he is in error but at least this is an informed opinion.
We now witness the prospect of sales that we cannot fulfil due to the mismanagement of our export mechanism in the transfer of grain from the farms to the ships, at a time when the world wheat crop has exceeded 10 billion bushels for three consecutive years. This has resulted in a large surplus for the exporting nations of the world and intense rivalry to have this grain disappear into the markets of the world.
In an article in the Canadian Press of November 6, 1968, by Allan Sackman, the question is posed "Can the world do without our grain"? The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Winnipeg that the prairie farmer should sell his own grain, when it is well known that it is impossible for the farmer to sell his own grain, shows a lack of appreciation of the problems facing the agricultural producer.
Recently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) announced the licensing of a variety of Mexican wheat designed to fill an area of wheat marketing for feed grains. This will cause further congestion in ports such as Vancouver in transfering this grain to the markets of the world. The increased number of varieties of wheat and other grains causes

January 22, 1969
Grain
further problems and requires more sophisticated machinery to handle the grain at the ports.
Investigations in recent years of the grain handling situation show that we are sadly lacking in many areas to fulfil all the demands of our customers and to take care of unexpected sales that fortune has thrown our way. We must hurry to modernize our grain handling facilities so that we can cope with the unexpected.
This last fall we had a modestly good crop, severely damaged by rain and frost over wide areas of the prairies. In fairness, it seems to me that much of the congestion can be attributed to the large amounts of damp or wet grain in store and awaiting drying at Vancouver. Such harvesting seasons will recur at intervals and we will have to be prepared for them at least once every 20 years, if not once every ten years, so that we can carry on a major drying operation. The need for this will likely increase as farms increase in size and mechanization.
It seems to me only reasonable that provision should be made by the government, either in conjunction with local elevators on farms or with elevators at the coastal terminals, for a large amount of grain to be reconditioned for sale in the world markets. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and when handling facilities at a port such as Vancouver become clogged and break down, only chaos can result.
It is particularly disastrous to note, according to an item in the James Richardson and Sons weekly grain report, that a 17,000 ton sale of grain to Japan may have been lost and its place taken by a cargo of Australian wheat. It is very damaging that Japan, one of our traditional markets, and a country that does not fall under communist domination- leaving aside political consideration in our dealings with the communist bloc

is one country where unfortunately we have lost a sale.
It is well known that the erratic shipments of grain from the west coast have been a factor in the loss of our traditional Japanese barley market. In the past year we have seen this market slip away to France and Australia. This loss has been in part due to uncertainty of delivery out of our west coast port.
Canadian agriculture is facing severe circumstances in penetrating the markets of the world, and competition will be fierce. There

are many facets of this problem that we cannot control but it is wise to rectify those things that we have the power to rectify. Certainly, one of our immediate tasks is to put the port at Vancouver into the best possible position for exporting grain.
e (9:30 p.m.)
There are upwards of 300 million bushels of damp grain in farm storage. Many experts feel this grain will be seriously damaged if it is not conditioned by spring. So, in addition to the amount that has been expended by the farmer in harvesting the grain there will be a considerable loss in value. From a long range point of view it might well be considered that we should have facilities for the storage of grain outside this country in places such as Tokyo and: Rotterdam. These are our main market areas. This would allow for a cushion in the event of delayed shipments of grain by reason of abnormal conditions such as strikes and other unforeseen problems.
I strongly urge the government to take the present tie-up at Vancouver as an indication of the seriousness of the situation in respect of the grain trade and particularly the handling facilities for grain in western Canada. I ask that the government act with all possible speed in this matter. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether international markets have been lost because of any delay in getting the right type of grain in position; what can now be done to get the required types of grain to the terminals and, finally, a question which the minister did not touch on, will the prairie farmers have to pay for the mounting demurrage costs in respect of the boats?


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to register my concern about the problem of trying to be prepared for every eventuality in the business of marketing grain. It is a very serious thing to be unable to deliver grain in the quantities and grades, and at the time our customers require it. It is especially serious when after a year of poor sales our markets are showing some signs of buoyancy again, and we have added to a substantial carry-over from last year another better than average size crop. I note in passing that overseas clearances of wheat and wheat flour are running about 25 per cent or 30 per cent higher so far in this crop year than they were a year ago.
January 22, 1969



For years I have been saying that more and better facilities are needed for the storage and transportation of our grain. We must be prepared to deliver what our customers want when they want it. It is quite obvious that the unusually large amounts of tough and damp grain with which we must contend this year have interfered somewhat with the normal movement through our transportation system.
I understand also that some Japanese orders for wheat from the United States were cancelled recently, and that the ships were sent on short notice to Vancouver to take Canadian wheat instead. This is a very welcome development and one which we can ill afford to fumble.
Canadian farmers are in the business of selling grain to a great variety of customers through the agency of the Canadian Wheat Board. To be successful in this merchandising operation, it seems to me one of the first essentials is to have an adequate supply readily available for our customers. I believe this demands a thorough overhauling and upgrading of our grain handling system. Methods must be developed very quickly to make sure that the Wheat Board can deliver grain to our seaports in whatever quantities and qualities may be required by the market from time to time.
I suggest we need more terminal space for the storage of large quantities of different grades of wheat. It would likely be necessary that these be at ports in order to avoid the rail line bottlenecks. Inland terminals served by unit or containerized trains, or pipelines, should also be considered. I think the suggestion made this evening by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont) regarding storage facilities in eastern Canada is also a very good one. Also, the statement of the last speaker that we need considerable storage facilities at overseas positions is worthy of consideration.
I know that some officials of the Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners recognize that our grain handling facilities are far from adequate to cope with modern grain market conditions. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has done something about this. This farmer owned organization, of which I am a member, has plowed back much of its past earnings and will put much of its future earnings into large new terminals at the west coast. I would urge everyone involved, the railways, the grain companies, the National Harbours Board and all other agencies to get
Grain
on with the job of bringing our system up to date.
To get back to the immediate problem I tend to agree with those who have been advocating the appointment of a transport controller or commissioner. Some years ago such a person did a fine job of directing and co-ordinating grain movements. I know there has been a transport committee for most of the season so far. This committee is composed of representatives of various organizations. But the fact that the present problems have developed casts some doubt on the efficacy of this essentially voluntary arrangement.
It is said that the best type of committee to get action is a two man committee, with one member absent. Therefore, I would be in favour of the appointment of a transport controller, at least for the balance of this crop year, with authority to see that what needs to be done in this emergency is done and done promptly. There is a good deal of grain of various grades in western Canada which is needed to supply the market. It may be that traditional shipping areas may have to be disregarded. This may mean the shipping of Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan grain to the west coast, or the shipping of Alberta and B.C. grain east. It may also mean an increase in shipping costs. I believe most farmers would agree it would be better to take a little less for grain in order to cover such increased marketing costs if this is necessary to develop and maintain our sales.
Then there is the matter of the equitable sharing of marketing opportunities between farmers of various parts of the prairies. Eventually all this grain will be handled some time, so it is essential that all kinds of grain be accepted from all areas and stored if necessary. If it is stored in positions where it is readily marketable, buyers will more likely be found. This important consideration of equality of delivery by the end of each crop year must never be forgotten. That is the main purpose and justification for a quota system.
In conclusion I would say that if there is any blame to be assessed in this present situation most of it can be laid to an outmoded transportation and storage system. In any case there is little profit in trying to blame individuals or groups. What we should be doing is deciding how best to improve conditions. I think there is a good deal of merit in having a one man transport controller with meaningful authority.

January 22, 1969
Grain
I believe also that the Canadian Wheat Board should be extremely flexible in designating shipping areas for both eastern and western shipments. If it can be shown that there is a shortage of grain cars, and I do not believe this has been proven, this should be quickly rectified by a transport controller. The future of our grain industry, which is so important to the economy of the whole nation, depends on whether or not we can cope with the current problems and whether we can develop methods to prevent their recurrence. The importance of maintaining Canada's reputation as a reliable producer and supplier of wheat cannot be overemphasized.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, a little while ago we witnessed a defence of the Wheat Board and the grain handling system which would have sickened any farmer from western Canada. It would have sickened the farmers there and have driven them to despair. I rise at this time, heavy of heart, because I realize the many difficulties with which the minister is confronted and his inability to cope with those difficulties. I have nothing particular against the minister but he is unsuited to handle the grain problems in western Canada. I notice the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the house at this time. Let me remind the house of his remarks during the campaign. He said he would appoint ministers to his cabinet not on the basis of regional representation but because of ability. Surely the Prime Minister cannot sit in his seat today and tell us the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was appointed to look after the wheat board because of his ability, particularly after his 20 minute speech of nonsense and garbage.
[DOT] (9:40 p.ra.)
At one time the Minister of Trade and Commerce, during his speech, asked what his job was. He suggested that we should tell him what to do. He should not have been appointed if he did not know what to do or what his job entailed. Surely every farmer in western Canada could quickly tell him what his job is and what he should do. His job is to sell wheat and move it as quickly as possible. He should not take the attitude the Prime Minister expressed in Winnipeg some time ago and again in the House of Commons when he asked, why should the government sell wheat?
The minister should sell wheat because the wheat board is a branch of the government functioning on behalf of farmers. The government has accepted the responsibility to govern this country, and whether the Prime Minister wants that responsibility-and I am sometimes unsure about that-he has accepted it now. He went out and worked to acquire that responsibility. He now says that the selling of wheat is the farmer's problem and would only become a government responsibility if the state owned the land and hired the farmers to produce wheat. Perhaps the Prime Minister is like the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is now wondering what his job is. We all wondered what his job was when he was over in London, but now that he is back here in Canada he should recognize his responsibility and at least attempt to cope with this situation.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce outlined the problem but at no time did he say what the government was doing about it. He did not say we are doing "a", "b" or "c" about it, or this is what we hope to do. He attempted to throw this problem off his shoulders by saying the problem was the result of the production of tough and damp grain last faH and the railroad companies were having problems hauling the grain in the wintertime. We have had a cold winter this year in western Canada, but this is not the first cold winter and it will not be the last. The minister also blamed the situation on the fact that there was an unusually high demand for western wheat at the western ports. During the last few years Vancouver has moved over 50 per cent of the grain moved in this country, and if the minister doubts that he should look up the records. The minister went on to suggest that the farmers had asked for a 3 cent per bushel advance on damp grain, and said this got the government into trouble. He finally analyzed the problem by saying, or rather asking, what is my job?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is obvious he doesn't know.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He doesn't know and he is not even prepared to find out. He has been the minister for one year, yet he does not know what his job is. There are 33 ships at Vancouver today, some being loaded and some not. The Prime Minister makes flippant remarks, but who is paying the demurrage charges on these ships which amounts to $2,500 per day? Let me tell you that the farmers

January 22, 1969

are paying these charges. One shipping company in respect of one ship has put in a bill for $32,000 in demurrage charges. Let the Prime Minister flippantly reply to that fact. Let him take the blame, and let the government pay the demurrage charges.
What does the government have to say about the lawsuits being initiated by the shipping companies against the wheat board? These companies had arranged dates to load grain, yet the grain is not there. The ships are there and they are losing cargoes and contracts. They blame the wheat board because they cannot load at Vancouver. Is the government going to accept these lawsuits or is it looking into this problem?
What does the minister have to say about the grades of wheat moving out to the west coast? Vancouver facilities can handle something like 2,000 bushels per hour in the drying system. There was no need to move out a lot of damp grain. The wheat board could have moved out damp grain as fast as the drying facilities could handle it. Most of the storage facilities in Vancouver should have been used for dry grain. The damp grain this winter could have been stored a lot better in western Canada under the cold conditions. Instead it was stored in Vancouver and it might well be heating at this moment because of the warm climate and the severe dampness. The government mishandled this grain movement by shipping damp grain to Vancouver. That is the first mistake it made.
Instead of appointing a committee seven or eight weeks ago to organize and co-ordinate the shipment of grain to Vancouver, the government appointed a co-ordinating committee about two weeks ago. This action should have been taken four or five weeks earlier. The situation was obvious two months ago. It was obvious that the wheat board could not live up to the contracts which had been made in respect of shipments.
A ship today does not suddenly appear on the horizon like the ships sailed by Columbus when he discovered America. A ship takes some time to get to Vancouver and the wheat board knows that it is coming for a certain grade of wheat. Surely to goodness, this wheat should have been available.
I have some doubt as to whether Japan is prepared to accept damp grain. During the Christmas recess I travelled throughout my constituency and saw thousands and thousands of bushels of grain still in the fields. This is dry grain. There is a great deal of dry
Grain
grain in southern Alberta. The government could have moved huge amounts of dry grain for storage in Vancouver. The government turned its back on this fact, and paid no attention to the situation.
The minister asked what his job is. Let me suggest it is to provide leadership and inspiration to his department to provide greater service. How could he inspire his department when, after one year in office, he still does not know his responsibility? If the rules permitted I would move that the minister resign or that the wheat board be taken from his responsibility. There has been some talk about this.
I should like to hear any western member who supports the government suggest that the wheat board should remain the responsibility of this minister who has no knowledge of this situation. I should like to see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) cast his vote of confidence in support of this government's actions after listening to the speech the minister has made. I do not think he could do so and return to his constituency to face the farmers. I am sure no western member could do this because of the mishandling of this whole grain situation since the beginning of last fall. The minister has been inept in handling this problem since his appointment.
The Western Producer of January 2, 1969 published an article under the heading "France undercuts I.G.A. price". What is Canada doing about this? Has this government made any complaint? What is the minister doing? The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that the farmers were prepared to sell for less. I suggest some farmers must sell for less because of high interest rates and because of the new estate taxes the government is introducing.
The minister asks us to consider what the government has done. It has increased taxes to farmers when they are alive and is now prepared to take their farms when they die. Perhaps when the government takes over these farms the Prime Minister will decide that now the government owns the farms it will have to sell the wheat. I suppose that will be the time the Prime Minister finally accepts responsibility for moving and selling wheat. Surely to goodness, in this democratic country we can expect more responsibility than that.
Grain

January 22, 1969
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas).


