1969-01-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions among representatives of the parties in respect of the work of
the standing committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the arts. I think it is regarded as being desirable that the committee might have the opportunity to continue its studies before the estimates are brought down and, in particular, to travel to Montreal for the purpose of considering questions affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and also the National Film Board.
Perhaps if the house is agreeable I could make the following motion:
That the report of the National Film Board of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, tabled on January 27, 1969, and the report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, tabled on January 30, 1969, be referred to the standing committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and that, for the purpose of its inquiry, the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the clerk and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the committee.
Perhaps if the house is agreeable to giving leave in this regard we could make it an order.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, it is acceptable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to examine the letters
setting out the arrangements concluded between the governments of Quebec and France on the occasion of the visit of Quebec government representatives to Paris last week. These documents could not of themselves constitute international agreements, and in this connection I have since noted the statements of representatives of the Quebec government that the documents were not intended by Quebec to constitute intergovernmental agreements. We shall be reiterating our position to the French authorities.

The Canadian government understands the desire of the government of Quebec to strengthen its ties through cultural, educational and scientific exhanges with France as contemplated by the 1965 cultural agreement between Canada and France. This is a desire which the Canadian government fully shares and in the fulfilment of which it is more than willing to co-operate.

Two of the exchanges contemplate activities extending beyond the framework of the cultural agreement, notably in the fields of foreign investments and international telecommunications by satellite. Certain of the programs envisaged by these arrangements will require consultation with and the cooperation of the Canadian government. These matters should have been the subject of prior consultation with the Canadian government. We intend to pursue this point with the French authorities.
With regard to French investments, the Canadian government naturally welcomes the prospect of further increases in foreign investments in Quebec as in other parts of Canada within the framework of government policy on this question. Such investments could provide a significant contribution to the development of our expanding economy. I would not have thought, however, that arrangements of this kind would require to be embodied in an exchange of letters, as evidenced by what happened in the United Kingdom during the same trip. I assume that the two governments simply wished to underline the importance which they attach to co-operation in this area.
January 31. 1969
4982	COMMONS
Quebec and France Exchange of Letters
The French and Quebec authorities also contemplate co-operation in the use of the Franco-German Symphonie experimental satellite and envisage studies relating to a possible France-Quebec communications satellite.
In this connection I should reiterate that the Canadian government has adopted, in the matter of space communications, a very active policy consistent with its exclusive responsibilities for telecommunications and with the interests of the country including those of Quebec and of French Canadians throughout the land. I might mention, as is well known to members of this house, that a third Canadian satellite was put into orbit just a few days ago.
We have established ourselves as pioneers in space research and have had exchanges for years with a number of leading countries in this field, France included. As a matter of fact three French engineers have come to Canada for training. As for the Symphonie program, we have long since indicated to the governments involved Canada's willingness to consider the extent to which Canadian cooperation might prove beneficial to all concerned. What is required in my view is a willingness to approach in a generally cooperative spirit the various projects contemplated in this field where the Canadian government has an essential role to play. This will guarantee maximum effectiveness in achieving the common objectives of the government's concerned and, I may add, maximum economy which I am sure appeals to the government of Quebec just as much as it appeals to the Government of Canada.
In this instance it seems to me that as the participation of the federal government will be required in any satellite scheme and therefore consultations will of necessity be involved, it would have been preferable for the Quebec government to be willing to take into its confidence the government of the country and to disclose its intentions before making them known and including them in letters of intent to the government of another country. This is all the more true since the plans concerning the visit to Paris and the satellite arrangements were apparently approved by the Quebec government months ago.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I received the text of the minister's remarks just as I entered the house. They concern a subject of some complexity and consequently my remarks may not


be quite as profound as they usually are on a subject of this sort. But there are one or two points I would like to make in a constructive manner, and not so as to contribute in any way to an escalation or a deepening of the difficulties that already exist. Certainly I want to make the point beyond any doubt that whatever happens the essential authority of the government of Canada in connection with foreign policy and diplomatic relations must be preserved. But there has obviously been a dispute for some time between the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada as to the circumstances and the degree to which it is proper for a provincial government to have dealings abroad. There are some real doubts in this field, some of which cannot be satisfied. As I understand it, for example, it is not possible today for the government of Canada to sign an international agreement which involves a provincial legislature to carry out such an agreement. I do not think we can regard such a gap as entirely satisfactory in a country such as ours.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
I think there is also a genuine question as to how we really achieve representation abroad in a field entirely within the provincial jurisdiction and how we really establish a delegation that can represent Canada in this area. I do not ask these questions to be controversial but simply for the purpose of stressing the importance of these matters being seriously and urgently discussed. I hope that the federal-provincial conference in February will discuss these matters between the Government of Canada and all the provinces, not simply in the form of a confrontation but with a view to de-escalating the dispute that has been taking place, and to try to reach a firm and satisfactory understanding in these areas under dispute.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this matter being resolved. I do not for a moment minimize the difficulty about reaching a complete solution, or expect a complete solution to be reached in the course of one federal-provincial conference, but I do stress the hope that this subject will be on the agenda and that any discussions which take place at the federal-provincial conference will be seriously followed up. We do want genuine co-operation; we do want to eliminate all possible areas of dispute between the federal government and the provinces; we do want to eliminate any grey areas which may exist and which may lead to further disputes.
January 31, 1969

It may not be necessary, but I should like to urge upon members of the government the importance, first of all, of trying to settle these matters in discussion with the provinces generally, the importance of trying to reach a satisfactory settlement, and of course the importance of recognizing that the spirit of co-operation must work both ways if it is to be effective.
I am confident that the members of this government will in fact try to work out this problem in a co-operative way, but I draw attention to the urgency of working it out in advance, so that it does not recur time and time again in the form of disputes over specific questions which have the effect of generating heat and making an ultimate solution more difficult as time goes on.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I cannot but note, and note with approval, the careful language and the mildness of the reproof to the two governments involved, contained in the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, particularly to the government of the great and friendly nation of France. Perhaps, since I am not a member of the government, I can say as one Canadian that I am beginning to be rather irritated by the way in which the mischievous old man in Paris seeks to add to our difficulties in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I wish to join with the Leader of the Opposition in emphasizing, if emphasis is necessary, that the entire question of international relations in respect of areas which are under provincial jurisdiction does require continuing study with the provinces, and a solution which is of a general nature so as to avoid these confrontations from time to time.
I have always felt unhappy as a Canadian that there should be many conventions and the like to which Canada has subscribed at various international organizations, but has been unable to ratify or implement because of the nature of jurisdiction inside this country.
May I say that I was a little surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to feel there was something undesirable about the letters exchanged in connection with investments. There is nothing new about provinces seeking foreign investment. Many of the provinces of Canada have been doing this over a long period of time.
DEBATES	4983
Quebec and France Exchange of Letters
We do agree entirely that in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction like telecommunications, it is important for the government of Canada to remain and to be firm, to insist that in that field the government of Canada must be consulted, that it must have the initiative and must continue to have exclusive jurisdiction, even though in practice part of the exercise of that jurisdiction may be delegated to the provinces within their own exclusive field.
Therefore we approve both of the firmness which is implied in the statement, and the necessarily careful language in which that firmness was expressed.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated yesterday, I think, in answer to a question, that he was studying the correspondence between Quebec and France regarding their latest arrangements and today he made a statement to the effect that he has studied those agreements.
Hon. members have not had, like him the good fortune to study the correspondence exchanged by the governments of Quebec and France, but I think that, reading the statement made this morning by the minister, one cannot help but feel that we are a little sensitive when Quebec has dealings with France.
The minister recognized that the signing of those agreements between the governments of Canada and France dates back to 1965 and that the latest arrangements made between the French government and the government of Quebec are meant only to continue those agreements.
It seems that two criticisms are implied in the minister's statement. When France plans to invest more in Quebec, we think it is normal and when it means that Quebec will get into debt, even if the investments come from France, we think that it is logical and that the government of Quebec has not gone too far.
However, when the French government signs letters of intent with the government of Quebec, regarding education, we become a bit nervous. I feel that we get nervous a little too easily, as the next federal-provincial conference will have to settle the question of telecommunications which comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the question of education which comes within the exclusive competence of the provinces. If today the minister seems to say that the government of Quebec should have put more trust in the government of the country, I
January 31, 1963
4984	COMMONS
Quebec and France Exchange of Letters think that cuts both ways because the federal government has been interfering in fields of provincial jurisdiction long before today. I will quote one example only which comes to my mind this morning, since we have very little time.
It is about the adult education program set up by the Department of Manpower, and under which those who are in charge of courses in the various provinces have to follow the instructions of the federal government. The Quebec government and other provincial governments have suffered, in several circumstances, from the fact that the central government had interfered in fields outside its jurisdiction, and had taken unfair advantage of its rights as the central authority, because it was the first to do something. In my opinion, the Quebec government is getting nervous, and it was anxious to make the first move to make sure that education by satellite would at least be carried out between France and Quebec.
Now, nothing prevents the federal government from putting into effect any technological progress in the field of satellite communications, since it concerns telecommunications. If, on the one hand, the federal government deems advisable to take an interest in that field because it feels that it can afford it, and if, on the other hand, it doubts, as the Prime Minister said in the house a few days ago, whether Quebec is still financially in a position to meet the cost of the Quebec-French satellite, then it should take action because, in my opinion, Quebec has been one of the provinces in Confederation that has paid its share and has not been among the least taxed.
Today, one is amazed that Quebec is still in good shape financially, which, in my view is insulting for the French Canadians and the Quebec population. The Quebec government went rather far-let us admit it-on a matter which has not been settled yet. We are speaking of satellites, a field which falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and of education, which falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Provinces are given responsibilities with regard to roads, education and in many other fields, but the federal government holds the purse strings. In fact, it has the power to tax and to control money whilst administrative responsibilities in several fields fall on the provinces. That is when conflicts arise, not only in the field of satellites, education or telecommunications, but as far as financial matters are concerned. The provinces have responsibilities, but the power to fulfill such


responsibilities remain in the hands of the federal government.
I therefore hope that at the close of the federal-provincial conference which is to take place within a few days, we shall get something more than a press release stating: We have found out that problems exist in Canada, but we are expecting to come out with a solution at the next federal-provincial conference.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether his government intends to implement a suggestion made by the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, that the site of Expo '67 should be used to house a centre of international development? Also, has any progress been made in implementing a decision announced in the Speech from the Throne opening this session regarding an international development centre in Canada?


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, we learned only yesterday that Montreal would not continue with Man and His World. It is too early for us to know what should be done with this area. To answer the second part of the question, the Centre for International Development has been the subject of a great deal of study by the Department of External Affairs, and especially by the Canadian International Development Agency. When we present our white paper on external policy I think we will be in a position to suggest what we wish to do with the Centre for International Development.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realize the Prime Minister has not had too much time overnight to consider the matter, but is the government prepared to consider seriously the suggestion of Mr. Pearson about the use of the site of Expo '67? Is the government prepared to look into this matter seriously at this time?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that overnight I have not had a chance
January 31, 1969



to give any consideration to this question. The land itself, except for a very small portion of it which is federal property, belongs to the city of Montreal. We cannot make any suggestions now about what we want to do with this city of Montreal land. If the city is prepared to dispose of it in some way, then we will consider the matter.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since the question of Expo is brought up again, this morning 1 should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does he think that Quebec is in a good enough financial condition to take over the operations of Expo 67?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that the question as asked is in order.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the grinding to a halt, under a long series of deficits, of Man and His World reflects accurately man and his world as exemplified by Canada at the present time, and the way we are living in Canada?


Mr. Benson:: We are not finished by any means.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
When a problem occurred in Nova Scotia about the coal industry, the federal government invested $30 million to assist 4,000 laid off employees. The federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must ask a question and not deliver a speech.


André-Gilles Fortin: Since the federal government, as I said a while ago, had then decided to take an emergency measure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that he must ask a question and not make a speech.


André-Gilles Fortin: Agreed, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister not take a similar attitude
Inquiries of the Ministry
about "Man and His World" at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to understand Mr. Speaker, how I can take a similar attitude about "Man and His World". The question does not make sense.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question may not make sense, but it is very simple.
In the past, in cases of major problems, the federal government has helped by way of direct financial assistance and I wonder whether such an intervention would be possible for "Man and His World", and if the government will do something as it did before in Nova Scotia for the coal industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member does not raise a point of order, he repeats the same question. Perhaps the Prime Minister wishes to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to an intervention from the federal government; I presume he believes that the government should offer a subsidy. I would like to remind hon. members what they already know, that the federal government has made a substantial contribution for the success of Expo. In fact, I think the share of the Canadian people in Expo reached over $140 million. If we were to renew those contributions, the hon. member would have to agree that we spend less money in his riding, in the Gaspe region, that we cut expenses for the international airport, etc.
We do not print money no matter what the hon. member thinks, and the point is to know whether the continuation of Expo has priority over all other government policies. If the hon. member suggests that we should stop a present undertaking in the province of Quebec, in order to help Expo, we shall think about it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary secretary if the federal government intends to take special steps to assist the employees to be laid off due to the closing of "Man and His World"? That is a federal matter and the government will have to print money to extricate itself.

January 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


INDIAN AFFAIRS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since there is growing and disturbing evidence of very difficult housing conditions among our native Indian peoples, will the minister tell the house whether his department is giving particular and urgent attention to this problem and whether concrete plans for dealing with it are being developed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there has been for several years a program for the construction of houses for the Indians of Canada. Under this program, in force for the last three and a half years, 5,500 new houses have been built and we expect to complete it during the next three years. The government's purpose is to give decent housing to each family within this period of time. The program, which was to be for five years, was extended to seven years.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the program has obviously proved inadequate and that some 500 homes cannot possibly deal with it, is the minister and the department considering allocating a much larger amount of money and creating more effective agencies to increase the number of homes for the Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the situation. I am deeply concerned and we are endeavouring to formulate perhaps more effective policies with a view to ensuring better housing conditions. However, I should like the hon. member to recognize that we have made considerable progress in that field in the last few years.


David Lewis: Another supplementary question. This is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister in charge of housing. May I say, Mr. Speaker, I do not

quite agree he has made much progress, even though he did make some. In the report which the minister tabled the other day he recognized that the native people who do not come under the department of Indian affairs are suffering from shameful housing conditions. In view of the not very concrete recommendation in the report-and I have other adjectives which are not in order-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to ask his question.


David Lewis: I am coming to the question. I would like to ask the minister whether he is considering allocating more adequate funds for the building ol homes for the native people of this country?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: There are two pilot projects under way at the present time, which are being pursued with dispatch. I think we have to engage in projects in these areas because there was inadequate research to really know exactly what should be done. I think it is a good idea to carry out these projects, and then to evaluate them, before going into a program of master building in these areas. As was recommended, this should be a continuous process; but I do think there is so much to be learned in these areas one should be very careful to make sure each program is evaluated before making it the basis for a wide program.


David Lewis: We need homes.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence in order to allay consternation which I am sure is rampant in the armed services this morning, due to a news report in the Globe and Mail apparently quoting the Auditor General. This article is to the effect that it is the intention of the government to delay payment of armed services pensions to retired members of the armed services until they reach the age of 60. Since there must be some error in this, would the minister give us the facts?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the article could not be more inaccurate, I am sorry to say. With regard to pensions, there is no change planned in respect of servicemen retiring after 20 or more years service or reaching
January 31, 1369

retirement age, according to their rank. What we are planning to do is give an additional option to serving members who retire after 20 years service. The only choice they now have is the return of contributions. We want to give them the option of a deferred annuity at the age of 60, which is a far cry from what the article states.


John Angus MacLean: The minister stated this option was open to personnel who have served 20 years or more. Did he not mean
personnel who have served for 10 years or less?	.


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: I thought I said 10 years; in any event I mean between 10 and 20 years.


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think I should also state that at the present time the only choice for personnel retiring voluntarily is the return of contributions. This new option allows for a deferred annuity, if this is preferred. It must be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that this would have to be in the form of legislation introduced in the house, and is now under government study.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if progress is being made in connection with his stated hope that by spring something would be done to increase the pensions of those already retired?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Progress is being made, I am sure, by the Department of Finance, which is co-ordinating our efforts.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Very little.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the Minister or Finance make a statement on the progress being made by him in connection with the pensions of all our federal superannuates?


An hon. Member:: Come on Scrooge!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we are still examining the problem.


FINANCE
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the fact that Mr. Graham Towers, the first governor of the Bank of Canada, said yesterday that the federal budget is clearly out of control, does the Minister of Finance intend to call Mr. Towers before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs to find out what his grounds are?


Mr. Speaker:: The member is obviously alluding to the proceedings of a committee and I doubt that the question can be put to the minister himself in those terms.