Albert B. Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that I stated the farmers would be willing to take less money for their wheat. I said the farmers would be willing to take a little less in order to pay the extra transportation charges that may be necessary to bring wheat from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is no question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I said that the hon. member stated the farmers would be willing to take less money. That is what he did say. I do not know what excuse he gave for that; whether it was transportation costs or any other kind of costs. In any event, farmers are going to take less under this government because of the rail line abandonment program and increased transportation costs, if nothing else. These extra charges are being faced by the farmers right in the hon. member's own constituency.
Farmers are not prepared to take less money. Many farmers have to take less in order to meet the interest payments on the huge amounts of money they have had to borrow in order to seed and harvest their crops, despite the fact that their crops are not moving to the market and the minister who is responsible for seeing that they move is not doing his job properly.
During the minister's speech I asked him how long ago the co-ordinating committee was set up. He did not give a direct answer; he tried to say it was set up some time ago. A co-ordinating committee was set up in Winnipeg. Winnipeg is not the problem; Vancouver is the problem. This co-ordinating committee was set up in Vancouver less than two weeks ago in order to co-ordinate and facilitate the movement of grain. This is not good enough. It should have been set up some time ago.
The minister should go to Vancouver and get the interested parties together. If the railroads are having difficulty in getting together, the minister should meet the heads of the railroad companies and find a way to facilitate the movement of grain. There should be huge trainloads of dry grain moving to Vancouver from the prairies, from southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. There is in

this part of the country a huge amount of grain that normally moves to Vancouver. If the job were handled properly, the 33 ships there could be loaded with trainload after trainload of dry grain. Then we could carry on with the program of drying damp grain. Despite the problem that we face in this regard, all we have is this business of someone saying, "What is my job?" The people who should be concerned with dealing with the problem do not know what their job is. In this situation, how can leadership be given to the department concerned with handling the problem?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) sits on the other side of the chamber very silently and glumly, looking at the problem which he wished to handle in his department. But the Prime Minister does not place that much trust in him either. He says, "No, we cannot give him this responsibility. We will give him the dairy problem, and that's all." He might know something more about the problem, being a member from western Canada. I question his judgment too, but I urge the Prime Minister to give him a chance and place the Wheat Board under his control. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) might even do a better job. Surely if these ministers recognized what their jobs were, they would have enough ability to handle them.
The Prime Minister is not doing his job by ignoring a problem that is so vital to a major part of the economic life of western Canada. He has put the problem in the hands of one who is a very amiable, nice person but who knows absolutely nothing about the problem he is supposed to handle. Surely the Prime Minister cannot say that he is doing his job when he allows this situation to continue.
I urge the Prime Minister, who is sitting in the house listening to this debate, to reconsider the make-up of his cabinet. The minister concerned could carry on as minister of trade and commerce, but the Wheat Board should be placed within the responsibility of someone who is more capable, at least on the surface, of looking after these matters.
For the past year we have had the problem of damp grain. There has been no action in this respect. There has been a ball-up of our transportation facilities. Now, there is a ball-up at Vancouver Harbour where 33 ships are waiting to load grain. Many of these ships are paying demurrage charges. These charges, amounting to $25 a day, are coming out of the farmers' pockets. The demurrage charges for
January 22, 1969

one shipowner have amounted to $32,000. You cannot say this is efficient handling of the problem in this day and age when efficiency is the guide to what we do.


An hon. Member:: But not brevity.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, someone talks about brevity. My constituents sent me and other western members to Ottawa to act on their behalf. We came here to urge and drive the government to do those things which are necessary. We have tried to get some action from a government that is confronted with a serious problem that affects our constituencies and in fact the whole of the country. Brevity is in many cases nothing more than laziness. We cannot adopt a lazy attitude with regard to an important problem such as this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Brevity is the soul of wit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I close by saying that this problem demands more attention and action than the government has given it in the past. I hope that after this debate the government will be inspired to greater heights, for the benefit of the western Canadian farmer.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to follow in the footsteps of the hon. member who has just finished making his speech, because I really wonder whether he really believes what he says. The hon. member takes the position that the present situation has a rather drastic effect upon our economy. The facts of the matter are that the movement of grain into the port of Vancouver is at the present time higher than it has been at any time in the past.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell the farmers that.


Mark G. Smerchanski: As the minister has said, the reason the trainloads of grain are unable to be unloaded is the very severe winter conditions in Vancouver. These winter conditions have been the worst in 20 years.


An hon. Member:: In Edmonton.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You said Vancouver; someone said Edmonton.


Mark G. Smerchanski: After I have had my say, you can speak. I am not going to blow as hard as you, but I will blow on the facts. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there are trainloads of wheat backed up into the sidings at Revelstoke, British Columbia, and
Grain
a good percentage of the western Alberta towns. The reason is that in the movement of wet and damp grain there is a freezing problem and the unloading capacity at the terminal is reduced to approximately 20 per cent of the normal.


Mr. McIntosh:: Is this something new?


Mark G. Smerchanski: The reason is the unfortunate weather conditions in western Canada last fall. This was an act of God and is not the fault of any government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mark G. Smerchanski: By way of clarification
for those hon. members who have sat in this house for many years, the Canadian government does not sell grain and I do not think any politician should interpret it in any other way.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I would like to quote from an article entitled "The Function of the Wheat Board" which was prepared by Mr. R. C. Brown of the United Grain Growers of Winnipeg and presented to a seminar in Brandon, Manitoba, dated December 13, 1968. The Wheat Board- and this is rather interesting-has been incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner for inter provincial and export trade grain grown in Canada. It possesses the following powers. It has the right to buy, take delivery of, store, transfer, sell ship or otherwise dispose of grain. Under the same powers that it has vested in it it has the right to enter into contracts or agreements for the purchase, sale, handling, storage, transportation, disposition or insurance of grain.
I am a newcomer to the House of Commons but I am from western Canada. When I listened to the many statements from the Opposition that it is the responsibility of the government to seU wheat rather than that of the Canadian Wheat Board, I could not agree for this is not in accordance with the facts.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are splitting hairs.


Mark G. Smerchanski: These are the hairs that lost you the election on June 25. When the Opposition takes the position that their former minister of agriculture sold the grain and that their former administrators were able, by personal effort, to go out to China and Russia and make these sales on a personal basis, that also is not in accordance with the facts.

January 22, 1969
Grain


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who put up the money?


Mark G. Smerchanski: The Opposition makes no mention of what is going on in Prince Rupert on the Pacific coast. They might be interested to know that there is a certain amount of grain moved through this port.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They only have 700,000
bushels.


Mark G. Smerchanski: So the facts of the matter are that in spite of the cold weather and of the congestion in the terminal at the port of Vancouver we are now moving approximately 350 cars per day as against about 650 that we should be moving.


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Every effort is being made to move as much grain as possible and the facts that the United States ports are strikebound, that a good percentage of the ships are lying idle in our Canadian ports and that the weather is cold, are matters also to be considered. I appreciate what the hon. member for Yellowfoot says-


An hon. Member:: You have the "foot" right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were half right; that is pretty good.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Some members of the Opposition are telling us that it is also important to fill the grain terminals at the lake-head. Either the opposition is interested in the movement of western grain to the port of Vancouver or they are simply spinning their wheels, and the question arises: What does the present terminal at the lakehead have to do with the movement of grain to the port of Vancouver?
I appreciate the remarks coming from the area of gloom and doom, but they make about as much sense as did the premier of Manitoba some seven days ago when he sent his minister of agriculture to Vancouver to personally look into the reason grain is not moving through the port of Vancouver. This was only done because there are four by-elections taking place in the province of Manitoba.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Name them, starting with Churchill.


Mark G. Smerchanski: The co-operation of all these people working on the railroads and in the terminals is very commendable. They are working on a 24 hour a day basis, seven days a week. As the minister has indicated, the
[Mr. Smerchanski.!
least we can do is to give them our support and appreciation of the excellent work they are doing under very trying conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark G. Smerchanski: The next thing we should do is to consider what can be done to help to move the maximum amount of cargo through the port of Vancouver. Consideration must also be given to the fact that our sales of sulphur have tripled, our sales of gypsum have also tripled and shipments of copper concentrates have tripled and quadrupled from the port of Vancouver. This port is under a severe strain due to congestion which makes it difficult to handle the shipments of grain efficiently. Once Roberts Bank is completed, I think this problem will be solved. Again, I wish to commend the government for having had the foresight to plan for the future by providing better port facilities on the west coast.
I believe what the Opposition has said can be called nonsense and garbage. I agree with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) when he said that the verbs and adjectives of paralysis and catastrophe have no place in trying to commend the excellent work that is being done under very trying conditions of cold weather, the congestion at the port of Vancouver and the fact that a good percentage of the U.S. ports are on strike. I believe that these people should be commended for the excellent work they are doing. I give the Opposition credit for the fact they do not mean to be so critical. I am sure they would like to modify some of the expressions they have used, and they would certainly do so if they were fully aware of the difficulties connected with the movement of grain through the port of Vancouver.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: assure you that I have been most intrigued during the past few minutes to listen to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski) in Manitoba speaking as an expert on the grain handling situation in Vancouver. May I say with all respect that he might have better examined the facts of the situation in Vancouver before having the unmitigated gall and effrontery to stand here tonight to speak as an expert on the situation in Vancouver.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
May I remind the hon. member and the house that I am not a farmer. I am not a
January 22. 1969

wheat grower. But I represent the constituency of Vancouver East, and with the exception of two elevators on the north side of the inner harbour, all the wheat elevators in Vancouver are in Vancouver East, from the Boundary Road to Main. And therefore-


An hon. Member:: You should do your homework.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, boy! Am I glad you said I should do my homework. When that motion was accepted this afternoon, meaning that tonight at eight o'clock this subject which is of such concern to the wheat farmers of Canada would be discussed, what did I do?


An hon. Member:: Your homework.


Harold Edward Winch: I spent over an hour on the telephone getting in touch with the Vancouver harbour board and the grain commissioners to learn the up to date situation at Vancouver Harbour. The result is that I can speak tonight on the basis of information given me by the Vancouver Harbour Board and the grain commissioners in Vancouver as to the situation in Vancouver at 5.15 Ottawa time, 2.15 Vancouver time.
The hon. member said I should do my homework. It is obvious that I did it. What is the information given me at 5.15 Ottawa time by the Vancouver Harbour Board and the grain commissioners in the Port of Vancouver? I will tell hon. members what the information is.


An hon. Member:: We are waiting.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say, also, that with all the wonderful arguments and points that Conservative members are making on this issue I am sorry that some of the members on the government side have not done their homework, too.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words, some of the information which was given us is not correct. Now, for the situation at 5.15 Ottawa time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Synchronize your watches, boys, we're going over the top.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a serious question. Please tackle it that way. This is not a time to be cynical, sarcastic or facetious. Please keep this in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
29180-29SJ
Grain


Harold Edward Winch: In Vancouver today there were 26 ships at anchor in the inner and outer harbours, that means in the inner harbour at Vancouver and in English Bay. Please note that of those 26 ships at anchor, 19, according to the Vancouver Harbour Board, were awaiting grain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good gracious. How can the minister sit there.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why you are in such trouble when members on the government side think this is a laughable matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Of the 19 ships awaiting grain in Vancouver this afternoon, 15 were waiting for No. 2 northern.
What about the elevator shipping berths? At 5.15 Ottawa time this afternoon, seven ships were loading wheat and four grain loading berths were unoccupied. Why were four grain berths unoccupied when there were 15 ships waiting for wheat? Fifteen of the 19 ships at anchor were waiting for wheat, and four of our loading berths in Vancouver were unoccupied.
May I refer again to the fact that 15 of the 19 ships at anchor awaiting grain were waiting for No. 2 northern. Let me follow this up with further information which I got from Vancouver this afternoon. There are 10 million bushels loaded and on the way to Vancouver in 2,500 box cars. But of those 10 million bushels of wheat only 5J million bushels consist of No. 2 northern. As for the ships, some of which have been lying at Vancouver since early December, 15 out of 19 of them are waiting for No. 2 northern. Surely, this raises the question: why have the sale, transportation and port facilities not been better co-ordinated?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: May I also say, from the information I got by doing my homework, from the authorities themselves, that there are three other points I wish to mention, because I wish to be honest about all these things.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I wrote the words down as they were given to me over the phone. I was given to understand that some transportation problems developed owing to weather conditions on the prairies, and in particular owing to ice and

January 22, 1969
Grain
snow conditions in the mountains, necessitating freight train limitation. I was also advised that the grain elevators in Vancouver are processing the grain as rapidly and as expeditiously as possible.
I should like to draw your attention to the third point that I was given from Vancouver this afternoon. I was further advised that an additional reason for the problem which has developed is that the type of grain sold, and to a great extent moved, was not the type for which the ships awaited the opportunity to load.
To me, there is a most important point. It indicates a lack of co-ordination in regard to the type of grain sold, the time when ships to transport the type of grain sold would arrive, and the transportation required to move the type of grain to the ships.
These are facts, not fiction, and they demonstrate that there has been a complete breakdown between production, transportation, shipment and sales. The responsibility for this breakdown can rest only upon this government and the preceding government, because they have been in power for the last six years.
The final word I received this afternoon- because I have been doing my homework- was that this matter cannot be resolved in one day or one week, or by this house sitting for as long as it wants. This is the cumulative result of years of neglect and lack of planning, of lack of co-ordination, control and responsibility.
The ships are in Vancouver. The elevators are operating. There are ten million bushels on the way. Yet out of seven grain loading berths in Vancouver, four were unoccupied by grain carriers this afternoon because the right grain was not in the right place at the right time.
Responsibility for having the right grain in the right place at the right time is directly that of the government or its agencies. We therefore have no choice but to place responsibility for this lack of planning on the government or its agencies. I am afraid that I may be becoming a little repetitious, so may I conclude by saying that this present predicament cannot be solved in one day. On behalf of the Canadian wheat growers, our transportation and shipping industries, and in order to rebuild the good name of Canada in its relations with other countries in view of our failure to meet our commitments as a

result of the lack of proper planning, I submit that tonight we have the right to discuss this question and to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and our Harbour Commissioners to please do something constructive soon.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in looking over the motion before the House of Commons tonight I think in fairness that it can be said that so long as I have been here there has never been a motion before the house containing so many inaccuracies. However, I want to deal with one or two other points before getting to that particular matter.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) accused me of sitting in silence. He also used some other words to describe the activities of the Minister of Agriculture so far as the grain industry is concerned. I have been called a lot of things during the last few years that I have been in this house, but this is the first time I have ever been accused of remaining silent. I am usually something quite different from silent. For the hon. member's information, if he attempts to interpret my sitting listening to him, which is part of the procedure of the house, and remaining silent as in any way, shape or form acquiescence with what he has said, then I want to dispel that thought completely at this point.
He had some things to say which, in my opinion, were excessively critical of the minister in this house who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He is welcome to his opinion, and under the rules of the house he can express his opinion, unfair though it may be.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In your opinion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In my opinion, and perhaps my opinion is worth at least as much as the opinion of the hon. member. It seems to me that the kind of criticism that the hon. member has attempted to lay on the shoulders of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is in fact criticism of the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board. If he is moving or supporting a motion of want of confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board- because they have responsibility for all of the activities he criticized-then I think, first of all, he ought to have the good sense, and secondly the courage, to say so. That is what he implied. I think it is the responsibility of the minister who answers to this house for
January 22, 1969

the Wheat Board to support the board in actions it deems appropriate. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated he supported the board throughout the trying times we have faced. It is fair to say that never before has a government been as helpful to the board as this government, has been in these adverse conditions.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.J
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce mentioned steps which have been taken to ameliorate the situation, and I will not repeat them. He spoke about doubling cash advances, providing for additional money to be used for drying-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Increasing interest rates.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -allowing for tax relief on stationary grain dryers and changes in the income tax regulations to allow for accelerated depreciation of certain equipment. In addition, the government made provision for the waiving of certain sections of the labour code to permit existing drying facilities to be used to full advantage. Never before in Canadian history has a government taken so many steps in so short a period in order to be helpful to its farmers. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was instrumental in having the government take these steps and he ought to be applauded.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He was instrumental in not having grain moved fast enough.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that 23 per cent more grain was loaded on board ships in the port of Vancouver at the end of this year than in the corresponding period last year. That performance is not perfect, but we are improving. Some of our problems stem from the fact that there has been an unanticipated increase in sales.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member says, no. I suppose none are so deaf as those who will not hear.
In supporting this motion it seems to me hon. members of the opposition are seeking partisan political advantage and headlines, which will do much damage to our grain industry. Hon. members of the opposition not long ago spoke about harvesting conditions in western Canada and said that much grain in western Canada will never be harvested.
Grain
What happened? Well, over 95 per cent of the grain was harvested. I do not say it was harvested in ideal weather conditions, but nevertheless it was harvested. All the noise hon. members of the opposition made that Canada would have insufficient grain to sell, and so on, reached the ears of our overseas customers and much damage was done. We had to do a great deal of work to repair that damage for which hon. members of the opposition were responsible.
The motion says:
I ask leave ... to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the virtual bottleneck and paralysis-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture knows that under the rules he may not impute motives to any hon. member or to any party in this house. In his diatribe against the opposition the minister has suggested we are seeking newspaper headlines.


An hon. Member:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He imputed improper motives to us. If he denies imputing those motives, fine and dandy. I submit he cannot deny them because an examination of Hansard will reveal exactly what he said. I think the minister ought to withdraw certain of his remarks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not withdraw anything I have said, because I have as much right to establish a point as have hon. members on the other side of the chamber. The motion continues:
-in wheat movement in Vancouver Harbour-
Well, Mr. Speaker last week 380 cars, on an average, were unloaded in Vancouver every day, despite weather conditions which I admit were not favourable. In the summer, under ideal conditions, 650 cars per day may be unloaded. That figure has never been reached in wintertime.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It has.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has not. The motion goes on to say:
-due to the failure of the government to work with the railways in scheduling box cars-
I listened to speeches from the opposition side and I have yet to hear one constructive criticism. Hon. members said, ''There was not enough co-operation, not enough planning" and so on. They did not say where planning had broken down.

January 22, 1969
Grain


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government broke
down.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hon. members opposite obviously do not know that climatic conditions on the western prairies during the whole of 1966 were the most trying that western farmers have ever faced. That is a fact.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not a fact.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Despite that the farmers were able to harvest 95 per cent of their grain, notwithstanding difficult harvesting conditions. Grain has been moved from the field and is now in granaries. We doubled cash advances and made helpful and useful changes, even to the extent of putting a supplementary quota of three bushels per acre on damp grain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is beginning to sound like Jack Pickersgill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That might not be so bad. He had a successful career. The motion goes on to say that we lost a 17,000 ton contract. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce proved that is not so. So far nothing in this motion reflects correct facts. It goes on to say that:
-which has brought about stagnation in the movement of wheat at a critical time-
The government is trying to help the Wheat Board. They are trying to sell more grain and contact more customers. The headlines across the country may be that there is not enough grain in Canada to meet commitments. That does not happen to be true.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Talk to the ship owners; talk to the farmers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: So much for that, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that there is a shortage of No. 2 Northern to meet the increased amounts sold for delivery out of the west coast, and particularly out of the port of Vancouver, but I am pleased to advise the house tonight- because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not have enought time to do it-that there are over 3 million bushels of No. 2 dry Northern, already graded up to export qualifications, in the terminal elevator at Moose Jaw, and I have before me-


Donald MacInnis: Order them to get it moving. IMr. Olson.]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I had enough time, Mr. Speaker, I could explain in detail why that grain has not been moved previously. I believe the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister acted properly when they tried to get that grain out of country elevators, because there was quite a bit of No. 2 there, and they did this so that the farmers could haul in more to the country elevators. What's more, if the severe weather conditions prevailing on the prairies, and indeed at the coast, had not come about then of course we would never have had many of these problems.
Hon. gentlemen from the prairies ought to know about this. They know what happens so far as railway trains are concerned when the temperature drops to 30 or 40 below. Efficiency goes down to about 25 per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have forgotten, sitting here in Ottawa.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is a fact that there are several million bushels of grain in the terminals, particularly at Moose Jaw, and I wish to advise the house that the C.P.R. issued a press release tonight, part of which I would like to read.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We know about it. They got their orders at four o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The release reads:
CP rail is marshaling diesel locomotives and box cars to load and move special trainloads of dry No. 2 Northern from the prairies to the Pacific coast, it was announced tonight.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because of good work on the opposition side of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The first grain train will go into service later tonight at the request of the Canadian Wheat Board to assist in placing grain in position at the Pacific coast for export. "At the present time we have 3,787 box cars loaded with 7,500,000 bushels of grain at Vancouver or en route from the prairies-
"So far during the current crop year, CP rail has moved about 49,000,000 bushels of grain to the west coast for export, an increase of 31 per cent over grain shipments in the comparable period of the previous crop year."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say that I think these cries of everything going to wrack and
January 22, 1969

ruin, and the wording in this motion, are not a service to the Canadian grain producers or to Canada generally. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the great problem that we have, and it is a great problem, in meeting all of these commitments is the adverse weather conditions. Anyone who wants to be even reasonably fair knows that that is true. It is a fact that in the cold weather train loads of grain that have to be pulled over the Rocky Mountains have to be reduced not only by half but substantially less than half so that there is enough power to pull them over the hill.


An hon. Member:: That is not a new
problem.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not a new problem but I wish hon. gentlemen opposite would hear me out. I sat here very quietly when they were speaking. In fact I was accused of being silent. The fact of the matter was that when we had these increased sales for December and January delivery coming at the same time as these very severe low temperatures, it was not possible for the Canadian Wheat Board, or indeed for the railways or anybody else, to schedule according to what is normal because this weather was not normal.
I am told that if the present cold weather stays in Edmonton for three more days it will break all records in the recorded weather history of western Canada for the longest period at the lowest temperatures. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of criticism hon. gentlemen opposite want to level at the government and the transportation companies, that they should do something about this-well, that seems to be what they are arguing.
Instead of this kind of unjustifiable criticism, certainly the Canadian Wheat Board, the staff, the transportation industry and other sectors of the grain industry vitally involved in this whole thing should be urged to more efforts but they should also be commended for having made the best of a difficult situation under very adverse conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I could deal with many of the other details that have been raised in the arguments offered but there is not much time left to me, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of this detail has been gone over a number of times during the question periods. I would hope that taking into account the economic well being of the grain farmers and of the other people in the grain industry, for this year and
Grain
indeed for the future, we could have a somewhat higher degree of co-operation in trying to find solutions rather than what we have had thus far which is really nothing much more than severe, unjustified, unwarranted criticism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the minister allow a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, certainly.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the minister's concluding remarks that the pile up was because of weather and, shall I say, an act of God will the minister please explain why, with all the wheat in the assembly yards in Vancouver and en route, four of our shipping berths are not being used because the right kind of grain is not in the right place at the right time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have enough time left to answer that question. I suggest that if the hon. member had done a little more homework he could have found out about that too. The answer is as follows: with the many grades and indeed the number of carloads of damp grain that are in the marshalling yards it is almost a switching nightmare to get the No. 2 dry grain out of there and into the elevators so that it can be loaded. That is part of it. The other part of the story is as the hon. member pointed out, that only about half of the grain in the marshalling yards and enroute to Vancouver was No. 2. I do not have the precise figures in front of me but I think that a very small percentage, less than 50 per cent of it, a minor percentage, is No. 2. Therefore, to keep the pipe line open it is necessary to do a very complex job of switching in those yards so that they can get the carloads of No. 2 switched out to the right terminal where ships are loading No. 2.
The hon. member also knows that the weather conditions in the port have not been normal. They have been severe and this adds to the difficulties of the men working in the yards, on the unloading chutes and all through the whole operation. The adverse weather conditions affected the total output. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of someone standing around and not doing a good job, whether it be the workers in the marshalling yards or at the terminal elevators along the way. It is that they have been

January 22, 1969
Grain
working under very severe weather conditions all the way from the prairies right to the port.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be derelict in my duty as a representative of a rural area of western Canada if I did not take a few minutes to take part in this very important debate this evening. In spite of the criticism we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) about my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Kor-chinski) motion I wish to congratulate him for introducing this very important matter before the house at this time.
Last year on November 28 I had the privilege of moving a motion to adjourn the house in order to debate a matter of a national emergency concerning the serious situation that was taking place on the prairies at that time. I can recall, as can the minister and others opposite, that there were no less than 12 members from western Canada supporting me in the house at that time. I believe the defence of the government at that time was pitiful. Now, two months later we are still faced with this serious situation in Western Canada. I deplore the minister trying to defend himself and members of his government by criticizing us for bringing this situation to the attention of the house.
The world knows that in Canada we produce the best quality of wheat. It is because of this that we want to maintain our position in world markets. Despite the Minister of Agriculture saying that we should not be raising this issue there are headlines in every newspaper which one picks up such as, "Grain-drying problem worsening", "Wheat markets facing threat", "Farmers must dry grain at home", and so on. This goes on day after day. These statements come from responsible members of the news media right across Canada. Why should we in this house not defend the interests of the farmers whom we represent.
Although I must admit our congenial Minister of Industry, and Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) tried to mesmerize us somewhat with his very congenial delivery here in the house tonight, he attempted to minimize the situation. He mentioned there was only twice as much wet grain this year as in previous years, when the fact of the matter is there is three times as much.
Last November 27 Mr. McNamara, the head of the Canadian Wheat Board, pointed out that the largest amount of damp wheat we ever had was something like 120 million bushels. This year we have 380 million bushels of wet wheat in western Canada and in addition have several hundred million bushels of wheat, coarse grain. This emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. On November 28 I tried to impress the government with the idea that they should get the wet grain to the terminals and this would mean that they would have to get the dry grain moving quickly. As we know, the St. Lawrence Seaway is closed in the winter and our greatest terminals are at Fort William and Port Arthur. At these terminals only approximately 8 million bushels of grain can be dried per month. We should have moved as much as possible to those facilities and left the pipeline to the west coast open. But the government, because of its inexperience or for some reason, took it upon themselves to open up a three bushel quota for wet grain and more or less lull the farmers into an artificial state of complacency by making them think this would solve the problem. Then they immediately plugged up the western pipeline so that when customers placed orders for dry wheat we could not meet the situation.
I have had a good deal of experience in respect of this situation, although I did not do as much homework as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). It so happens that a few weeks ago I was at the port of Vancouver. I saw there a large number of boats waiting to load grain. At that time, as has been pointed out, there were something like 25 or 26 boats. A number of berths were not being utilized for the simple reason that we did not have the right type of grain to service the boats that were waiting.
As has been pointed out there is the very serious situation in respect of the Wheat Board having to foot the demurrage bill. I hate to think of what the situation will be if Canadian farmers find they have to help to defray the demurrage payments. Members on this side of the house have continued to prod, pound and even hound the government into taking positive action to meet the catastrophic situation which faces western agriculture. There are chiefly three problems. The first is the inefficiency of this government through lack of experience and indifference. The second is the greatest pile-up of damp grain in Canadian history. Then, thirdly, there is the lack of wheat markets which has allowed

January 22, 1969

the pile-up of dry grain in all the storage facilities we have such as in farmers bins, country elevators and terminal elevators.
I say that this problem has been aggravated because of the fact the government did not take cognizance of a situation in which the farmers are up against one of the worst economic difficulties faced in Canadian history. They have a huge carry-over of grain from the year before. They have a huge pile of wet grain and do not have the money to finance the drying of it. The minister criticized us because we have not made constructive suggestions. I criticize the government for not doing one of the things they should have done. They should have created initiative on the part of the farmer to help himself. I suggested that acreage payments might be provided in an amount up to $400 to each farmer. I believe that in times of emergency it is necessary to subsidize a major industry like agriculture. It is well known that the export of agricultural products in this country represent the second largest source of income which the country has. The wood pulp industry accounts for the largest, but agricultural production is the second.
Agriculture is a most important factor in the economic life of Canada. If the agricultural industry is allowed to go down the drain, which this government apparently is willing to allow it to do, we will feel the general effect not only in the agricultural industry in western Canada but right across this great nation. I feel that if the government had taken seriously our suggestion of several months ago and had provided an incentive to each farmer to help him pay the cost of moving drying equipment into position, this would have made a great deal of difference. In the most recent survey we found that there are about 3,200 pieces of drying equipment in western Canada and that only 900 are being used. The reason is that the farmers have not been able to foot the bill for the cost of moving these dryers into position. They do not wish to send good money after bad because with the loss of markets they are afraid that they might not be able to pull themselves out of the hole. They believe their industry is so important the government should be showing some initiative in recognizing this fact by assisting them in getting these dryers into position.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
I suggested last fall that the government should have co-operated with the provincial
Grain
governments to provide freight assistance to move these dryers into position. This should have been done on a 50-50 basis. I was pleased to note that the Saskatchewan Government Power Corporation is going to contribute free gas connections to farmers who have gas dryers installed to help them dry the grain. This is a case of a crown corporation taking the initiative from the federal government which has the basic responsibility for this problem. This is an example of a provincial government understanding an emergency in western Canada and doing something, but it is still not enough. This is an area in which the federal government should have moved long ago.
Back in 1961 we experienced the worst drought in the agricultural industry. We provided subsidy payments in co-operation with the provincial governments to move haying equipment into position in order to provide forage for our livestock. In the case we are now considering, we should be moving equipment to dry the grain.
Other hon. members from western Canada have made suggestions, and the minister has mentioned several things that have been done. These have been appreciated, but they have not been sufficient. We are still faced with the problem. I do not see why the government should excuse itself by saying it has done everything that can be done. There are many other things that could and should be done. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski) presented the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard when he tried to get the government off the hook by suggesting this is a wheat board responsibility. This is like suggesting that when you hire a man to do a job you should not have to tell him what to do or how to do it. After all, if you are going to hire somebody to do a job, as we have hired the wheat board, you should give some direction. I am sure the wheat board officials would appreciate some direction from the government.
This government has recently begun to give the wheat board some instructions, but only after the emergency has become apparent. I do not want to belabour the situation, but I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter at some length in recent weeks and I want to emphasize the seriousness of this situation. We, as hon. members of the opposition want to make every effort to come up with some solution to solve this major emergency facing the Canadian grain and agricultural industry in Canada.