AIRPORT
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does he intend to announce soon what site has been chosen for the new international airport?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question, almost word for word, has been put several times in the last few days.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now in a position to inform the house and the country of the reaction of the government of Iraq to the representations made by the Canadian government in connection with the slaughter of a number of persons during the last week?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in that position. I have not yet received a report.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, in view of the seriousness of the situation, does he not think that communication should be a little faster at a time like this? Is it not about time to make an announcement on the part of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: He's going too slow for
me.
January 31, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPBUILDING


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to give a report to the house on the progress of discussions reportedly going on between Canadian Vickers and the Government concerning 800 lay-offs in the shipbuilding industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: We had a meeting yesterday with the Shipbuilding Association, of which Canadian Vickers is a member, and reviewed the situation of shipbuilding in Canada. Two things were decided: First, that the government would recognize the importance of shipbuilding in Canada, and we do; second, that a committee of industry and government would be formed to study the situation as it now exists and will be in the next year or so. We agreed and the committee will make recommendations to the government.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: May I ask if the Minister of Transport attended this meeting? If so, did he put forward the case for the merchant marine as forcibly as did the government during the last election compaign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I find that I did not give an adequate answer to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). I gave a general answer without mentioning the Vickers in particular.
I should like here to refer the hon. member to a statement made yesterday by the president of Vickers-it was published in Le Devoir on January 30-to the effect that he recognizes the difficulties the shipbuilding industry is going through. He says however that the maintenance and repairs side of it is doing very well and that 50 per cent of his company's business comes from its industrial branch, which gets help from the federal government.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.f



HOUSING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister responsible for housing. In view of the opinion stated today by the Canadian Welfare Council that proposals of the task force on housing contain no proposals to help poorly housed Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should ask the question directly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am
ready. Could the minister say what proposals if any he has in mind to help the one million Canadians with incomes under $5,500?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked by the hon. member is very wide in scope. I would think she is asking the minister for a statement on policy which should not be made at this time.



NELSON RIVER, MAN.-ALLEGED HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the federal government been given an opportunity to evaluate a so-called secret report submitted to the government of Manitoba concerning power development on the Nelson River which report reputedly claims that present plans may be harmful to at least four viable communities including the port of Churchill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. He should not make an argument.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has the minister had an opportunity to see this so-called report and evaluate its harmful effect on at least four communities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It has not been brought to my attention, if it exists, but I would be glad to make inquiries.



VANCOUVER, B.C.-MOVEMENT TO LOAD SHIPS IN PORT

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question
January 31, 1969
of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in reference to grain. I wonder at this time whether he can assure the House of Commons and the country whether there is now sufficient No. 2 northern grain being moved to Vancouver to load the ships which have been lying idle for so long.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the purpose of the operation that is taking place now, but I will have occasion in the next three or four days to see for myself. I will make a more specific answer when I return.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether, when the minister makes the trip and the investigation, he will assure the house that we have not lost any of our markets, particularly the Japanese market.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the crisis in the British Columbia salmon fishing industry and the imminent closure of coastal salmon packing operations affecting the livelihood of over 600 workers will the minister say what action is planned by the government to restore some stability to the industry in which two pioneer firms have been driven out of business?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the question in a very general way. He is asking the minister to make a statement of policy. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would like to ask what action the government is taking in this regard.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: should like to make clear that the salmon fishing industry on the west coast, over all, is in good shape. However, some areas are in difficulties. We have been holding discussions recently with the Indian people who live in those areas.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Arising from the meetings held in Terrace, British Columbia, by the minister, and the representations made to him by Indian workers affected by the lay-offs at the packing plant, and by the 3,000 29180-316
Inquiries of the Ministry people in those families, will the minister say whether he is making any recommendations to the government to accelerate its economic development program for Indians in that area.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on my return from Terrace I immediately got in touch with the Minister of Fisheries. We discussed that problem and we are trying to find a solution for those 300 Indians who may suffer from the after-effects of automation. We are also considering schemes that would enable us to promote other economic activities in the area.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a nuclear physicist from the University of Toronto suggested last weekend that scientific research in this country is in a very unfortunate state, I wonder whether the Minister without Portfolio-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that hon. members are getting into the rather bad habit of prefacing their questions by allusion to statements made outside the house. I would think this is not good practice. The hon. member should ask the question directly.


John Edward Broadbent: I will do so, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt inform the house when he anticipates his review of government scientific research programs will be complete.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I have a little difficulty understanding which review the hon. member is referring to.


John Edward Broadbent: I was not aware that the minister was conducting more than one review on scientific policy. If so would he tell us which review he intends to report on first.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE AVAILABILITY OF POSITION PAPERS AND AGENDA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask



January 31, 1969
Inquiries oj the Ministry the right hon. Prime Minister a question relating to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. Is he prepared to release to the house and to the country generally the federal position papers, so that the members of the house and the country will be more fully informed and be able to follow the discussions. Also is the Prime Minister in a position to release the agenda for the conference?


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the leader of the New Democratic party, earlier, I believe I indicated some dates we were proposing. These dates have been accepted by the general consensus of the provinces. The result will be that on Monday next the secretariat will release its report of the committee of officials, and also the agenda, whereas most of the provinces will be releasing on the following Thursday, next Thursday, their position papers on various propositions they will submit at the constitutional conference. One or two provinces may not observe this particular deadline, but that is the one that has been reached in agreement with most of the provinces-next Thursday.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister explain the lag reported by the
O.E.C.D. between preliminary appropriation of external aid and the actual distribution of the aid to developing countries, and will he reassure us that measures will be taken to ensure that Canadian assistance approved by this parliament for developing countries reaches them more expeditiously.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would have thought that would be an excellent question to discuss on the estimates of the department. We will certainly be ready at that time. It is the object of the government to try to reduce this lag which has arisen for reasons, some of them very important reasons, and to ensure that our program is carried out well and quickly.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: In the light of the report by the O.E.C.D. that private Canadian contributions to international development have slackened, has the government any plan to encourage greater involvement by the private sector in international development projects.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



STUDENT LOANS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I posed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning foreign students who are here under our aid programs. I am wondering whether the minister is now in a position to answer the question. Apparently it took him a bit by surprise.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am still caught by surprise, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to be here today.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister for rural development whether he has an answer regarding the ARDA task force report.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The report to which my hon. friend refers I think is in respect of a joint study for the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. There must be concurrence on the part of the province in respect of making the report public. It is the joint opinion of the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia that publication would be premature.
The main finding of the report is that progress for these counties will depend on developments in the rest of the Atlantic region, and therefore there is more research for us to do jointly with the province, before development plans can be prepared.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this report I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary might confer with the minister and consider publication of those parts of the report which might be helpful to the over-all program of regional development?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to confer with the minister. The hon. member will understand, of course, that we would have to obtain concurrence from the government of Nova Scotia, but I will take this up with the minister.
January 31. 19G9	COMMONS



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburlon):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary-secretary. In view of the minister's concern about the dangerous hazards created by throwaway containers strewn about our highways and beaches, will he inform the house whether there have been any further negotiations on this matter between his department and the provinces?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's representation to the minister's attention.



HOUSING


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. May I first thank the hon. gentleman, as I meant to do on Wednesday, for his courtesy in providing opposition spokesmen with copies of his task force report. Has the minister studied the complaints of Mr. Suters of the Ontario Housing Corporation that some of its proposals have gone through C.M.H.C. to the Privy Council office and disappeared there, and what is being done to correct or explain this situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there has been no official word in respect of this matter. If my hon. friend is referring to a newspaper article, I can only say that there are, of course, some projects in the pipe line which are being studied. In the normal course, their disposition will depend on any policy decisions which may be taken in the meantime.



POSSIBILITY OF REFERRING TASK FORCE REPORT TO COMMITTEE

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and part time minister of housing. Is it the intention of the minister to refer the report of the task force on housing to the appropriate standing committee of the house in order that it may examine the outrageous recommendations in respect of housing and regional development?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
29180-316J
DEBATES	4991
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



POTATOES-COMMISSION TO SEEK EXPANDED MARKET

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which I asked last Friday but which seems to have resulted in some confusion in Hansard? It relates to the possibility of the minister's department establishing at the earliest possible date a trade mission for the purpose of seeking to expand the seed potato market, which is of vital importance in view of the very depressed market at the present time in the Atlantic region.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there has been no such request for a mission at this time, but there is provision in the department's promotional programs for an incoming trade mission on seed potatoes to take place this year. We also have plans to undertake additional trade missions to promote this commodity. I might mention that the total export movement of all potatoes thus far this season shows some improvement over the same period last year, and I have here statistics to demonstrate that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: At what price?



SALES OF HAIR SEAL SKINS

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I also answer quickly a question asked by the hon. member for St. John's West having to do with sales of hair seal skins. They have improved markedly in the past few months. Reports from the most recent auction sale indicate that prices have advanced 20 per cent since September, 1968, and that demand is strong.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 I directed a question to the Minister of Defence Production in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries. My question related to the opening date of the seal harvest in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Is the Minister of Fisheries prepared to make a statement as to the possibility of pushing that date ahead?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, current plans are for the Harp seal hunting season to open on March 7 this

January 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry year in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on March 12 on the Atlantic front. Further details as to quotas, hunting practices and so on will be announced at an early date.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would now stop beating around the bush and give us a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Melvin James McQuaid: -clear and unequivocal answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the alarming reports of repeated acts of violence affecting Indian and Metis people in the region of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development report to the house on conditions in Buffalo Narrows and indicate any special measures his department intends to take?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the matter raised by the hon. member. I shall inquire and report to the house next time I am in attendance.