January 22, 1969
Gram


John Leroy Skoberg: with regard to Vancouver. I refer to putting No. 2 Northern into position for shipment. Extra crews are working in the yards, and I am sure the railroads can look after the situation.
I was quite amazed, to say the least, when the Minister of Agriculture made his great announcement about the Canadian Pacific news release concerning what they are about to do. Hon. members know what happened at about 2.30 this afternoon. The few remaining Liberal members in the chamber indicates that there is not very much concern on that side of the house. I suggest that they consider the time when this question was raised today. At about 2.30 this afternoon the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) moved his motion, which was accepted by Mr. Speaker. At four o'clock instructions were issued from Winnipeg to the railway terminal at Moose Jaw telling them exactly what to do.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
We knew there were 190 cars of No. 2 northern in that yard waiting to be moved. We also knew after four o'clock that a train was ordered for the west with a 70 car drag. We also know that orders were issued that all the No. 2 northern grain must be moved as soon as possible, and it was exactly four o'clock this afternoon when the message was received at the terminal. After the action was taken in the house, we knew wires would go out to that terminal and no doubt to many other terminals across the country. I suggest this indicates that it takes the action of the Opposition to move this government off its fat back. This is another example of what can be done if there is an indication from the government of their sincerity to do something for the economy of the country. A notice is sent from Winnipeg that additional units are to be put on to carry the grain west. Workers in the terminal were called on to work time and a half oiling box cars and getting them out.
I happen to have worked for some years on the railroad for an excellent company. They will co-operate if they have the co-operation of the government, but often they find that they load these cars with grain and they are then left in a siding. There is no justification for the government allowing this situation to exist this long without getting the railway companies involved directly. I am sure that if you look at the figures, you will find the railroads are willing to co-operate if there is some indication from the government and
29180-297J
Grain
from various departments that they want to do something about the problem.
With regard to what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said about these trains only hauling 30 cars in comparison to double that amount, in good weather, we must realize the reference is probably to a one unit operation. After the decision taken in the House, no doubt the Canadian Pacific, and the C.N.R., will move these trains efficiently and quickly to the port of destination.
I suggest that the operation could probably have been much more efficient if there were not as many mishaps and derailments. I believe this is something with which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) is morally obligated to deal before the week is out. There is an indication that there is an overall increase in these mishaps, which naturally delay the movement of grain. I can assure the house that there is a great delay in this regard.
I would like to conclude, since I know other hon. members wish to speak and we do not want to drag the debate out past 3 a.m. However, I suggest that in my opinion the government is trying to lay the blame on the Opposition. I suggest that the amount of time the ministers of this government have taken trying to cram through the house an unnecessary increase in interest rates could have been well used in co-ordinating the movement of grain, the need for which they could have anticipated.
Another thing which I would like to respectfully suggest is that the government has spent a considerable amount of time trying to set up the national grains council. I assure you that although we do not oppose the national grains council, the time taken up by those people could have been used to better advantage. I respectfully suggest also that it could well be when the top echelons of our civil servants in the various departments connected with this critical issue were compelled or requested to take the language course this then directly created a lack of coordination within the departments. It is my considered opinion that too many of our top civil servants have had to go to these courses at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member return to the issue before us.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: He is on it.

January 22, 1969
Grain


John Leroy Skoberg: With great respect I suggest that what I said with regard to these courses was relevant inasmuch as these courses were partly responsible for the lack of co-ordination which gave rise to the situation we are discussing. I believe every member of the house is sincerely interested in co-operating with the government to the fullest extent, provided the government, in turn, is prepared to reciprocate. It is farcical for the minister to suggest that we were opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board, as he must know. Not one member has ever criticized the Wheat Board as such, and we believe the Wheat Board should be given the fullest support in its endeavours. But in order to do its job properly, the board must have the support of the ministers with whom it works, and I suggest it does not have this backing.
As to sales, I am sure that if there had been unexpected sales the government would have used the occasion to make headlines across the nation. The only sale they did announce-and the announcement was made with a great fanfare-turned out to be a continuation of an arrangement already made. I am sure we would have heard about it by now if there were really big new sales in the offing.
I cannot agree that the action of the opposition has had anything to do with sales overseas at any time. The markets are there for the getting, and if we make a concerted effort and co-ordinate all the departments involved, I can assure the minister sales will be forthcoming. At present there are too many departments which are reluctant to interfere with each other. If they would get together, something could be done.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: In
rising to participate in this debate I shall probably not be as colourful or as carefree or as charismatic as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), nor do I wish to be, nor shall I try to be. I feel the subject before us is of utmost seriousness.
I welcome, as do all hon. members, particularly those from the prairies, the announcement by the minister that some 3i million bushels of No. 2 northern wheat are being moved from the terminal at Moose Jaw. I would say this is another victory for the opposition, thank to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). I am sure he can be considered as a very good friend of the western Canadian farmer.
IMr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
From the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), one might conclude that the present prairie grain situation is bright. It would appear it has improved vastly in the past eight hours. Seriously, there can be no doubt that Canada's grain industry is in serious difficulty, despite what the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) have said.
Indeed, the situation is such as to constitute a grave national emergency. A production, distribution and marketing system that was once a model for others and constituted the backbone of this country's economic wellbeing is today paralysed and impotent. Ships waiting to load Canadian wheat for foreign buyers lie idle on the Pacific coast. Railway arteries are clogged with the wrong grain in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Farmers on the prairies are sunk in debt under huge piles of dry grain that cannot be moved and damp grain that cannot be exported.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
What has happened to this system that in happier days sold and shipped countless millions of bushels of grain without serious interruption and to the satisfaction of producer and customer? I believe that the basic cause of today's disaster lies in the refusal of a series of Liberal governments to undertake the basic overhaul of grain production, marketing and distribution methods which has been urged not only by members on this side of the house but by others who are knowledgeable experts in this field.
The immediate causes of the situation that could kill new wheat sales and jeopardize renewal of contracts with our traditional buyers are, I believe, the lack of foresight by responsible officials, the absence of government concern, government inaction over the past few critical months and, last but not least, lack of concern on the part of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). If since assuming office last summer the minister had spent some time acquainting himself first hand with the responsibility he has in regard to Canada's grain producers, who last summer were overburdened with record surpluses of grain, rather than touring South America on a ministerial junket and appearing on television, he might have come to realize the important role that our grain industry plays in this very important export trade. Perhaps then he might have realized that he had been rewarded with a very challenging and interesting job.
January 22, 1969

The Canadian Wheat Board is the minister's responsibility, and I suspect that the Wheat Board must accept a good portion of the blame for the present situation. How much more falls upon the responsible minister when the wrong grades are in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) stated. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is not an act of God. While the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has no direct say in these matters, it is still reasonable that we should expect him as an agricultural leader and as a farmer to take a close interest in anything that works to the detriment of his own area of responsibility. In my opinion the inaction the ineptitude and the lack of knowledge of the Minister of Trade and Commerce have worked to the detriment of our western wheat producers.
When I spoke about foresight and the lack of it, I had reference to the fact that the problems of fulfilling commitments for dry grain and handling vast amounts of damp and tough grain, the result of last year's inclement weather and terrible harvesting season, must have been apparent to the experienced officials of the Canadian Wheat Board. They must have experienced this situation some months ago. Not only that, the government of this country was cross-examined many times by members of this house, and the answers we received were ludicrous.
We were referred to as "publicity seekers". One headline read:	"Opposition Publicity
Seekers Hurt Wheat Sales, Says Olson". We were accused of damaging our foreign markets. We were not publicity seekers. We were seriously concerned about government inaction and offered our suggestions and solutions and alternatives, watching the serious situation unfold before our very eyes. We suggested the government give assistance by making available large grain dryers, by making advance payments for grain drying, or by some form of acreage payment assistance. The Minister of Agriculture replied by saying, as reported at page 3569 of Hansard:
-hon. members opposite are seeking publicity and it is my right to express my opinion also.
The fact that you, Mr. Speaker, saw fit to allow this emergency debate indicates the seriousness of the situation. I suggest that publicity had no effect whatever on your decision.
More than any other body in this country the Wheat Board knows how much wheat of any grade in a certain condition must be shipped from where to whom at specified
Grain
times. Furthermore, it must know existing contractual commitments to foreign buyers who become more fickle and illusive every day in the existing grain market. Knowing these obligations, how can the government have planned so badly as to fill grain storage facilities with damp grain instead of with dry and marketable grain? How could the minister responsible be so casual about such a grave question and leave detailed planning to others without taking any interest in what was happening? The government had a responsibility in this general area.
As other hon. members have said, about 30 ships are waiting to be loaded in Vancouver harbour. At the same time dry grain, some of it three years old, sits on the prairies and cannot be sold because it cannot be moved. The empty ships are costing our prairies farmers about $2,500 a day each in demurrage costs.
What can one say about the Canadian wheat producer? First he was hit last summer by a strike of grain handlers at Lakehead elevators, and the government took no action until wheat shipments had been delayed to the maximum possible extent, storage facilities clogged, box cars piled up, and our customers frustrated. Next, our wheat producers were hit by dreadful weather conditions during the harvesting season that left them with a diminished crop that was damp, tough and unsaleable. They also had a formidable carryover of unsold grain from previous years.
Then the Wheat Board and the Ministers of Agriculture and Industry, Trade and Commerce said that the individual farmer was responsible for drying his own grain. Most farmers had no drying equipment and to buy it would cost money. With sales dwindling and poor quality crops our producers were faced with the dilemma of whether to invest money in dryers or await a breakthrough in the marketing of damp and tough grain. To make matters worse, western farmers were short of cash. Credit was tight. Firms drying grain commercially required guaranteed payments from farmers which farmers could not meet. Yet throughout this period, even though the government had ample time to act and ample warning of what lay ahead it did nothing to help our farmers in their extraordinary difficulties.
When government inaction and indifference were finally overcome and when the government offered to help farmers in drying their damp grain, it was too late. You just cannot
4S82

January 22, 1969
Grain
dry grain in the 30 degree to 40 degree below zero temperatures we have had on the prairies. To do what they could to help the Canadian Wheat Board embargoed shipments and thus sales of dry grain and devoted all shipping resources to shipping damp grain to terminals for drying. This policy has resulted in the worst tie-up of grain storage facilities in Canada's history.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
It is beyond me, Mr. Speaker, why the minister did not take a leaf from the book of previous ministers who have been responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and name a transportation controller or, if you like, special commissioner, whose word would be final and who would have jurisdiction over the railroads, the Wheat Board and everyone else, who could break up the log jam, coordinate the movement of box cars with supply and demand, and generally bring order out of chaos.
The Canadian grain industry has indeed sunk into a pitiful situation under the present government. We have lost sales to traditional customers and we have failed to make sales to new customers. We are not likely to make any new sales when the trade learns of our present predicament. Why, we are in such a mess that we could not even give our wheat away. Just before Christmas, on December 23, the newspapers carried a story of how a gift of 35,000 tons of Canadian wheat for two African countries was loaded on ships but held in Canada because the two countries said they had never asked for it and would not accept it. Do you call that planning? Do you call that co-ordination? The only things the government has been able to co-ordinate are high interest rates, high taxes, and now high demurrage charges.
The present mess is damaging and pathetic. It is another chapter in the gloomy story that has been -unfolding over the past several years of Liberal government. But bad as the present situation is, I believe that sincere action by the government could remedy the situation to a certain degree. But such action may only bring temporary relief. It may not correct the basic weaknesses of our outmoded system which is forced to operate in changing times and a changing environment. I believe that the system has to be overhauled, and we on this side of the house have advocated changes in the production of grain, the sale of grain by the producer, in the marketing of our produce abroad and, above all else, changes to update our distribution system.

If we do not modernize our techniques, take a fresh look at conditions and make new appraisals of existing conditions, if we do not multiply and modernize our grain handling and distribution facilities, then all emergency measures that this debate may bring about will be fruitless. They will simply postpone the evil day when Canadian wheat ceases to be a major item of export and Canadian grain production a major support of our national economy.
During the last election campaign we heard a great deal about the great things that the government was going to do. There were to be sweeping changes, new concepts, new approaches, new initiatives, a reshaping of this and a reshaping of that. After the election the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that good government is rather dull at times and is not exciting.
One of the policies that the government brought forward concerned a national grains council. We have heard nothing of it lately. Surely such a body as a national grains council would prevent a situation of this nature. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is the same old story, words with no action, promises without fulfilment.
I believe we require an honest endeavour by those responsible to look at the whole changed picture of the world wheat market, at Canada's place in it, and that this long careful look must be followed by action which will put us back into global competition and retain the great grain industry as a major national asset. We need action to restore some life to our western economy which is so dependent on grain markets. We need to restore the cash flow and to relieve the heavy burden of debt that has resulted from the costs of producing, harvesting, storing and drying the overabundance of grain that is on hand. We cannot afford losses of sales like the recent one to Japan of some 17,000 tons estimated to be worth some $10 million.
Whatever government action may come as a result of this debate, and I hope it is quick and effective, whatever may be done now to solve the immediate crisis can only be an emergency measure. Beyond that lies the absolute necessity for a basic re-assessment of and fundamental changes in our organization and policy. If this debate has done no more than pinpoint the need for future action it will have served its purpose well.


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing again
January 22, 1969

from members of the opposition about a particular point in their present panic in respect of the immediate situation with regard to wheat. I should like to go over the history of their panic tonight and take a look at what they do, what they accomplish and how they fail so greatly to serve the people whom they ought to be serving best.
First of all I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) to the complete inappropriateness of his use of the word "stagnant" to describe the grain movement situation. I might point out to him that "stagnant" is defined by the dictionary as "becoming motionless, having no current, ceasing to flow".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) rising on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the disagreement by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) with the use of the word "stagnant" which is in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie. In so doing the minister is reflecting on the decision of the Chair to allow this debate to take place. Any reflection on the wording of a motion which has been accepted by the Chair is certainly a reflection on Your Honour in occupying that position. I would ask that the minister withdraw the remark.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldi):: January 22, 1969
Grain
something occurs, whether as a result of nature or of the economic system of grain handling, which is disadvantageous to the farmer. That leads people who hear about agricultural problems in the west to believe that western representatives are not worth listening to. When the hon. members' panic at one moment is gone, it is replaced by another panic the next moment.
I suggest to members from agricultural constituencies that there is a fundamental message which they should be preaching and getting across to members from central Canada and to the people of this area. They should be talking about the fundamental problems facing agriculture in a broad, economic way. There is a fundamental problem in relation to the fact that every group, bar a few in Canada, has power to adjust its income when it sees fit; yet the farmer has no such protection. This is a matter of a fundamental kind which members representing agricultural constituencies in the west should be concentrating their attention on. They should not panic about interest rates on farm credit loans, because that is a form of uneconomic farm subsidy which ignores the whole picture of real needs and costs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: I suggest hon. members opposite are doing a disservice to their constituents in this respect.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You people would rather subsidize the banks.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Members opposite come into the house and say they are not attacking the Wheat Board. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in this house tonight answering the charges they lay against the Wheat Board. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in constant contact with the Wheat Board about all matters. I say to hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), that their remarks about the service the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is giving to the Canadian farmer are not only discourteous but are downright reprehensible.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You haven't heard anything yet.


Otto Emil Lang: I have the honour of working closely with this minister and am able to judge far better than they

the quality of his service and the manner of that service to the western farmer. Only last night the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce again met with the Wheat Board. These questions are always in his mind.
Hon. members opposite have today pointed to some of the serious difficulties with which we are faced. This is the problem. There are real, serious difficulties involved in an operation as large as this and there will be times when hindsight would be a very valuable asset. I gather that the hon. member for Crowfoot has it. He suggests we might have left the wheat on the prairies because the 40 degree below weather in Edmonton is very valuable for storing wheat. There is no way in which one can foresee these things. The Wheat Board must make the best decision it can on the facts available to it when it has to make a decision. This is what the Wheat Board does.
There are serious questions which must be examined. Is the local elevator system adequate to meet the needs of today? Do we have enough terminal facilities? Can we afford more? Should we have enough facilities for peak loadings? Can we pay the price? Serious questions like these must be examined. I look forward to the examination of these questions in a thorough fashion by the National Grains Council which is being set up to look into these very matters. In this council the best minds involved in the operation of the whole grain industry will be brought to bear.
I point out to hon. members opposite that while they have been panicking, some things have been done of great merit and help to the prairie farmers. The doubling of the cash advance has been a godsend at this time. This new scheme, which comes very close to buying the wheat on the farm itself, is of tremendous help to the prairie farmer. This year, to date, $122 million has been taken out in cash advances.


An hon. Member:: That demonstrates how broke the farmers are.


Daniel Aiken Lang: This is almost twice as much as the maximum amount ever taken out in a whole year. This program is of significant help to the western farmer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We realize that the policy is good. After all, we brought it in.


Otto Emil Lang: Members opposite panic from issue to issue. By ignor-
January 22, 1969

ing the facts they do a disservice to the Canadian farmer. By the news they spread abroad they do a disservice to the Canadian farmer. By the completely unwarranted attack upon the functions of the Wheat Board they do a tremendous disservice to the cause of prairie agriculture. Above all, they do a disservice by diverting attention to false arguments when they should be paying attention to the solid, sound, economic arguments which can in fact be made on behalf of prairie agriculture.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I heard the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) say, and he was bragging about it, was that loans to farmers had been doubled. I would like to ask the minister why they were doubled. Was there not a need for that?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to relinquish the floor his speech will be over and I will call another member.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has finished his speech. The hon. member for Lethbridge has the floor and he should make his speech.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: This may be so, Mr. Speaker, but through you I would like to ask the minister why the loans were doubled. He is bragging about it and he is saying there is no need for it but I must point out there must be a need because they were doubled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that we are not in committee now. As I suggested a moment ago, the minister completed his speech and resumed his seat. The Chair recognized the hon. member who has the floor now and who, I am sure, will want to continue his speech.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the last statement of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister cannot rise on a point of order to correct a statement. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldi) May I say
the hon. member was misquoting me, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not a point of order to correct an alleged misquotation.
Grain


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I sat here and listened to the minister. His seatmate is leaving. We have listened to facts and figures all evening, mostly about the weather. The government says this is the greatest day in history for the movement of grain. However, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the minister that last year was the worst year in history for the movement of grain. This almost reminds me of a joke. We hear a lot about movement of grain but not about deliveries. How about the deliveries? That is what we are talking about. We have heard from many ministers tonight and especially from one very vocal minister who can really put on a show, namely, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I hope we will hear from the Minister of Agricutlure (Mr. Olson). However, we have heard mostly about the movement of grain while we are really talking about deliveries.
If the rules will permit, Mr. Speaker, I might tell a story about that. I recall that before we had simultaneous interpretation in the house all that could be understood was that it is very easy to conceive but very hard to deliver. So far as I am concerned as a western farmer, this is the position of the government at present. They can do a lot of talking but it is very hard for them to deliver. The main trouble is that they talk so much about it and do so little. We have listened for about two hours to stories about the weather. I ask you, Mr. Speaker; is there anything new about Canadian weather this year? Granted, it may be a little cold in Calgary, but is there anything really new about it? All the minister was doing was making excuses. The farmers do not want to listen to apologies and excuses. They want some answers, and perhaps the best answer would be for the government to keep its hands off the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: Make up your minds.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: That is just fine. I have heard it said in this house that when you are after big game you do not bother with rabbits. What are we after tonight? The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), made an impassioned speech. I feel the same way as he does, because I am a farmer.
A few moments ago I was about to make a comparison between the Wheat Board and the C.B.C. The Wheat Board is presumably a producer owned organization, a producer controlled organization. From some points of

January 22, 1969
Grain
view, the C.B.C. is a comparable organization. But it is left free to run its affairs from day to day. We have listened tonight to speeches for hours and hours and we may listen longer still. Because we are farmers, because we are producers, the government says one thing on one side and another thing on the other side.
The Minister of Agriculture, who has really nothing to say about the situation, nevertheless talked a great deal, and members will see his speech in Hansard. I know what he had to say when he was talking to his constituents; he is a neighbour of mine. He said we had to send No. 2 wheat from the inland terminal at Lethbridge. We heard talk from the minister about a three bushel quota. I should like to ask the minister: where are the deliveries?
We are here representing the farmers, and I have to speak for them. I can do so because I am one of them. I know what the quota is; it is three bushels at my delivery point. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has assured me that I have a three bushel quota. Well, I wish he would tell my banker. What will be the answer? Sure, there are a lot of cars going today. The hon. member for Vancouver East told us there were lots of cars moving now. The hon. member says he called Vancouver at 4.30 this afternoon. But according to the Wheat Board even the minister did not have the figures that he gave.
[DOT] (12 midnight)


An hon. Member:: It was 5.30.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Well, there is one hour's difference between here and Winnipeg, so I concede that. But what happened to all the box cars that were on the way? They were returned because they could not be unloaded in Vancouver.
The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio mentioned No. 2 wheat. I should like to know where this wheat came from and where was it bound for. I am a farmer and I know what the quota is. The minister does not have to tell me that I have a three bushel quota. Hon. members opposite should not laugh. That is why we are here tonight, because they have been laughing about this matter.
We are told the C.P.R. can only handle 30 cars instead of 150 because of the weather conditions. On the main line at Calgary there are 250-car trains, and this at a time when the temperature is 26 degrees below zero. So does this talk about the weather make sense? All we have heard are excuses and apologies 
which have nothing to do with the Wheat Board.
I listened to the speeches this evening. They were interesting. Yet I hope when the minister speaks later to wind up his debate he will point to something real that has been done to help our farmers. Of course, when anyone talks about wheat, chickens, eggs or what have you he is talking about agriculture. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a very pleasant sort of person, and some of us would not mind if he swapped portfolios with the Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont) talked about co-operation between eastern and western Canada. I know perfectly well that the people of eastern Canada need more grain. In some instances they bring it in from the United States. They should buy a lot more from the west. We are willing to cooperate with them.
Tonight we heard much talk about subsidies and helping our farmers. Actually, the government does not pay subsidies to our western farmers. You might say that the government pays subsidies toward the shipment of grain going east. That is one way of looking at it and I find no fault with that. The people of the east need our grain. Our internal grain trade can only promote co-operation between the people of eastern and western Canada.
I am glad to see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce back in his seat. When we are not in the house or in our respective constituencies I enjoy his company. I remember full well that before the Christmas recess there were not enough box cars to move wheat, all existing box cars in my constituency being tied up in moving wheat. They were unloading No. 2 wheat from an inland terminal, apparently on orders of the Minister of Agriculture. I ask this question: Who is responsible for the Wheat Board and for our grain commissioners? Is it not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Apparently he is responsible for those bodies, and yet in some ways he is not. I think the minister knows full well what I am talking about. As I said, Canadian Pacific box cars were busy unloading grain from an inland terminal, but they had no cars available to help my constituents fulfil their quotas.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
I am speaking about the three bushel quota we have heard so much about. I do not have It yet. Why? Cars were busy unloading an
January 22, 1969

Grain
inland terminal because they could not find No. 2 wheat all down the line. In the midst of my constituency, north, south and west, there was No. 2 wheat-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sad to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I shall take only one more moment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to say that apparently there are some objections.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am rising to participate in this debate because I know that in the constituency I come from this is an emergency not only to the farming population of the area but to the entire population of Yorkton-Melville, and indeed to all the people of Saskatchewan. The crisis, as I see it, has been building up for a number of years. It has not happened only because of things that occurred recently. Basically it is an accumulation of many things.
The farmer has been caught in a cost-price squeeze. The costs of farm production have been going up, indeed skyrocketing. The costs of farm machinery, fertilizers, even land, and all the other commodities a farmer has to use to produce a bushel of wheat have increased. Meanwhile the price the farmer is getting for a bushel of wheat and many other commodities has not been increasing substantially and at times has been falling. Because of the crisis we also have in Saskatchewan and in the western part of Canada this year a lack of cash for the farmer. Farmers need cash if they want to continue in the farming industry. In addition, bank interest rates have gone up and the farmer has a much more difficult time borrowing the money he needs to keep his operation going. Not only will this have a drastic effect this year but it will cause disruptions in following years in the agricultural industry in western Canada. Furthermore, it is not only the farm community that is affected but the rest of the economy as well.
For example, when wheat is not moving we know that the farmer is not going to be selling wheat. As a result he will not be buying
commodities, and when commodities are not purchased by the farmer the businesses directly involved in supplying him will be affected as well. In other words, all sectors of the economy are affected. Basically every person in western Canada is a farmer whether he is living on a farm or not, because either directly or indirectly his prosperity is tied to the farming economy.
Just this evening, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a person who runs a furniture store in the small town of Canora at the northern end of my constituency. He tells me that his sales have gone down drastically this year as a result of the crisis in the farming industry. He also talked about other businessmen in his community. Some of them, particularly in the machinery business, have seen their sales go down by over 80 per cent. This is the kind of thing that is occurring especially in the smaller centres in Saskatchewan.
I was talking to another man from the small village of Jedburgh, and I was told that in that place the elevator will be closed down for a month if grain does not start moving. They have not got the necessary box cars. The grain produced in that area is tough, damp and of inferior quality. What have we got to combat this situation? Increased interest rates! The farmer is having a much more difficult time getting the necessary cash to run his operation.
I would also like to submit, as other hon. members have done, that the crisis in the grain industry today is a national emergency. It has repercussions for the entire Canadian economy. That is why we should be concerned, no matter what part of the country we come from. That is why we should try to clear up the problem confronting us today. It is a problem that is affecting many other industries.
One thing I would like to comment on that has really made me quite sick and mad throughout the debate so far is the statistics that have been quoted by various cabinet ministers, in fact by all three who have spoken in the debate, as well as by the other government members. They tell us how things have improved in western Canada during the last few years, but anybody who has been out west knows that things are not good enough. We know they have not improved.
At any rate, you cannot tell the farmers that they have improved. They know they have not.

January 22, 1969
Grain
I should like to invite the Minister of Trade and Commerce to come to Yorkton-Melville or any other western constituency, spend only one day there, and talk to the farming people. Regardless of the statistics he quotes I am sure he will then know that something is badly lacking in the farming industry today. It is no joke. I am very dismayed when I hear people opposite laugh at the situation in which the farmers find themselves today. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when speaking in Winnipeg, summed up the attitude of the government toward the farming industry when he suggested it is basically the farmers' responsibility to sell the wheat. This is the kind of attitude we see across the way today. It is essentially the philosophy of Liberalism or limited government. They do not want to become involved; they want to lock up the problem in a closet and throw away the key. It is just like Bia-fra; they lock up the problem there and say that it does not exist.
There is no co-ordination or planning. They speak, for example, about establishing a national grains council. What will this do? It will probably provide another bureaucratic institution with more red tape, protocol and confusion. Then we start asking why people are really becoming fed up with things and why the country is becoming restless. We ask why there are demonstrations and riots in our society. I think the answer is apparent. People want action from governments at all levels. Some day the farmer will become fed up with what is happening to him. He is tired of being continually slapped in the face. Maybe the next time the Prime Minister comes to Saskatchewan he will not only be met by demonstrating students but also by farmers unless something is done immediately in an effort to alleviate the problem of the farmers of Saskatchewan and the west.
I think all of us in this house know that many farmers are sliding into poverty. Things are rough. If they have grain, they cannot sell it or it is tough, damp or of inferior quality. It seems ludicrous that while we talk about wheat sales and lack of markets two-thirds of the world population is living at a level of deprivation. It does not seem right when we have so much grain. I have heard many members of the government insinuate that the farmers are lazy and complacent about drying their own grain. Why do they say this? I think the members of the government should look at themselves. They have shown a lack of leadership. The people on the farms 
do not have the cash to dry all the grain they want to dry or if they do some of them do not wish to run the risk because of the poor operations that are going on.
This evening many members have quoted statistics. They have spoken about many things. All I want to say is that we should get down to doing some good, basic planning because the farmers of western Canada and all the people in the smaller communities in the country as well will suffer if we do not. We must do something constructive. It has been suggested that we appoint a controller who would go to Vancouver to help supervise the loading of ships and clear up the bottleneck. This is one thing we could do. There should be more co-ordination between the Wheat Board, the transportation system, the National Harbours Board and the government in trying to alleviate the problem. In the long term we must really support the agricultural industry of this country. We must look for any new alternatives that people can explore.
This crisis is just one of a number we see in the farming industry in Canada today. On behalf of the people of my constituency I plead that the government do something immediately to alleviate the crisis which faces us today in western Canada.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)


Paul Yewchuk: I am going to try to be as impartial as I can.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were going to say brief.


Paul Yewchuk: I shall be brief in my remarks as well. I should like to begin by stating that the Liberal government, since it has been in power, has been known as a government having no real concern for western agriculture. What is happening here tonight is typical of the way this government deals with problems, particularly agricultural problems. This government waits for a crisis to occur and then scurries around in an attempt to come up with some emergency solution. There does not seem to be any thought of looking ahead or trying to foresee an emergency, and doing something about it.
In spite of repeated warnings in the past two months or so that a crisis situation was developing in respect of wheat sales, the movement and drying of wheat, no effective government action has been taken. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) gave us repeated assurances that
January 22, 1969

something was being done and that things were not so bad for the farmers. They gave us assurances that everything possible was being done.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) said we were panicking. Perhaps we are because we are concerned about this problem. I submit that the minister and his associates have had their heads in the sand hoping that the problem would disappear. Now that they have pulled their heads out of the sand, they have found the problem is still with us.
Perhaps our panic has been a good thing because, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has stated, it has stimulated some action. Markets for grain are difficult to find, but this government cannot even meet the few commitments it has made to deliver the grain to whatever markets are available at this time. Ships are anchored at Vancouver but grain is not being loaded. Grain is not moving from the prairies to the coast. There does not appear to be proper co-ordination, and co-ordination is required without question.
Since the onset of this session the government has seen fit to put through several farm bills raising interest rates. I have in mind the farm credit measure and the prairie farm advancements. As a result it feels that the problems have been solved. Government members have sat back in their chairs and patted themselves on the back. I do not think they have any reason to do so. These actions were the result of crises situations and were all short term measures. We must have something better. We should have intermediate and long term plans.
If there have been any intermediate or long term measures, I should like to hear about them from some member of this government. We have given repeated warnings about damp grain but no action has been taken. We have given warnings about the insufficiency in respect of the movement of grain, but no action has been taken. We heard recently the announcement by the Canadian Wheat Board that less than half of the damp and tough grain would be dried and that the other half might be spoiling. Somewhere around 2,500,000 bushels of wheat might possibly spoil. This is a loss our country cannot stand.
The government boasts about having new faces in the cabinet; new men who will present new ideas. These men were supposed to come up with some new answers, but the
Grain
farmers are still waiting and the ships are still waiting at Vancouver. We are still waiting to ship our products to our markets.
We are losing our markets and we are being asked to be proud of the way this government is handling the problem. For the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture, who made the request that we should make suggestions rather than just criticisms, let me suggest something which may help to solve this problem. I think the suggestion can be summarized in two key words; communication and co-ordination.
Communication is required between the government, the various agencies associated with the collection of wheat from the producer, those associated with the transport of wheat and those associated with the loading of wheat on ships for markets. Communication is required within this groups, and coordination as a result of that communication. I would like to reiterate, for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture, those two key words-communication and co-ordination. I hope the minister takes them home and thinks about them.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have done many things in my life at twelve thirty o'clock at night, but very seldom have I made a speech at this hour. However, I believe this is an important subject to discuss even at this late hour. It is a subject that affects the livelihood of many people in this country, not only those in western Canada but the people in my province and in particular those in the constituency which I represent. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it affects people right across Canada. I think this fact was demonstrated very forcibly this evening when we had a very positive and useful contribution by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He pointed out the situation which exists within his own constituency and noted its impact upon the residents of the heart of the city of Vancouver.
At the outset, I would like to clarify and discuss several points that have come under discussion tonight. First of all, I would like to deal with the point raised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in particular, who once again suggested as has been suggested by government members in the past, that whenever any of us on this side of the house dare to ask questions regarding the grain industry of Canada or the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board, we are attacking the Wheat Board and undermining its position.