MALNUTRITION IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES RESERVATIONS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I brought an instance to the attention of the minister of Indian affairs this morning and I do not want to repeat it, but I should like to ask whether he will have an immediate survey made of the Indian reservations in northern Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba with a view to ascertaining whether by reason of the long, cold winter many of the people on these reserves are suffering from malnutrition and have insufficient to eat?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for Prince Albert for telephoning me this morn-
ing. I immediately contacted my deputy minister and asked him to investigate the matter. This is very bad news and I do hope that it is unfounded.
At any rate, I shall report to the house early next week, and if anything needs to be done, we would take the appropriate measures.



TRANSPORT


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of housing and part time Minister of Transport. Will the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether questions could be asked in a way which could make it easier for the Chair to accept them.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the well known and favourable Minister of Transport whether he plans to attend any of the transport committee hearings which are to be held in the maritime provinces in the way he attended the meetings of the housing task force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I had not planned to do so, Mr. Speaker, but now that I know I am welcome I might give some consideration to the idea. I do plan to visit two or three maritime centres during the course of the next couple of months to review some matters of mutual interest to my hon. friend. I do not know whether this will coincide with the trip of the committee. Perhaps I will have to meet my friend down there on some other occasion which will have to be determined.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the meetings of the transport committee in the Atlantic region I wonder whether the minister has been in contact with his counterpart, the secretary of transport, or officials of the state of Maine, to consider the possibility of a corridor road, in view of various considerations that will be given by the transport committee during its hearings in that region?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid anything I might say in respect of a corridor road or other matters concerning the possibility of changes in maritime transportation policy might be considered a leak. This is a project of fascination, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very pleased to look at its possibilities
January 31, 1969

and discuss it with my hon. friends when we are considering transportation policies some time later in March.



EXHIBITIONS

[Stage Direction]
inquiry as to disposal of man and his

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can he tell us whether he was speaking on behalf of the government when he stated yesterday that even if the City of Montreal wanted to give Man and his World to the federal government, the latter would not even consider it.
Is that the official policy of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have never made such a statement.



HOUSING


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to indicate whether his department has under formal review or has given sympathetic consideration to the proposal that the ceiling on N.H.A. lending rates be completely removed? Could the minister say whether this is under review at the present time by his officials?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this would require a change in the National Housing Act which, if it were to occur, would be proposed by my colleague the minister responsible for housing.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I gather from the minister's reply that I should direct it to the Minister of Transport. I ask the Minister of Transport whether systematic consideration is being given at the present time to the proposition that the N.H.A. lending rate ceiling be removed entirely.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions raised by the task force. It is not a new idea, it is one that has been under debate for many years. It is, naturally, one that I will be
Ways and Means
considering, as the minister responsible for housing, in order to decide whether it should be amongst recommendations that I will make to my cabinet colleagues.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. When the ceiling is freed, does the minister expect the rates to be lower?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Edgar John Benson: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend Part IV of the Income Tax Act and to amend the Estate Tax Act to provide among other things:
1. That on and after October 23, 1968
(a)	the deductions and exemptions described in subsections (2) and (3) of section 112 of the Income Tax Act for the purposes of determining the aggregate taxable value of gifts made in a taxation year to be replaced by new deductions and exemptions, and in particular that a taxpayer be entitled to deduct
(i) the value of any gift to his spouse other than a gift by way of a settlement under which any person other than his spouse has, during the lifetime of the spouse a right of any kind whatsoever to receive or use any or all of the property so settled or a beneficial interest in any of the income from such property, and
(ii)	the value of the aggregate of gifts (other than gifts made by settling property in a trust other than a trust under which there is only one beneficiary, who is living at the time) made in the year by him to any one individual other than his spouse, to the extent that such value does not exceed $2,000,
(b)	the exemption described in paragraph (ba) of subsection (4) of section 112 of the said Act be restricted so that it no longer applies to transfers to a child if the spouse of the taxpayer has at any time taken advantage of the provision,
(c)	gifts made by a taxpayer shall include
(i)	transfers to a person other than the taxpayer's spouse pursuant to an agreement made in consideration of marriage,
(ii)	the exercising of a general power of appointment,
(iii)	the act of permitting a debt owed to a taxpayer by a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm's length, to become unenforceable by virtue of the operation of any law limiting the time for bringing action thereon,
(iv)	gifts made by a corporation at the direction of, or with the concurrence of, the taxpayer, and

January 31, 1969
Ways and Means
(v)	where the taxpayer is a beneficiary under a trust that has been used by the taxpayers spouse to make an exempt gift or bequest to the taxpayer, payments out of the trust unless such payments are in accordance with the original terms of the trust,
(d)	where a person has made a gift that was exempted from tax by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section 112 of the said Act and such gift takes effect prior to the death of that person or the donee obtains the benefit thereof prior to the death of that person, he shall be deemed to have made a gift equal to the full value of the property on the day such gifts takes effect or the donee obtains the benefit thereof, and
(e)	the rates of tax on gifts provided in section 113 of the said Act be repealed and that the tax payable by an individual upon the aggregate taxable value of gifts made by him in a taxation year shall be an amount equal to the excess of
(i)	the amount determined by applying the rate schedule set out below to his cumulative gift sum for the taxation year
over
(ii) the amount determined by applying the said rate schedule to his cumulative gift sum for the immediately preceding taxation year and for the purpose of this motion an individual's cumulative gift sum
(iii) for the 1968 taxation year, shall be the aggregate taxable value of gifts made by him after October 22, 1968 and before January 1, 1969, and
(iv)	for each taxation year after 1968, shall be the amount obtained when the aggregate taxable value of gifts made by him in the year is added to his cumulative gift sum for the immediately preceding taxation year,
and the rate schedule to be applied to an individual's cumulative gift sum shall be
(v)	12% where the sum does not exceed $15,000,
(vi)	$1,800 plus 15% of the amount by which the
sum	exceeds	$15,000	if	the	sum	exceeds	$15,000
and does not exceed $30,000,
(vii)	$4,050 plus 18% of the amount by which the
sum	exceeds	$30,000	if	the	sum	exceeds	$30,000
and does not exceed $45,000,
(viii)	$6,750 plus 22% of the amount by which the
sum	exceeds	$45,000	if	the	sum	exceeds	$45,000
and does not exceed $60,000,
(ix)	$10,050 plus 26% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $60,000 if the sum exceeds $60,000 and does not exceed $80,000,
(x)	$15,250 plus 30% of the amount by which the
sum	exceeds	$80,000	if	the	sum	exceeds	$80,000
and does not exceed $100,000,
(xi)	$21,250 plus 36% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $100,000 if the sum exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed $125,000,
(xii)	$30,250 plus 45% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $125,000 if the sum exceeds $125,000 and does not exceed $150,000,
(xiii)	$41,500 plus 60% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $150,000 if the sum exceeds $150,000 and does not exceed $200,000,
(xiv)	$71,500 plus 75% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $200,000 if the sum exceeds $200,000, and that a taxpayer's liability for gift tax for the taxation year 1968 shall be the aggregate of
(f)	an amount in respect of gifts made in the period January 1 to October 22, inclusive, computed in accordance with the present provisions

of Part IV of the said Act as though the said period were a complete taxation year, and
(g)	an amount in respect of gifts made in the period October 23 to December 31, inclusive, computed in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the said Act, as amended to give effect to this motion, as though the said period were a complete taxation year except that the value of gifts made to an individual in the period January 1 to October 22, inclusive, shall reduce the exemption described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (a) of this motion with respect to that individual,
and that, for the purposes of Part IV of the said Act, rules similar to certain of the valuation rules now set out in the Estate Tax Act be provided for valuation of property that is the subject-matter of a gift.
2. That with respect to property passing, on the death of a person whose death occurs after October 22, 1968
(a)	the deductions that may be made from the aggregate net value of such property for the purpose of computing the aggregate taxable value of such property pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 7 of the Estate Tax Act be replaced by the following deductions:
(i)	an amount equal to the value of any property included in computing such aggregate net value that vests indefeasibly in his spouse,
(ii)	an amount equal to the value of any property included in computing such aggregate net value that passes to a trustee subject to a trust under which only the spouse of the person has, during the spouse's lifetime, a right of any kind whatsoever to receive or use any of the property so settled or a beneficial interest in any of the income from such property.
(iii)	where property included in computing such aggregate net value passes to a trustee subject to a trust under which only the spouse of the person has, during the spouse's lifetime, a right of any kind whatsoever to receive any of the property so settled, and the spouse is to receive payments in ascertained amounts or in amounts limited by an ascertained maximum amount throughout the spouse's lifetime, which amounts are to be paid to the spouse out of the income from such property to the extent of such income, and in priority to the claim of any other person entitled to any interest whatsoever in the income from such property, the lesser of
(A)	an amount equal to the value of the property that passes to the trustee subject to the trust, or
(B)	the amount determined by regulation to be the capital sum necessary to produce income sufficient to make the payments to the spouse,
(iv)	for each child of that person, an amount equal to the lesser of the value of the property included in computing such aggregate net value that passes to the child or $10,000,
(v)	for each infirm child of that person who, at the date of death, was wholly dependent upon the person or the spouse of the person, an additional amount equal to the lesser of
(A) the product obtained when 1,000 is multiplied by the number of years in the period commencing with the date of death and ending with the date on which the child will, if ever, become 71 years of age, or
January 31, 1969