January 22, 1969
Grain
This is absolutely false. That statement is not worthy of the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister.
I suggest that the greatest disservice that can be done to the Canadian Wheat Board is for ministers to continue to hide behind its skirts whenever they are trying to work their way out of a difficult spot. I want to make it quite clear that in our criticisms, as far as I and my colleagues are concerned, we are pointing at the government and nobody else. I think the Wheat Board is doing a good job. We have on that board competent, good men who are trying their best to do a job. They are fallible, of course; they make mistakes on occasion. We shall not fault them when they make an honest mistake, because this happens. Our criticisms are directed at the government because of its failure to take the action which has been recommended to it.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang). They suggested that the points raised by members of the opposition have been doing great damage to the grain industry. So far as I am concerned, the damage to the grain industry has already been done and is being done by the lack of adequate government action to deal with some of the problems facing western Canada. I feel we must keep before us at all times-and this point has been made by members on all sides of the house-that really the immediate crisis we face is only part of a larger problem. I refer to the general income problem, and the general cost price squeeze that faces the farmers of western Canada. I think it is important to keep this in mind.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)
I received a very interesting letter this week from one of my constituents. I would like to read it into the record because I think it is very pertinent and refers to something that should be kept in mind. This letter reads as follows:
I am at a loss to know why the Wheat Board opened the quota to three bushels per seeded acre before the unit was delivered, or at least to give a farmer a reasonable time to haul his unit. I am one out of quite a few who haven't been able to haul a bushel. I am a half section man so the 400 bushels mean as much to me as 1,500 does to the man with two or three sections. I harvested less than 900 bushels this last season of very poor grade which I might add is five or six damp or even feed.

I don't think I need remind you of the position most farmers find themselves in. Someone is going to have an awful headache before this time year. Even so we do get a good crop the coming season that won't solve our problems.
Trusting you may be able to give me some sort of a solution to problem.
I suggested a number of things to this gentleman in answer to his letter, and I assured him that for my part I would do everything possible to help. But I must point out that in his letter this gentleman pointed out very forcibly and clearly that we have two items before us: One is the very immediate problem of deliveries, marketing and transportation which we have been discussing, and the other is the far larger one of income, the cost price squeeze and the rehabilitation which is needed in many areas of this country.
I would like to point out that the crisis that is before us is a national problem. It is something that affects many areas of the national economy, and unless we find adequate solutions it will jeopardize the welfare and the well being of many parts of the Canadian economy.
Over the past several months we have witnessed a series of recurring crises. The Minister Without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), attempted to paint this situation in terms of opposition members panicking as problems arose. I would suggest that members of the opposition pointed out very validly some of the problems that were facing western Canada and, as was their duty, asked the government what they were going to do about them. From time to time we also put forward positive proposals to deal with these problems. For example, the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) on December 5 put forward 12 different proposals for the consideration of the government. On one other occasion, on October 15, I put forward 8 different proposals for the consideration of the government. Other members of this house and members of my own party have also put forward proposals.
First of all, we had a difficult harvest. We do blame the government for quite a few things that have happened, but certainly no one would suggest that they were to blame for the difficult harvest situation that existed this fall. Then, we also had a slow marketing situation. I could go into this at some length because I think the government has to bear some responsibility, going back for a period of more than a year, with regard to the small marketings and the low level of exports that
January 22, 1969

we have witnessed over the past year. Certainly, when the Minister Without Portfolio and other members of the government tried to point out that the exports this year are higher than they were at the same point last year, that is really not bragging about very much because last year they descended to the lowest level for quite a number of years. This of course brought on a situation of low and slow deliveries. Following this, as a result of the harvest conditions, we had the problem of tough and damp grain.
Finally, the government acted and brought in the three bushel quota for tough and damp grain. I think it is recognized in all quarters of the grain industry now that this quota has been responsible for some of the problems which are presently facing the industry. I will not deal with this at any length but I think it should be noted in a discussion of this subject, not that there is a three bushel quota now but that the introduction of this quota has worked some inequities and has helped to produce some of the problems that exist in the grain industry at present. As a result, it was quite obvious there would have to be a very extensive drying program. Farmers started to dry grain on their own, but it was not very long until reports were coming back that a number of samples of dried grain were tested by the Board of Grain Commissioners and rejected. This left farmers in a quandary as to what to do. There is still no real direction from the government as to what might be done on a co-ordinated basis in terms of pooling the resources of the federal and provincial governments, of the grain industry, and of farm organizations to deal with this difficult problem.
After that there was a shortage of box cars, which again created a difficult situation. Action was taken and the problem was eventually overcome. Then, there were difficulties about unloading at the terminals, and some of these are still plaguing us. Then a grave situation arose at the Port of Vancouver, causing serious injury to the grain industry.
What is the solution? It seems obvious that we need more adequate co-ordination and direction within the entire scope of the operations in the industry, including farm deliveries, the operations of elevator companies, transportation and terminal companies, shipping companies, the Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners. There needs to be better direction, and proposals to this end have been put forward on a number of occasions by members of this party.
Grain
I, myself, have made proposals to this effect. The minister's reply to a recent suggestion of mine was that we should first do some co-ordination here. I do not mind that but I do submit that co-ordination is first required on the part of the government. Requests have been made for the appointment of a transport controller, or a grain controller to help bring this co-ordination about by dealing with all aspects of this situation. This proposal is not new. In 1955, for instance, a transport controller was appointed and I believe he did an effective job. In the early 'sixties a problem arose in connection with heavy sales to China, and the government of the day to its credit called upon the services of a former commissioner of the Wheat Board, Mr. Riddell, to supervise and co-ordinate activities at Vancouver. From the information I have, I gather that the different authorities concerned felt they were doing all they could to deal with the situation. However, when they got together with the co-ordinator they found they were able to improve their operations and speed up the handling of the grain.
The minister seemed to reject this idea yesterday; he thought it would result in the onus being placed upon one man to take action. I believe it has been shown that this is not the case, provided the individual concerned approaches his duties in a sensitive manner and bearing in mind that there are different authorities involved each with his own sphere of operations. Up to the present we have seen a disjointed approach by the government.
[DOT] (12:40 a.m.)
Finally, we have the comments of the minister in this debate tonight. In the contribution of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) he reported that there were 31 ships in the port of Vancouver at this moment. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) noted that there were in fact 33 ships either waiting in the harbour or at berth at 5.15 this afternoon, Ottawa time, I believe. So, he must have more up to date information available to him.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce related a number of problems that had been experienced over the past few weeks. He mentioned there had been weather problems, and this is true. He pointed out that the handling of high moisture grain involves certain difficulties, that it was a very slow process to unload and handle such grain. I do not quarrel with that.

January 22, 1969
Grain
The minister also noted that there had been a stronger demand for grain than was anticipated earlier this fall, and I do not quarrel with that statement either. I understand new export orders came in early in December which were additional to the orders previously expected. The Wheat Board decided to follow a policy of optimizing its sales and undertook to work out the transportation problems later.
So far as I am concerned, I give the Wheat Board credit for taking that action. I have no doubt that the Wheat Board followed up its decision by taking all the necessary steps, within its area of authority, to see that deliveries were made to the purchasers of grain. But the fact is that these steps were inadequate.
The minister seemed to question what exactly was his function. Is it his function to operate the wheat marketing system and to instruct all the officials involved as to what they are to do? I would say that that is not his function. The minister noted that it is his function to support that organization, and I agree fully with that statement. I urge him to fulfil that function by appointing a grain controller or transport controller to deal with the current problems facing us, and with other problems which I predict will arise over the next few months.
When we look at all the difficulties outlined by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I understand the minister wishes to ask a question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask the hon. member what the minister is supposed to do with the advice that he gets?


John Stratford Burton: I suggest that he has to sort through the various suggestions made to him and reach a decision. The particular course of action that I recommend at the present time is the appointment of a grain controller to co-ordinate all aspects of grain marketing.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is one opinion.


John Stratford Burton: That is one opinion and I recommend it to the minister. I think it has received a wide measure of support tonight from all sides of the house. I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) suggest that it would be very useful to have a transport controller, and I commend him for putting that suggestion before the minister. This

is the course of action that is required. What is needed is co-ordination, direction, and an attempt to achieve a proper working together of all elements and sectors of our grain handling industry. This is the sort of support the minister should give the Wheat Board to help it do the job we all want to see it do, and which it has been doing its level best to do. Lack of government action has resulted in despondency and confusion among western farmers. That has been aggravated by the fact that the government has so often said in this house, "Everything is fine; there is no problem. We have everything in hand and there is nothing to worry about." The farmers of course have seen that is not so. Lack of adequate government direction has resulted in the farmers of western Canada fearing for the long term future of their industry.
Tonight, we must consider what must be done to help our farmers. As I have already said, for heaven sake let us appoint a controller of grain and a controller of transportation to make sure our grain is marketed properly. Second, and this point arises from my first point, let us make sure that enough No. 2 wheat arrives in Vancouver, but not too much. In its panic reaction to existing circumstances the government may dump too much No. 2 wheat from western Canada into Vancouver, attempting to make sure that overseas commitments are met. The result may be that we will have too much No. 2 wheat in Vancouver and not enough of the other grades.
Third, I suggest that compensation through the Canadian Wheat Board should be made for demurrage and other special costs which have arisen this year, in part because of lack of government policy and direction during the past few months. Fourth, we ought to provide some form of direct financial assistance to farmers in drying grain. That has already been discussed in the house. Some of us do not feel that the government's proposal to pay $600 more in cash advances to farmers will help our farmers. Many of them feel that, with conditions as they are, they are unlikely to repay that advance by July 31 next. We must give direct financial assistance to farmers in order to help dry their grain. That will be in the national interest. Fifth, we ought to embark on a long range program to help elevator companies instal drying equipment. Recently members of the Saskatchewan legislature, including the leader of the opposition, Mr. W. S. Lloyd, made a special trip to North Dakota to see how grain was being dried
January 22. 1969

there. They learned that in practically every elevator in North Dakota grain may be dried. It is an accepted practice that grain is dried in or near country elevators in that state. In this country it is much more difficult to harvest wheat and it seems to me Canadian wheat producers would benefit in the long run if we adopted a practice similar to that carried on in North Dakota.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (12:50 a.m.)


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would feel very remiss if I did not take part in this important debate tonight. I want to congratulate my colleague from the Mackenzie riding for bringing this very important subject before the house. Because our constituencies are adjoining, I am sure we have similar problems.
On September 25 last, as recorded at page 466 of Hansard for that date, I addressed several questions to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). The first one reads:
My question arises out of the very serious situation that has been created in western Canada owing to the very wet and impossible harvest conditions. Many farmers are going to be up against a serious feed shortage unless they have especially good weather in the late harvest season. Has the minister and his department asked the P.F.A.A. officials to make a survey of the seriousness of the situation?
The minister replied that this was being done. My supplementary question, which was ruled out of order, was as follows:
-have any plans been made to assist farmers with regard to drying facilities for wet grain? In order to get feed for livestock many farmers will be forced to take tough or damp grain off the land.
At that time the minister said a survey was being conducted. I wish to point out that many people who have had a complete crop failure have not received their P.F.A.A. payments as yet and they do not know when they are going to receive them. Much of the crop in that area was damaged by frost, and when farmers got the rest of it off the land it was tough and damp.
Cabinet ministers talk a lot about the three bushel quota. I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the three bushel quota means
Grain
in my area. When the three bushel quota was established the officials had not made a survey. The local elevator was full of grain from last year, yet in a letter to me the wheat pool chairman said that the largest shipping point in Saskatchewan had not received one single box car in a four-week period. Can you tell me what good the three bushel quota was when the elevator was full and there were no box cars? This demonstrates the seriousness of the situation.
The three bushel quota was really detrimental to many of the farmers in the area because they harvested lots of grain that would have been far better if it had been left in the swathe. Now, they find it impossible to buy the necessary drying equipment, or hire it. It is impossible to dry the grain because of the adverse weather.
The situation is not a laughing matter although I notice that a lot of members on the government side tonight seem to think it is a laughing matter. It would not be a laughing matter to them if they received some of the letters sent to me telling of the seriousness of the situation in which people find themselves. In the past few days I have received letters from people who cannot provide for their families. These people have no grain to ship. They cannot haul it out. The elevators cannot take some of the grain because it is too wet. It is certainly no laughing matter.
I notice that the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lang) talked about doubling the cash advances on farm store grain. This is not too much help to a farmer who doesn't have any grain, but it brought back to my memory how members on the government side, when in opposition, criticized the cash advances legislation my party introduced. They said the Wheat Board would walk off the job if we did such a thing, but now they double the amount of the cash advances. I think this was a necessary move. I know a great many parts of western Canada will reap benefit from it, but it certainly will not benefit a farmer who has not any grain.
I think this matter is so important that I would remain here even if it meant having my breakfast here in order to represent my constituency. Members of the opposition have continually brought the urgency of the situation to the attention of the government. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did make a statement in Winnipeg that he did not think it was up to the government to sell wheat. That is all right; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce throws his