(B) the amount by which the value of the property included in computing such aggregate net value that passes to the child exceeds $10,000,
(vi)	for each child of that person, other than a child described in clause (v), an additional amount equal to the lesser of
(A)	the amount remaining, if any, when the excess of the average income of the child for the three calendar years preceding the year of death over $5,000 is deducted from the product obtained when $1,000 is multiplied by the number of years in the period commencing with the date of death and ending with the date on which the child will, if ever, become 26 years of age, or
(B)	the amount by which the value of the property included in computing such aggregate net value that passes to the child exceeds $10,000, but that where such death occurred before August 1, 1969, there may also be deducted the amount, if any, by which
(vii)	the aggregate of the amounts that would have been deductible under the said paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 7 exceeds,
(viii)	the aggregate of $20,000 and the sum of the amounts that are deductible under clauses (i) to
(vi), inclusive, above,
(b)	there shall be included in computing the aggregate net value of property passing on the death of such person
(i)	the amount of gift tax paid by the person in respect of property disposed of by him by way of gift after October 22, 1968, which property is included in computing the aggregate net value of property passing on his death,
(ii)	an amount equal to the value at the date of death of such person of property held at such time by a trustee subject to a trust described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, under which only such person had any beneficial interest during that person's lifetime,
(iii)	an amount equal to the value at the date of death of such person of property held at such time by a trustee subject to a trust if, at the time property was settled in the trust, the settlement was exempt from gift tax by virtue of a provision of the Income Tax Act based upon clause (i) of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this motion, and
(iv)	an amount equal to the lesser of
(A)	the	value at the time	of	death	of suchperson of property held at such time by a trustee subject to	a trust described	in	clause	(iii) of
subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, under which such person was the spouse referred to in that clause, or
(B)	the	amount that was,	by	virtue	of that
clause, deducted in computing the aggregate taxable value of property passing on the death of the former spouse of that person,
(c)	subsection (1) of section 8 of the said Act be repealed and that the tax payable upon the aggregate taxable value of the property passing on the death of a person shall be an amount equal to the excess of
(i)	the amount determined by applying the rate schedule set out below to his estate sum
over
(ii)	the amount determined by applying the rate schedule set out below to his gift sum
and for the purposes of this motion a deceased person's estate sum shall be the aggregate of
Ways and Means
(iii)	the aggregate taxable value of property passing on his death,
(iv)	the amount of his cumulative gift sum for the year in which he died, less the amount included in the computation thereof in respect of property included in the aggregate net value of property passing on his death, and
(v)	the amount of gift tax that would be imposed in respect of a cumulative gift sum equal in amount to the net amount referred to in clause (iv),
and a deceased person's gift sum shall be the aggregate of $20,000 plus the amounts referred to in clause (iv) and (v), and the rate schedule to be applied to a deceased person's estate sum or gift sum, as the case may be, shall be
(vi)	nil where the sum does not exceed $20,000,
(vii)	15% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $20,000 if the sum exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $40,000,
(viii)	$3,000 plus 18% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $40,000 if the sum exceeds $40,000 and does not exceed $60,000,
(ix)	$6,600 plus 21% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $60,000 if the sum exceeds $60,000 and does not exceed $80,000,
(x)	$10,800 plus 24% of the amount by which the sum exceeds $80,000 if the sum exceeds $80,000 and does not exceed $100,000,
(xi)	$15,600 plus 27% of the amount by which
the	sum	exceeds	$100,000	if	the	sum	exceeds
$100,000 and does not exceed $130,000,
(xii)	$23,700 plus 30% of the amount by which
the	sum	exceeds	$130,000	if	the	sum	exceeds
$130,000 and does not exceed $160,000,
(xiii)	$32,700 plus 35% of the amount by which
the	sum	exceeds	$160,000	if	the	sum	exceeds
$160,000 and does not exceed $200,000,
(xiv)	$46,700 plus 40% of the amount by which
the	sum	exceeds	$200,000	if	the	sum	exceeds
$200,000 and does not exceed $250,000,
(xv)	$66,700 plus 45% of the amount by which
the	sum	exceeds	$250,000	if	the	sum	exceeds
$250,000 and does not exceed $300,000, and
(xvi)	$89,200 plus 50% of the amount by which
the	sum	exceeds	$300,000	if	the	sum	exceeds


[Stage Direction]
(d)	an executor or successor may elect to pay all or any part of the tax payable by him in such number (not exceeding six) of equal consecutive annual instalments as is specified by him in his election, on condition of payment by him of interest at such rate as is prescribed by the regulations at the time of the making of the election.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, on division.
Motion concurred in.
4996	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-165, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, be now read the first time and be printed.


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


Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading and reference to a committee of the whole of Bill C-162, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had before us earlier this year amendments to the cash advance legislation which doubled the amount of the advance available to farmers and which has been made great use of by prairie farmers since it was enacted. To date a total of $127 million has been advanced to farmers, a total of 72,000 producers, under the amendments and the previous act. This is approximately double the amount which was advanced in any previous whole year, the previous record having been in 1960-61 when 76,000 producers received a total of $64 million by way of advance. Hon. members are aware of the difficult harvesting conditions which affected last year's crop and of the importance of drying that part of the crop which was harvested in tough or damp condition.
The existing drying facilities in the terminals will not be able to dry more than a limited amount of the grain involved. As a result, there is a significant burden on the farmers of this region to dry the grain themselves. They are proceeding in this direction, but in some cases a shortage of ready cash and the credit situation in which they find themselves may be impeding the drying operation.
With a view to correcting this situation, this bill would further amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to provide for emergency cash advances, interest free, for the purpose of drying grain on the farms. The legislation proposed would allow permit holders to apply for a further advance notwithstanding the fact that they had previously obtained an advance, indeed the maximum advance, otherwise allowed under the act. They would be allowed to apply for an

DEBATES	January 31, 1969
advance to a maximum of $600. The security for the advance would be undelivered grain on the farm. The bill provides, therefore, for cash advances, interest free, for the purpose of drying grain or for paying the costs for grain which has recently been dried. There is a significant quantity of grain to be dried, and it is hoped this legislation will permit the prompt movement of that grain to the dryers so that maximum use will be made of the fairly considerable grain-drying equipment which exists in the prairie provinces.
It is our hope that this legislation will pass quickly. The government has been in consultation with the Wheat Board about implementing the legislation as soon as it becomes law. The Wheat Board will be in a position to undertake the necessary administrative steps so that the advances will be available in short order. I therefore urge hon. members to join in the enactment of this legislation to make available to farmers who need this additional cash, interest free, the amount they need in the shortest possible time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings to mind the fact that between 1952 and 1957 Her Majesty's loyal opposition pressed for action to be taken by way of legislation to permit cash advances on farm stored wheat. Successive ministers of trade and commerce and the government as a whole said it could not be done, that it was an impossibility. Within a few days of our taking office we brought in this legislation which has been continued, as have other pieces of legislation passed under my administration although criticized at the time.
This is of interest to the minister because I recall-I say this in the best of good spirit- that a few days after the general election he said that he expected to be minister of justice but he would settle for the ministry of agriculture. This apparently is one step forward in the general direction of the latter portfolio, certainly not the former.
The minister has very carefully refrained from giving the facts of the serious situation in western Canada. The amount of wheat in western Canada still undried is 217 million bushels, of which 108 million bushels are in the province of Saskatchewan. The drying operations have been comparatively small, although not insignificant. The total amount of wheat dried on the farms is estimated to be as follows: in Saskatchewan, 16.9 million bushels; Alberta, 12.9 million bushels; Manitoba, 12.3 million bushels. So far as the
January 31, 1969	COMMONS
interior government elevators are concerned, they too have been as nonchalant regarding this matter as has been the government. In November the total amount dried in internal elevators was 372,000 bushels; in December,
1.042.000	bushels, and up to January 17, 833,000. What does this mean? It is just further evidence of the fact that this government has no appreciation of the seriousness of the emergency on the prairies.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Recently the minister was in Saskatoon speaking to the annual meeting of the chamber of commerce and he carefully refrained from dealing with this problem but instead gave his views as to the appropriateness and worthwhileness of rule 16A. He said how helpful it was and that if it had been enacted it would have been beneficial to democracy as a whole and to parliamentary government in particular. He stayed away from the problem that the farmers face.
I doubt that this government has any knowledge whatever of the feelings of frustration among the farmers of western Canada. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) told us today that he is going to the coast to see how things are at the port of export. I wish he would go to Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta and make a couple of speeches there. I am sure he would be received with hospitality and kindness. I am also sure he would be received with the utmost disdain for the attitude of this government in failing to act.
What have we here? We have a measure which in my opinion constitutes a piddling attempt to meet a serious problem. The farmers are going to be allowed to secure advances up to $600 to enable them to dry their wheat. The marketing of wheat is in a serious position because the government will not act and will not appoint a traffic controller even though at this very moment some
7.000	or 8,000 Canadian freight cars which should be in Canada and have the capacity to carry wheat are in the United States. Why is something not done in that direction? Only one quarter of the driers are being used in Saskatchewan because of the fact that the cold weather has made it impossible to utilize the driers that are there. This bill is just a makeshift measure designed to conceal the failure of this government to act.
We see the same thing happening in every field. We had an example today when I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs 29180-317
DEBATES	4997
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act (Mr. Sharp) what is being done about Iraq. The answer was that the government has not had any word yet. It is a nonchalant government, a non-active government, a government that produces a just society that is unjust to everybody, and in particular at the moment to the farmers of western Canada.
What will this measure do? It will enable the farmers to borrow some more money without paying interest thereon for the purpose of doing work which the government should be contributing to doing rather than passing the buck to the farmer. The minister stated a moment ago that the responsibility in this matter lies with the farmer. That philosophy may be all right in Ottawa, but I would like the minister to utter remarks of this kind in western Canada. It is something that is totally unjustifiable. There is no use trying to press the government to act.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is engaged at the moment in a deep conversation when we are dealing with a problem for which his responsibility is very great and in which his conduct has been apathetic from the beginning. This government will not act, as was apparent when the minister said today that it lies with the farmers to dry their own wheat. If this is how the minister exercises his responsibility, I can only say that the situation for the western farmer is hopeless. The government is saying to him: "We will advance you the money up to the extent of $600 so that you can do the drying", when the fact is that it cannot be done because of climatic conditions and because of the shortage of driers available for the purpose. This is just another example of buck-passing in place of action.
What should the government have done? Why is action not being taken, this being a national emergency more serious than any in the last 35 years in western Canada? Why is assistance not being given? The Wheat Pool and other organizations have asked for a direct grant to the farmer. I noticed that the minister did not deal with that phase at all. The bill calls for the provincial and federal governments to assist the individual farmer with a direct payment of 5 cents per bushel for wheat that is dried up to a maximum of $200 per farmer. There is no excuse for leaving this problem on the shoulders of the western farmer as suggested a few moments ago by the minister as a solution to the problem. Our position in western Canada is a desperate one and calls for action from the government.
4998	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a tremendous capacity for affability. He smiles.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is something.


John George Diefenbaker: He smiles attractively. He can take his place anywhere, even in Hollywood, when it comes to his capacity to smile. But what is needed is action.
Now let me point out one other phase in connection with the farm problem today, and it is all part and parcel of the same problem. It has to do with the sale of low grade wheat by farmers to feed mills. Farmers cannot market their wheat but they have to get rid of it. The result is that they are selling their wheat at 80 to 90 cents a bushel. So far as barley is concerned, they are selling it at 40 cents a bushel whereas going prices are $1.80, and No. 3 wheat, to which I made reference a moment ago, is around $1.90. Thirty-six million bushels were sold by farmers directly in 1968. The reason for that is that the farmers have this wheat on hand. They see the spring coming and they have to get rid of it so they take what they can get.
With all the power I can put into my words I ask the government as a major step to provide something in the nature of acreage payments. However, if this is not possible it should carry out the wishes of the western farmers, supported by the wheat pools and the farm organizations, by providing the farmers with at least 5 cents a bushel-some say 10 cents, the actual cost of drying being 10 cents. But I say 5 cents with a maximum amount to a farmer of $200. If the government would do something like this they would get things moving.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
This legislation is all right as far as it goes but it does not go very far. It is just another example of the uncertain, nonchalant and lackadaisical way in which the government is approaching one of the most serious problems Canada has ever faced, the like of which the western provinces have never seen before. Even though the minister did not become Minister of Agriculture, a portfolio he was prepared to accept as a last resort if he could not become minister of justice, I should like to see him take a stand now on behalf of the farmers of western Canada. Many of his own constituents are in a desperate position. This legislation, though it should pass, is merely a step. What is required is a direct payment to the farmer to encourage drying operations