January 22, 1969
Grain
hands up in the air and says, "What do you expect me to do." He should not wonder what he should do. What in the world is he doing there? He might be a very good fellow, but if he is not doing a good job let someone do something about it. I do not think a country such as Canada can afford, in a situation of this kind, to have a member from Montreal trying to represent western Canada. If he does not know what he is supposed to do, then for God's sake let the government put someone in there who does know what to do.
It appears to me that the government is doing everything it can to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I suggest that we let our mind wander back not too many years. The government in office at that time had western Canada stripped right down. But under a Conservative government the farmer of western Canada was given an opportunity. Look how quickly that government put all the factories to work and everything began to move. The unemployment situation was cured. But look at the predicament in which western Canada is today. Where has the buying power gone? All one need do is look at the record of machinery sales. I believe these are some of the things the government should consider. Not only the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but also the Minister without Portfolio should realize the seriousness of the situation, as should the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
I was home during the holidays and never before have I seen a situation in my constituency as serious as that which exists today. Yet members opposite sit here tonight and laugh. This is not funny; this is a serious situation. We have heard about the seriousness of the situation in Vancouver. We heard from the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He certainly knows something about the situation in Vancouver harbour. I had the opportunity to see what a really great institution that is for handling grain. If the grain is not moving and we have to pay demurrage charges, then they will have to come out of the price we receive for the wheat. It only brings $1 a bushel. My father received twice that much 30 years ago for a bushel of wheat. How can a farmer carry on in this day and age when that is all he can get for his wheat, and out of that he has to pay all this demurrage expense.
I was very happy that Mr. Speaker allowed this debate to take place. I feel it is very important that the people whom I represent should have heard from me on this important

subject. The Minister of Agriculture and others have heard the plea from one of the former prime ministers that they should go out there and look into the seriousness of the situation. If they do not think it is serious, let them come to Meadow Lake. I will show them, and I will also show them some letters I have received. Many farmers will be in serious difficulty when they come to put in new crops. This is something that should be considered. I heard a very good suggestion today. The government should encourage elevator companies to instal grain drying equipment.
[DOT] (1:00 a.m.)
During the Christmas recess I discovered that a lot of small dryers are not operating efficiently. I discovered that a great deal of grain has not been dried properly and has been rejected. A great deal of grain in western Canada has been overdried or burnt. Farmers cannot sell this grain. Most of the farmers do not want to spend another 20 cents per bushel on this wheat because they feel they cannot sell it.
If anyone thinks this situation is not serious he should go out and observe it first hand. This government should be worried about the situation. It is not a laughing matter that we are here at this time of the morning. It is very important to the western farmer that the government take some action when the farmer is saddled with tough and damp grain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the hour is getting late. I do not represent a western Canadian farm riding but I have been very interested in this debate and I hope the government has learned something. I note that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and other long standing members of the agriculture committee are standing outside the curtain. They must know that over the years agricultural problems have changed. These problems have been brought to the attention of the government since I have been here but the government has found no solution.
The new minister from Saskatchewan has suggested that somebody has pushed the panic button. This is a very interesting remark, particularly to the unemployed in this country. I suggest the minister is unemployed, but the farmer in this country is not interested in that fact. He has too much to think about because of his own problems.
January 22, 1969

These farm problems are always regional. When they occur the farmers get after their members of parliament to do something about them. Unfortunately, there is insufficient action on the part of the government. Some years ago we had an opportunity to consider the problems in respect of wheat production. The committee on agriculture at that time presented a report to this house, but obviously the minister has not read it. He is not aware of the recommendations that committee made. Had those recommendations been implemented many of the problems in respect of box cars would have been alleviated.
It is my opinion that the minister should not have control of the Canadian Wheat Board. This government agency has been transferred from one minister to another over the years. I have a great deal of respect for this minister who has inherited this responsibility. Since I have been a member of this house the responsibility for the wheat board has rested with the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and one or two others.
Perhaps the minister should consider putting the wheat board under the direction of one of the ministers without portfolio because this agency is responsible for many problems which affect the entire country. The production and sale of wheat is an important part of our economy. I do not know what ministers without portfolio do, but one of them should interest himself in this matter.
The minister responsible for this government agency is now handling an extremely important portfolio and the addition of this responsibility is ridiculous. To throw the Wheat Board, which is a major responsibility, on top of his other responsibilities is idiotic. The minister has great capacity but I am sure that even he cannot pay full attention to these four major responsibilities. I suggest that at least two of them, and probably all of them, are running into some difficulty because of his inability to cope with all these problems.
One had only to look at the minister's desk this evening to realize how much responsibility he has. He had on his desk a pile of correspondence that he had been answering for four or five hours. And this is on overtime; it is not done in normal hours.
The Wheat Board is an important agency, but let us face another problem. The chairman of the Wheat Board is a great propagandist. He has a personal machine that never allows him to come out at the worst end of
Grain
any question or mistake that may occur. The minister or somebody else may be blamed for a mistake, but in my experience Mr. McNamara will not be blamed-and my experience covers a long period of time. The chairman of the Wheat Board does a good job and looks after himself.
Many things could be done to solve this problem. There have been in the past a great many problems in this industry. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) thinks he has to defend himself against all these problems. He does not. I do not think all members of parliament would accuse him of having been responsible for the weather, the mistakes created because of the quota system or those of the industry. They may. However, I think they would be speaking figuratively and really would not hold the Minister of Agriculture directly responsible for all these problems. But they hold the government responsible in the sense that action could be taken to solve the problems but it has not been taken.
The government has not taken action to solve the problems faced by this industry. One or two solutions to the problems were contained in the report of the committee which studied the matter. First, we have a very lousy transportation system for moving grain. We obviously cannot continue to handle the quotas produced by the farmer. The committee said that if any emergency arose we would be in serious trouble. We had probably the best co-operation in respect of our transportation facilities, the country elevators and terminal elevators in the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and at the head of the lakes for a period of two or three years when we handled much more than we should have been able to handle with the facilities at our disposal.
In respect of this industry we are operating out of a box car. We do not operate the potash industry or any other industry in this country to the best advantage. Modernization will have to take place in the grain elevators and other facets of the agricultural industry. It does not behoove us to continue the practice we have followed in the past. We must build new elevators. We should not use elevators which were designed 50 years ago simply because the people in the community have a vested interest in them.
We would be much better off if we built elevators which had drying facilities in them. Farmers should not have to have drying facilities on their farms. There may be a drought for three years, good crops for five

January 22, 1969
Grain
years, and two years of an excess of rain. For eight or ten years a farmer may have to use drying equipment on only one or two occasions. We cannot afford this situation in regard to our elevator arrangements.
When we went out to western Canada I am sure every member of the committee was shocked when he learned something that probably even the farmers do not know. When we walked into the Moose Jaw terminal we found it had in it less than 20 bushels of grain. This had been the situation for many months. They had 40 employees. If each of them had taken one bushel of grain home, that elevator would not have been needed at all. That terminal facility could be putting class II wheat into export shape for marketing in three or four days. All you would be doing at the elevators, either at the head of the lakes or in Vancouver, would be moving the grain into the ships that were tied up in that area. The necessity this year for drying grain as well as for putting it into export position has made things much more difficult. The situation could have been coped with much more easily in the terminal elevators than the elevators at the ports.
[DOT] (1:10 a.m.)
As everyone knows, there has been great reluctance to use the port at Churchill. The facilities at Churchill could have been used to a far greater degree for European export of wheat, probably three or four times as much. This recommendation has been made by all transportation people in the Churchill area. They have said that if grain were moved to the port at Churchill the cost would be less than in moving it to other ports. Yet this was not considered until an emergency arose.
I suggest to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that he set up the commission which has been recommended. He has the choice of either setting up a commission to co-ordinate the transportation or one to handle the whole co-ordination of the grain movement. The grain commissioners have a responsibility in this field, as have the country elevators and the Wheat Board. It is difficult for each and every one of them to be in contact with each other. For instance, I am told tonight that there has been another bad train wreck in the Edmonton area. If this is so, these shipments could be rerouted by a transportation commissioner with teletype facilities in his office. He would know the movements of the C.N.R. and C.P.R. and could make appropriate arrangements.

If we do not have such a facility I suggest we will be in continual difficulty. The facilities we do have are archaic and we should seriously consider what to do about this problem on a long term basis. Everyone concerned with the industry and with agriculture has done a very good job in their own field to make possible the deliveries that we have made over the last four or five years. This is a unique year because of the drying problem. There is also a general problem in the field of agriculture which is developing very rapidly. I refer to the high interest rate on purchases which the farmers have to make. Obviously this has had some effect on the ability of country elevators to buy drying equipment. So there have been special problems this year.
If the minister considers himself big enough to sit on this whole problem he will find himself in exactly the same situation as the one which his great predecessor, C. D. Howe, had to face. He was not big enough and he had to obtain the help of other competent people. If the minister wishes to call these people executives and appoint them to his own staff in charge of specific aspects of this problem I would not be opposed to such a move because I believe it would get the job done. But if he waits until each of these boards reports to him and carries out the work of co-ordination on the basis of those reports he will find he is considerably out of touch.
This problem has been with us for a number of years and until Members of Parliament get up and make a noise nothing ever seems to be done. The present situation has developed to some degree during every one of the 12 years in which I have been here, and I think the Minister of Agriculture will bear this out. Nothing new has been said in this debate. There is no emergency with which we are unfamiliar. For God's sake let us sit down in the agricultural committee and settle some of these problems or at least those which are capable of solution.
I do not say these things in a partisan way. The object is to maintain as much of the export market as we can, and this involves not only supplying the desired grain in the proper condition but supplying it on time to fill the ships as they arrive. It means that grain should be moved uniformly so that all farmers have an appropriate quota and so that no dislocation arises in connection with our transportation or harbour facilities. The
January 22, 1969

movement of grain should be co-ordinated in such a way that the right grain reaches the right place at the right time. If this can be done Canada will have a future in the marketing of grain.
I have no personal or constituency interest in the grain industry but from the experience I have gained as a result of the opportunity of travelling across western Canada I am sure that unless some major changes take place, originated by the government, there will be a serious calamity affecting our ability to export at prices which will allow farmers a reasonable return while enabling us to meet the international price structure.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the debate this evening on this important subject I should like at the outset to offer my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) for instituting this discussion.
We have listened to what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) had to say. He attempted to show that the government had done everything in its power to alleviate the present situation at Vancouver, and he ended by asking: What is my job? I suggest that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board should work in close harmony with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and that the two should get their facts and figures straight. No doubt they have to a certain extent. But on one hand we found the Minister of Agriculture telling us that the unloading of cars at Vancouver was going on at a very good rate-he said some 300 cars a day were being unloaded-while on the other hand the Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us that because of damp grain and weather conditions it has taken an hour on many occasions to unload one car. I wonder how those figures can be reconciled.
[DOT] (1:20 a.m.)
We also had a lecture from the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) who attempted to tell the opposition what they should be doing instead of bringing to the attention of the government the damp grain situation. He went over some aspects of the problem and said that we should spend out time finding solutions instead of panicking when the damp grain problem manifested itself last fall, panicking again when deliveries could not be made on time, and panicking further when ships were held up at anchorage in Vancouver harbour. If the Minister without Portfolio feels that the opposition is panicking, then it
Grain
is very fortunate that the hon. member for Mackenzie and those who have supported him panicked, as the minister called it, on this occasion.
One point that has been brought out very forcibly in this debate is that in spite of the minister's statement that the government has no authority to dictate to the Wheat Board or to any other body that handles grain in Canada, the farmers of western Canada will be amazed when they discover that one result of this debate today has been the announcement in the house that orders have been given to ship with all haste all of the No. 2 grain that can be shipped from elevators at Moose Jaw. I am also amazed by the very caustic criticism that has emanated from government benches in regard to matters that opposition members have brought to the attention of the house in this debate. I am convinced that had it not been for this debate the order to ship No. 2 grain from Moose Jaw would not have been given. I understand it was also ordered that overtime should be worked to the limit in order to get the grain moving as quickly as possible.
If those on government benches are in no position to dictate or even to suggest to the Wheat Board or the Board of Grain Commissioners what they should do, then I would be interested to find out where this order came from. Regardless of where it came from, it is a good thing that the order was given. Shipments will be made from Moose Jaw as rapidly as possible so that some of the ships that are waiting at anchorage at Vancouver will be loaded with No. 2 grain and requirements met. When we know a little more about this order we will be able to ask questions and I hope we will be given answers. However, I am sure the western farmers will realize what initiated this order to get grain moving.
In view of the fact that a great number of members who have taken part in this debate have made the point that a number of improvements are necessary not only in our grain handling facilities in western Canada, at terminal and prairie elevators but also in rail transportation arrangements, this would be a very opportune time to mention briefly shipping arrangements through the port of Churchill. There are a number of reasons for bringing up this important matter at this time. Over the years the government has announced prior to the opening of the shipping season that in the year to come a record number of bushels would be shipped through Churchill. I have no figures in front of me

January 22, 1969
Grain
but I think the figures I will mention are accurate.
The year before the Conservative government took office in 1957, 16 million bushels were shipped through Churchill. From then until 1962 grain shipments increased each year through Churchill until about 24 million bushels were shipped. My constituents feel that Churchill is capable of handling more wheat than the port is handling at present. The Liberal government on taking office assured us that record shipments would be made through Churchill. If one looks at the figures one will find that in only one year since 1962 have more than 24 million bushels been shipped through our port. I think 25.5 million bushels were shipped one year. In other years shipments were drastically reduced. During the past season I think about 22.5 million bushels were shipped through Churchill, a drastic reduction, particularly after the government had assured us we would be handling record shipments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I bet you a dollar your figures are wrong.


Robert Simpson: I am sure anyone checking with officials of the National Harbours Board will learn that Churchill has the reputation of being the most efficient port in Canada in turning around ships and in loading and unloading them. Churchill on many occasions has been declared the most efficient port in Canada; yet grain shipments through that port are not being increased to the extent they ought to be. Perhaps the minister may produce figures showing that Churchill had a record year this past year. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) lauded the government for the grain traffic handled by the port of Vancouver. I wish he were here to tell us why grain shipments through Churchill have been decreasing each year. Is the government being influenced by some who are lobbying on behalf of other Canadian ports? A port of Montreal official, J. C. Bourguignon, secretary of the Montreal Port Council, made a statement in 1965 which has been repeated many times. He called government promises to increase freight shipments through Churchill "electioneering", adding that he could hardly believe that could happen "without consultation between the federal government and eastern port managers". He went on to say:
The council has strongly opposed any move to increase the use of Churchill because it is an artificial enterprise opened due to the war. We don't mind the status quo, but we'll rise up against any government plan to increase its use.