DEBATES	January 31, 1969
and compensate him for the loss he has suffered through no fault of his own by reason of climatic conditions.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I say at the outset that the real question confronting us as we discuss this proposal is: does it meet the existing problem? As a member of this house and as a farmer I am bound to consider whether it meets the situation now facing agriculture in western Canada. This legislation apparently embodies what the government is prepared to do, and since the government is advancing it I presume that hon. members opposite consider it sufficient to cope with the situation.
With regard to the amount of grain of all kinds to be dried in western Canada, all we have at present are estimates. There is the flat statement by the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. McNamara, that only a relatively small proportion can be dried in the commercial facilities at the terminals and elsewhere and that the bulk of it will have to be dried on the farms. From the various estimates which have been made I suspect that some 300 million to 350 million bushels of damp grain on the prairies will have to be dried on the farms.
The proposal in this bill is that a loan of 10 cents a bushel up to a certain maximum be made available to farmers to enable them to cope with this problem. One of the main drawbacks is that the money is to be advanced in the form of a loan.
Suppose an area in Canada, as has happened from time to time, were to be afflicted by a disaster of outsize proportions. Surely we would recognize it as such and take measures to give the necessary assistance. I suggest to this house that the grain growing areas of Canada are facing such an emergency today. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just said, it is a disaster without precedent. I have farmed in western Canada all my life and in all my experience I have seen nothing like it. On top of this is the grain delivery situation. What we are telling farmers in this bill is, in effect: you have been able to borrow so much money because you cannot sell your grain; now you can borrow so much more money in order to dry it. But the farmer knows he will not be able to sell his product even after it has been dried, so his obligations will mount. Some may ask why the farmer does not stick his neck out since he cannot lose. Well, he has got it out about as far as he can put it right now.
January 31. 1969	COMMONS
The biggest shortcoming in the government's present approach is that the farmer is being asked to undertake an additional obligation in extremely adverse circumstances. The physical difficulty of drying this grain is enough in itself for the farmer to contend with. Indeed, I have serious doubts that it will be possible to dry all the grain and put it in condition before it starts to spoil next spring. I mentioned the physical difficulty of getting the grain dried. With the weather on the prairies as it is now it is very hard to get equipment moving to do the job. There will only be a very short period during which an all-out effort will have to be made if losses are to be prevented.
This grain is a valuable asset. We know from experience in Canada that though we may at times have surpluses there are other times when we can dispose of those surpluses.
I contend there is urgency here. I try to be honest. I try to be objective. But I do not think the degree of the urgency was realized by the government in time. It may be they are realizing it now-I sincerely hope so-but a great deal of effort was required in order to bring the matter effectively before the house.
I wish to read now a letter which was sent to Mr. McNamara, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, a copy of which was sent to me. This letter is from Eston in west central Saskatchewan where I farm- one of the best wheat growing areas in Western Canada. It was written on behalf of the congregation of St. Andrew's United Church in Eston, Saskatchewan and reads as follows:
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The congregation of St. Andrew's United, Eston, Saskatchewan instructed us to write to you in relation to the present crisis in wheat shipment to the west coast. We live in an area which is almost totally dependent on grain sales. This past year has been most difficult on both farmers and business dependent on them.
Our concern is twofold, the desire to sell the wheat which is presently stored in elevators and farm granaries, and to provide the hungry with the sustenance of life, bread. It seems a shame that hungry and starving people should be denied bread when we are glutted with grain. The fact that so many ships are waiting in Vancouver harbour to load grain, which hasn't been delivered to the terminals, adds to the concern.
We realize that there are many factors involved, not the least of which has been the shipment and drying of damp and tough grain. However, it seems that with some insight into prospective wheat sales that there should have been dry grain waiting in the terminals for shipment. It would appear to us that someone was negligent in his duty.
DEBATES	4999
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
This is the people on the farms speaking.
There are millions of bushels of wheat here on the prairies that could be used to meet the needs of all our wheat customers. We trust you are doing everything possible to see that this wheat is being made available to those who want and need it.
We appreciate your work on behalf of the grain farmers of western Canada. You have a big responsibility, not only to them but to those who need this grain for food. We urge you to use every means at your disposal to meet the needs of both.
We hope that this situation at Vancouver will soon be remedied and not permitted to happen again.
I was interested to learn that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is going to take a trip west. It is time he did, and while he is there I hope he will talk to people like those who wrote the letter I have just read -responsible people, people who are concerned about this situation. There is an old tradition in Saskatchewan that in times of extreme pressure or disaster the businessmen, the church people and the farmers unite in an attempt to put their situation before those whose responsibility they consider it to be. This is what has happened in this case. This kind of action is not taken lightly. I repeat that this letter was written by people who live in one of the most prosperous areas of Saskatchewan.
The situation there is serious. Unless some effective action is taken the result will be 100-horsepower tractors operating on farms on a subsistence basis. I am shocked when I see figures indicating that our storage capacity on the west coast and at the Lakehead is only half full. Certainly that was the case not more than a week ago. Yet we have ships waiting in Vancouver for grain. I suggest that if we can transport potash across the mountains we can do the same with wheat. Trainloads of potash were crossing the mountains last week, so why can we not move our wheat?
I should like to mention a report made by Mr. Atkinson of the National Farmers Union, who said that the Canadian Wheat Board had instructed grain companies on December 5 to move the equivalent of 15 million bushels of No. 2 wheat to the coast but that only a trickle had arrived at the time he made his report. He went on to say that on the Saturday morning-I do not have the exact date but the date of the release is January 27- there were 53 cars of wheat at the Canadian National Railways yards at Vancouver and a limited number at the C.P.R. yards. He saw
January 31, 1963
5000	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act 22 ships waiting to load wheat from the prairie. No wonder the people of Eston are writing to the Wheat Board about their situation.
We do not lack-and I am sure the government does not lack-good advice from people in western Canada in regard to this crisis. I have referred to remarks made by the president of the National Farmers Union and also the president of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, who like myself has operated a farm in that area. I also have before me a statement by Mr. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, who has also farmed in this same area and knows the needs of the farmers.
According to Mr. Gibbings, depressed prices and sales resulted in reducing shipments by some 200 million bushels during the past year, and this made it necessary for the government-this was a year ago-to institute a floor price. Mr. Gibbings goes on to suggest guaranteed domestic prices for wheat. He also underlines the effect that this industry has upon the Canadian economy. Canadian wheat farmers during the past year bought petroleum products, machinery, fertilizers and pesticides, as well as having repairs made, to a total value of $522 million. If purchases of this magnitude are to continue we must ensure that the farming industry remains viable.
As I said, I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will meet and talk with people such as Mr. Gibbings, Mr. Atkinson and the farmers. During a discussion we had in this house the other day two of the ministers opposite took exception to the attitude of some members on this side who come from western Canada. We were accused of seeking publicity. I am not interested in publicity; I am interested in seeing grain moved. It was also suggested that we were panicking. It takes quite a bit to panic me. Anyone who has farmed on the prairies for as long as I have does not get excited too easily. I have lived in good times and bad and know the difference between utter disaster and good fortune from one year to another. So we do not panic too easily. But the situation to which I refer is serious, and by some means or other the government must be made to realize that it is serious.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Finally, I hope the farmers will avail themselves of the provision of this legislation, even if by so doing they will go deeper into debt. It costs more than 10 cents a bushel to dry grain. From my experience in the drying of grain I have found that it costs between 15