[DOT] (1:30 a.m.)
Considering the need for us to modernize grain handling facilities across Canada and remembering what Montreal port officials are saying about Churchill, it seems that those Montreal officials as well as others are influencing the government to hold the line on shipments through Churchill. There are many reasons for saying this and bringing this matter to the attention of the house because, just to quote a few figures, storage charges at the Churchill elevator are six cents a bushel for nine months while storage charges at other terminals are nine cents for nine months. It costs 12 cents a bushel to take wheat from Saskatoon to Churchill, and 27 cents a bushel to take wheat from Saskatoon to Montreal, pointing up the fact that it is much cheaper to ship it out of Churchill than out of any other port in Canada from the Churchill designated area of grain shipment in western Canada.
I would also like to point out that on June 20, 1966, the day the first Russian wheat sale was announced, the price of No. 2 wheat at Montreal was $2,205 a bushel, and the same day the price of No. 2 wheat at Churchill was $2.13 a bushel, a difference of seven cents a bushel. This means that it is not only cheaper to ship wheat out of Churchill than it is out of these other ports but it is also cheaper for the purchaser to buy it. There is a saving for the purchaser and for the farmer. These are only some of the reasons why the port of Churchill should be considered in the improvement which hon. members think is so necessary for our grain handling facilities across Canada.
There is also talk about the shipping season at Churchill. It should be extended and there are various ways in which it could be extended. A report I have here says that in 1927 the McLean Commission spent a season on the Hudson Bay route and reported that there could be a shipping season of 120 days without the assistance of icebreakers. Today, 42 years later, we have only 88 days. So the extension of the shipping season at Churchill to not less than 120 days is a definite requirement if we are going to improve our grain handling facilities in western Canada.
Along with that there should be marine rates of insurance available for the port of Churchill comparable with those available at other ports. To this end immediate consideration should be given to the use of the new Alexbow-Hammerhead and Gibson icebreaker systems. Members of the government should
January 22, 1969

know what I am talking about because the government has a considerable financial interest in the Alexbow itself. Incidentally, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) did not even know the name of it when I brought it to his attention.
Mr. Scott Alexander, the inventor of the Alexbow, has told me personally that the port of Churchill would be mush easier to keep open with the Alexbow than any of the St. Lawrence ports in the wintertime, and he sees no reason whatever, if he is given the opportunity, that he could not take a barge in from an eastern seaport to Churchill in midwinter-January, February, or any time you wish to mention.
I am not advocating that next year or the year after the port of Churchill should be kept open during wintertime, but I am advocating that the port of Churchill could be kept open for a much greater length of time if the government would take action to see that it is kept open. I again refer to my belief that the government is listening too closely to shipping interests in other Canadian ports. In 1905 and 1910 ships were coming into the port of Churchill after the middle of November without the aid of icebreaking equipment, without any radar and without lighthouse services. So there is no reason in the world that this port cannot be kept open much longer each season.
One other facility that should be located at the port of Churchill-and this is something the government should look into-is a pilot boat in order that pilot services can be rendered at all times regardless of weather conditions because the present pilot boat is not suitable for all weather conditions. There should also be an increase in the storage capacity over the present 5 million bushel capacity to 10 million bushels. The larger ships are now capable of loading up to one million bushels and therefore the present storage of 5 million bushels is not sufficient to guarantee there will be sufficient grain at the port at all times. The additional storage capacity would also make it possible to carry stocks of other types of grain besides wheat in addition to providing for more grains of each type.
In conclusion I would say to the minister and members of the treasury benches that a good look should be taken at this port. They will recall that a few years ago some sales were made to Czechoslovakia and representatives of that government came to Ottawa to talk with representatives of this government
Grain
or their predecessors. Every assurance was given to me in the house at that time that those representatives from Czechoslovakia would be made fully aware of the facilities at Churchill and the savings they could enjoy by taking their grain out of Churchill.
I am not in a position to make the charge that this information was not given to them. But Mr. Jim Gray, the secretary-treasurer of the Hudson Bay Route Association, in talking to these Czechoslovakian representatives was told they never received this information. We did clear up the situation when the Russian sales were made by Canada because these people were in the gallery and I had the opportunity of telling them there was the opportunity of shipping through Churchill.
[DOT] (1:40 a.m.)


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the important problem which is before us to-day, and I will try to remain within the ambit of the matter now under discussion.
The problem concerns mainly western Canada, but this situation is not germane to us, for if there is a lack of box cars to carry wheat to the port of Vancouver, that reminds us of a familiar situation that we, of the Creditiste Party, have been denouncing for many years, namely the accumulation of wheat as a result of the lack of box cars. Needless to say that hon. members knoW it, and more particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
We have denounced the economic bottleneck which is affecting Canada. There is obviously an abundance of wheat in western Canada and there is a market for our production, because foreign countries are willing to buy our wheat. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) shakes his head; I would like to know which argument would convince him. We are having difficulty with wheat exports and transportation, a problem which has already been mentioned in this house, since the Creditistes are represented here since 1935. The situation is the same, from the economic point of view. In other words, it is production in relation to consumption, and the transportation facilities are inadequate.
Complaints are now heard about the lack of box cars, while we, Creditistes, complain because for the last 30 years the transportation facilities do not make the link between

January 22, 1969
Grain
production and consumption. This is why we have denounced in the past the economic congestion that has prevailed, especially in the past 30 years, and tonight the special congestion in a certain sector of production.
Now there is a solution to those problems. Some will say, as some ministers did, that it depends on the weather. It reminds me of a problems which occurred a few years ago in the Ukraine-where a lot of wheat is grown -and which was similar to the one which is now raised. There was a bumper crop of wheat, but the officials of the communist government of the Ukraine had not delivered the necessary permits to the farmers of the state to enable them to harvest their wheat on time.
It did happen that all the wheat was lost under the snow. There was a lack of planning, and the technocrats, the officials of Ukraine, a socialist and communist country, stated that the bad weather was responsible for the crop being left under the snow.
Here, in Canada, planning could not be achieved concerning the operations in Vancouver harbour, one of Canada's main ports, to make it suitable for receiving wheat shipments. Moreover, and this is even more serious, financial planning was neglected- although we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have been requesting it for a long while-in order to ensure the development of national harbours to meet export needs.
For instance, if you read the question the honourable member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) asked in this house a little while ago and which appeared on the order paper for January 15, you will see that the Ivory Coast refused the wheat which Canada wanted to give it.
We also learned, through other official documents of the house, that a small country, that is Niger, has its own merchant marine. Its boats are ploughing our rivers and the Great Lakes to get our wheat or other products. A small country gives itself an adequate transportation system, to meet its needs, but here, in Canada, weather conditions, we are told, are responsible for the present situation. And yet, I think what is most regrettable and astonishing is that the Minister of Agriculture knows the solution to our problem. He has been preaching it for more than 30 years. He must have liked that solution since he supported it in and out of the house. Because he met with some minor problems in the Social Credit party, he left that party. Now he is in the Liberal party,

where he is experiencing a much more serious problem than the lack of box-cars in Vancouver. If the Minister of Agriculture left the Social Credit party because of very minor problems, I think he should also leave the Liberal party, because he is now in a strait-jacket and therefore is unable to solve our problems, and he knows it.
I know he is intelligent and I respect his integrity. I know he remembers the Social Credit doctrine but I am convinced that despite his intelligence, he will be unable to apply the principles he loved and defended and for which he even paid dues for thirty years when he was a respectable and an out-and-out Creditiste. Today, he is a sort of straitjacket within the Liberal party. He now blames the weather for the lack of box-cars in western Canada, the same way Canadian economists, during the depression held sun spots responsible for the economic crisis. We have transportation problems-


The Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is wondering a little from the subject under consideration.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to you that during the depression, the sun spots were in the heads of the economists and that, at the present time, there are problems out West which are comparable to the false sun spots of the depression.
Now, we have come to grips with a similar problem. First of all, let us speak of the economists. The Minister of Agriculture should not trust economists too much, for the last report of the Economic Council of Canada recommends to increase production. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tells us: Tighten up your belts and increase production. There is a contradiction in that. This is the illogical consequence of an absurb economic system, and it explains why, today, we are faced with a transportation problem out West and why tomorrow, another problem will come up in the Mari-times.
We are also grappling with a wheat problem in the province of Quebec. Indeed, our farmers cannot buy Canadian wheat at the same price as the Chinese Communists; when our wheat sold for $1.50 a bushel in the province of Quebec, it was about twice what they paid. These are not stories but facts that are born out by the figures of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are now grappling with the problem of the export of wheat
January 22, 1969

which is perhaps not directly our problem in Quebec but in which we are interested as Canadians.
It is the same problem that exists now in western Canada and that is reflected in other segments of the economy because there is no planning by the federal government.
First, they do not plan their financing. Consequently, they are now grappling with a given problem and to-morrow there will be another one. Instead of solving our problems, we make enquiries and we create royal commissions. Big deal. Instead of trying to solve the problem tonight, why not form a royal commission and study still another year, because that is the solution which the Liberals have been putting forward for many years.
How is it that tonight the Minister of Agriculture announced-I believe I was absent from the house at the time-that the C.P.R. had issued orders to make available in the port of Vancouver all the cars required to meet the needs of the present crisis?
Why did the C.P.R. not do it a few weeks ago? Why is it possible today when it was not at that time?
Tomorrow, hundreds of cars will stand on the sidings in the port of Vancouver, but how much will it cost us for the cars that will thus stand idle for whole days? Might it be that the C.P.R. wants to replenish its coffers or that its shareholders stand to make greater profits?
For weeks and weeks we needed them, and there were none, but now we have them all together at the same time!
Such are the questions that could be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and which deserve an answer. Those questions are of concern to all Canadians. Why? Because we are facing a financial problem and tonight, it is a transportation problem.
It is just the same in the field of economics: a transport problem, an economic bottleneck, a bottleneck affecting the means of transport in Vancouver. The minister will no doubt explain it, by putting the blame on the weather, just as the socialist technocrats, several years ago, explained to the whole world how they had lost their crops on the farms of Ukraine by blaming it on the snow, the frost and on permits which arrived too late.
In the present case, things were not planned in good time and this vindicates the Credi-tistes who want to decentralize production. The Minister of Industry and Trade and 29180-298
Grain
Commerce is grinning; he has listened to nobody but the technocrats and now he is confronted with the situation which arose here tonight. He should seek the advice of experienced entrepreneurs, of successful businessmen, rather than of technocrats who try to explain away their carelessness by speaking of the weather or some such nonsense.
[DOT] (1:50 a.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to note that some hon. members to my right have indicated pleasure that I am participating in this debate. I mention this especially for the benefit of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Stewart) who previously indicated he did not wish to be here any more. However, the fact that I mentioned him will bring to the attention of his constituents that he is present in the house at two o'clock in the morning, and if it takes a Conservative member to draw that to their attention I am happy to do so, since he can find no other way of doing so himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not name everyone who is here?


Donald MacInnis: It has already been suggested to me by another hon. member that the question of wheat has gone through the mill this evening. I hear another familiar voice, which reminds me that possibly this evening Liberal members were moved by the importance of this debate. Some of them may even have telephoned British Columbia and said: "For God's sake, someone give us some figures; they are pounding us down here". I leave it to members of the house to guess just who that member is.


An hon. Member:: Name him.


Donald MacInnis: He is not worthy of it. For somebody from the east coast to participate in a debate on wheat may come as a surprise. However, it is a subject which the Speaker considered of national importance and worthy of debate. It is surprising to me that throughout the evening Liberal members, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), have cast reflections on the opinion voiced by the Speaker, and so did the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang).
However, I consider that this matter concerns the economy of Canada, and what is good for the west is bound to be good for the east. Today the economy of this country is

January 22, 1969
Grain
facing a staggering loss from the mismanagement that has been going on since this government, and especially the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has tried to run the affairs of the Wheat Board.
At this time I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) who has brought this important matter to a head and, as is evident from the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), forced the government to take steps that have already been suggested by a number of hon. members. There has been an announcement tonight that all available amounts of No. 2 northern are to be moved as quickly as possible.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That action was initiated a long time ago.


Donald MacInnis: It still took the debate to get it moving. Before the minister made his announcement he knew very well that members of the house were aware of it since the early afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Donald MacInnis: This is only a further indication that hon. members on the government side have holes in their heads. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) brought to the government's attention the fact that although there are very severe winter conditions in western Canada this year they are conditions which the railways have been used to and should have been able to overcome. On other occasions far more wheat was moved with far fewer box cars available. This is an indication of mismanagement in this field.
Someone has reminded me that the railways then used steam engines. I am happy to take up this point because my constituents were very sore a few years ago when the C.N.R. converted from coal to oil. This is an indication that the railways may well begin to think of coal again. I only hope that some day we shall see a reversion to steam, which would give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a suitable form of locomotion to surmount the difficulties caused by cold weather and carry the grain over the mountains.
I noticed a number of contradictions between statements made by various members on the government side. Not long after the Minister of Trade and Commerce had spoken the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas)

took part in the debate, expressing an entirely opposite point of view with regard to the appointment of a transportation commissioner. This is what he advocated, but the minister was afraid to go along with the idea.
I take exception to certain of the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture because I consider them to be a reflection on the decision of the Chair to allow this debate on an important national issue. The Speaker agreed to allow this debate; yet the Minister of Agriculture said it was destroying markets. In my opinion this was a reflection on the Chair.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, at no time in my speech did I make any reflection on the Speaker in any way, shape or form.


Donald MacInnis: The Speaker ruled that a debate on this important subject could be carried on to deal with a question of national importance on an emergency basis. When the minister gets up and says that opposition members are destroying Canadian markets he is reflecting on the Chair.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Donald MacInnis: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in attendance for a short time. Hon. members over there talked about weather conditions and blamed the situation at Vancouver on the weather. It was like hearing a weather report from every minister. The Prime Minister remarked at that time: "Bring on the sun". This expresses the interest and concern the Prime Minister has shown for the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: Sounds like Smallwood.


Donald MacInnis: If you want to believe some of them, there are prominent Liberals who would have us think they can control the weather. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity of hearing where that report from British Columbia was, whether or not the figures were obtained.
When questions about this situation were put to the minister last fall the hon. gentleman summoned up his best smile, shrugged his shoulders, gave a wave of the arm and said: "We can always pray". This was the attitude of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Tonight the same minister asked the house with the same wave of the arms and the same smile-no, I must say the smile had devel-
January 22, 19S9	COMMONS
oped into a smirk-What is my job? What am I to do? I have one suggestion for the minister. I suggest he get out of the wheat field because he is going against the grain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: There is every indication of mismanagement and lack of knowledge on the part of the minister in dealing with this question. As I say, a number of hon. members have shown that despite bad weather conditions larger quantities of grain were delivered in other years with fewer box cars, and this clearly indicates there is something wrong somewhere. If the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister without Portfolio or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wish to blame opposition members for destroying export markets or for creating a situation that is unacceptable to buyers, then he must make the same accusation against the members of his own party who have made similar representations to the government as those made by opposition members.
[DOT] (2:00 a.m.)


An hon. Member:: I thought you were in Cape Breton.


Donald MacInnis: I hear a stupid and idiotic remark from a Liberal member to my right who says he thought I was in Cape Breton. I made it
DEBATES	4703
Grain
quite clear that I regarded this as a national emergency that affected the entire Canadian economy, and what is good for western Canada is good for Cape Breton. When the minister realizes that each segment of the economy affects the other segments in this country, then he can make a speech or, rather, read a speech that has been prepared by somebody else. My advice to the minister is to get out of the business because he knows nothing about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that the head office of the Canadian Wheat Board is located in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre and so is the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Grain Exchange. Therefore I should favour the house with a 20-minute speech. However, like many others who are here I have shown my concern about this issue by staying here. I hope that Your Honour is satisfied that we have had a good debate and that you are satisfied that the debate has now been concluded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 13 of standing order 26 I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried. This house stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. later this day, pursuant to standing order 2, section 1.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 2.06 a.m.
29180-298J

Thursday, January 23, 1969