cents and 18 cents a bushel to custom-dry grain. I hope that millions of bushels of valuable grain are not allowed to go out of condition and thus be lost to the people of Canada and the world. For that to happen would be a blot on Canada. Our farmers and the government ought not to allow grain to go out of condition when the expentiture of a little money would prevent that happening.
Some in this country say that the condition of the grain is the farmers' problem. After all, it is his wheat; he grew it and if he sells it he will obtain money for it. He is like any other entrepreneur. Let him carry the load; let him worry about it and let him accept his responsibilities. In answer to such an attitude one can only say that in some circumstances the responsibilities weighing on farmers ought to be borne in part by the general public. In any event I submit that the government would have been fully justified in saying: Look, we will contribute 10 cents per bushel toward the cost of drying but the farmer will have to pick up the rest of the tab. The government ought to assist the farmers because they face a tight economic situation and cash is short. There is no prospect that the present situation will be corrected in the immediate future.
Finally, I urge the government to take every step to make sure that we can supply all our potential markets. We ought to have grain in export positions so that when a customer shows up and wants grain all we have to say: Here is our product on the shelf, it is yours, please give us your money.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, but I want to say a few
words on the bill which bears the following recommendation:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the house the present measure to, amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act so as to provide emergency advance payments-
This measure will answer the needs of the western farmers.
Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, in favour of this Bill No. C-162 which offers farmers advance payments for their grain in order to help them save the balance of last year's crop.
We understand all the difficulties that the three Prairie provinces had last year. This makes us pause a little, we of the East, because we notice that misfortune does not always strike in the East. It often happens that the western farmers have also their
January 31, 1969	COMMONS
problems. It is a good thing to mention it, because most eastern farmers think that all western farmers wallow in money and are all millionaire industrialists. We sympathize with them, because even if we have problems in the East, the western farmers are not free from them either and the best proof is given by the bill that is introduced today.
I shall say incidentally that they enjoy perhaps more advantages than we do in that they have a specific legislation while our eastern farmers have not yet succeeded in getting a similar measure. I congratulate them for the work they have done to make the governments pass laws that are intended to help them when they have difficulties.
As was mentioned by the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that small amount of $600 is very slim considering the needs of the western farmers. In fact, it is somewhat like the scraps given to the eastern farmers whenever they ask for help.
Mr. Speaker, we have constantly reminded the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as well as the other ministers that when he thinks of helping the provinces by granting loans at unreasonable rates of interest such as those we have now, this is of no assistance to the farmers but merely rope to hang themselves with. If the government wishes to help, it should proceed the way it does with other countries. We merely ask that our farmers be treated in the same way as the people from foreign countries, that get funds purely and simply, of $10 million and $100 million at a time, and this is done openly. When we want to help other countries, we make them a gift and not by printing dollars as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying today. We must put an end to that joke. Credit is used because it is a fact that, at the present time, 92 per cent of the money supply is made up of credit and the government is trying to make fun of us by raising the bogey of dollar printing.
I submit that nowadays people understand more easily the problem of printing paper money than the Prime Minister and several of his ministers because they know that all that is issued by the government is credit. Let us get rid of these gross and childish jokes regarding the printing of paper money.
As the former Leader of the Opposition used to say: if we want to help the western farmers, we should grant them a subsidy and stop compelling them to get deeper into debt. That is how we could really help all the
DEBATES	5001
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act farmers in Canada and not only those from the West.
I was quite astounded a moment ago, when the former Leader of the Opposition said that, last fall, western farmers had sold wheat at 980, $1, $1.25 and $1.90 a bushel. We learn something new every day and listening to those western farmers we realize that their problems are very much the same as ours in the fall when we have to sell our potatoes at 550 or 600 for 50 pounds.
The wheat grower who has made dire sacrifices for every bushel he produces is going to receive $1, $1.10 while we, in the province of Quebec, are going to pay that very same wheat $6.90, $6.95 and $7.25 per 100 pounds. Can you imagine that at the moment, we are paying $10.75 for 100 pounds of flour.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Gauthier:: 
interest free. I think this is most ridiculous. Some respectable ministers come and tell us seriously in this house that borrowing at 7i per cent to lend interest free to foreign countries is good business. I just cannot understand a word when I hear people telling us that this is mere common sense.
But when it comes to spend two or three million dollars to assist our farmers, to help our largest industry employing the greatest number of people to get back on its feet, we are turned down. Then we are given childish answers as the one the Prime Minister gave us today when he said: We are going to print dollars. He knows better than I do how the actual monetary system works. He knows very well that money supply is made up of 90 per cent of monetary credit and that banknotes are very secondary. They have the same role as a postage stamp in our monetary system. He knows it very well. Let him stop making fun of the people. People are aware of those things today because they have been kept informed for the last seven or eight years. They know it is a joke.
All we are asking the Minister of Agriculture-as a former Social Credit member, he knows at least how to proceed-is to start making credit available to farmers on the west coast so they will not have to borrow money from finance companies. If he gave them real material and financial help, I think it would be a good start.
This bill will be a first step towards really assisting all the farmers of Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I must say that I support the allocation of up to $600 to a farmer under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act for the purpose of drying grain. I think this is most important and is long overdue. Unfortunately, however, because of the lateness of the proposal, the ability of the farmers to dry grain harvested in the exceedingly damp and wet fall of 1968 has been seriously compromised. The gravity of the tough and damp grain situation has not been realized by the government. It has been pointed out by many of those in the farming industry that the problem is serious, that there are many millions of bushels of grain that have not been dried and even with the very best of care much of it will spoil resulting in a reduced value on the market. Although there is much talk, and it is true, that a farmer can by a great deal of work dry grain on his farm in the spring when the
January 31, 1969	COMMONS
temperature rises, it is also true that the quantities involved are now of such magnitude that it is almost physically impossible to cope with the situation.
The statement of an Alberta official of the Department of Agriculture that considerable grain may spoil if not looked after is an indication of the concern of those nearer the problem about having it aired and remedied if possible. The difficulty of grain drying has been compounded by the limited amount of grain that can be dried at inland terminal elevators. There are only 6,000 bushels of wheat now in store at Vancouver, where there is a maximum variety drying capacity of four million bushels a month, and this has seriously compromised the movement of wheat out of the port of Vancouver. Together with the very cold winter, when it is considered that about a week ago there were only one million bushels of No. 2 northern in store at terminals there and that 11 million are needed to take care of the ships already in port and the five or six more vessels expected by February 10 to transport approximately
75,000	tons of No. 2 northern to Japan, the shipping of No. 2 northern, for which the Wheat Board has had good sales, out of Vancouver has been made extremely difficult.
It seems to be a fact that the very large amounts of tough and damp grain in store at Vancouver waiting to be dried for shipment to China have overtaxed the capacity to handle the extra sales that were generated when the Japanese entered the market and took substantial quantities of No. 2 northern for importation. So I welcome this bill as a measure to improve the lot of the farmer in drying his grain. Since much of the grain now in storage on the farms must be dried by the farmer himself, this assistance will be a welcome addition in solving his problem.
The problem of drying the grain is only part of the much larger problem of marketing and the very severe competition which we face in the world. Last week a gloomy view was taken of Canada's position in the world wheat market by the president of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. He stated that Canada's position is precarious and unlikely to be as good again as it has been in recent years. Two recent articles in a United States grain journal, The Southwestern Miller, have been of some interest to Canadian farmers and may be a serious portent of what is in the future. One article noted that there was an underlying current of dissatisfaction in the
DEBATES	5003
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act United States with the operation of the International Grains Agreement. There was doubt about the ability of the United States to compete in dollar markets which had become prevalent or noticeable when the grains agreement had come into effect.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has an influential voice in American agriculture and may have an important voice in the new administration. At its recent annual convention the federation adopted a resolution calling flatly for withdrawal from the International Grains Agreement as part of an effort to expand trade and increase exports. As the grains agreement has been approved by Congress for three years ending June 30, 1971, it is noted that it will probably be extremely difficult to have the new Congress disallow or abrogate the agreement. But even within the agreement the new administration could move toward being a much tougher competitor than at present in the pricing of wheat in the world dollar markets.
The prospects for exports of wheat into eastern Europe or the Soviet Union seem to be rather dim. This area, which at one time was a leading importer, now threatens to become more aggressive in the export wheat trade. Russian wheat with a minimum guaranteed protein of 14 per cent is being marketed in Britain at the rate of 20,000 metric tons a month. This new guaranteed protein level will be difficult to meet and it is an area into which the Wheat Board and Canadian marketing authorities will have to look. It would be hopeful if the Russians could be induced to take up their option for the balance of this crop year, and I am sure that western agriculture is looking hopefully ir. this direction.
This measure will be an inducement for farmers to dry their grain because, having committed so much to the cost of harvesting it, it would be a great tragedy if the grain was not put into condition to be stored for a considerable length of time. It is stated by Mr. McNamara, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, that there are enough driers to dry Canada's damp grain if they were in the proper place and were used to the fullest extent.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It is hoped that this measure will facilitate the situation so that as much grain as possible will be put into condition and stored before its disposal. I endorse what has already been done by the government but I suggest it cannot stop there. Many farmers are in serious
January 31, 19G9
5004	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act financial difficulty and feel that by taking advantage of these advances they are being pushed further into debt. Hundreds of millions of bushels of damp grain are involved, and it would seem to me to be good business on the part of the government to provide a direct subsidy to the farmers to induce them to dry their grain. I do not feel that the subsidy should cover the entire cost of grain drying but it should cover at least a part of it. There is much to be done and the time is short. I hope the government will consider a direct subsidy as a partial payment in respect of the cost of drying grain in order that it may be stored and not completely lost in the year ahead.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I concur with those hon. members who have spoken before me to the extent that I am not opposed to this legislation, but I must, as members of this party have done earlier, protest against its gross inadequacy and terrible unfairness. As has been suggested in this chamber in months past, when a situation occurs such as that in respect of the harvest in western Canada last fall it constitutes something more than just a problem for farmers. It constitutes a national problem which should be solved by the entire nation. The cost of providing such a solution should not be borne entirely by the farmers but by the nation as a whole.
Earlier the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) talked about panic on the part of members on this side of the house which he alleged occurs every time the farmers face a problem. It is not panic, sir, but anger, frustration and a feeling of being completely fed up. The farmers on the prairies do not panic very easily. Nor do the members of this house who come from the prairies panic very easily. Farmers have to put up with wet years and dry years. They have to put up with being up to their eyeballs in wheat some years and having no wheat at all in other years. In recent years there have been only one or two occasions when there has been above normal rainfall, and the past fall was the worst of all. In spite of this, the farmers have in the past been able to survive and cope with all situations. In the dirty thirties they had to put up with dust, grasshoppers and gophers. They can cope with all these things but when they have to cope with a Liberal government as well it is a little too much to expect of them.
This is not the first time a federal Liberal government has been inadequate, apathetic and deadly slow in providing fair treatment
[Mr. Ritchie.)

on behalf of the entire nation to the agricultural industry. When we are talking about the cost of putting cereal crops in western Canada into good condition for marketing we are talking about something which will cost at least $70 million and could reach $100 million. We cannot expect the farmers to bear the entire cost. That would be unfair, unjust and unthinkable. Any government of any political party which comes up with this kind of inadequate measure without really accepting its share on behalf of the whole nation is failing in its responsibilities.
A number of farm organizations have submitted proposals to the government, but I have yet to hear a single minister, or a member on the government side of the house respond in this house or in any public manner to these proposals. As far as I know the government has not even had the courtesy to reply to these organizations or tell them why these proposals cannot be implemented.
The Saskatchewan Farmers' Union submitted a lengthy proposal dealing with the drying of grain in which it was outlined how it could be transported from the farmer's yard to the dryers and back. The union recommended and pleaded for a schedule of payments to cover part of this cost. It suggested that from last August 1 to the end of February a maximum of 12 cents per bushel should be paid to the farmers for drying, from March 1 to April 30, 10 cents per bushel, and from May 1 till the end of the crop year, 5 cents per bushel. I do not know whether the government has even replied to this proposal. I hope the minister or someone on that side of the house will indicate whether a reply has been made and, if so, what it contained. If an unfavourable reply has been made I hope someone will explain why it was unfavourable.
During an earlier debate the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) suggested to hon. members on this side of the house that there was a fundamental message that should be passed on to members from central and eastern Canada. I think we have got this message across to the members who sit on this side of the house. I should like to know whether the hon. member has succeeded in getting the message across to other members on the government side.
We have said time and again that of all the occupational groups in this country the one group which has no say about how much it is to be paid for its labour and its investment is made up of the farmers. When this group asks for fair and reasonable assistance in
January 31, 1969	COMMONS
dealing with a situation such as the one that now exists they are not asking for something to which they are not entitled. National disasters have occurred on a number of occasions in this country and the nation as a whole has rallied to help. I have in mind the Winnipeg flood or the steel mill that went belly-up in Nova Scotia. Surely this is another disaster in respect of which the whole nation should assist.
I suggest to the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt and other western members on the government side of the house that the two people they must persuade are the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I am sure that members from western Canada who sit on the government side are fully aware of the problem. They perhaps understand the situation better than I, and I hope they will go to extraordinary lengths to persuade their colleagues in the government and the Liberal caucus as to the urgent need for assistance. Several million dollars should be made available from the federal treasury to offset a portion of the cost of drying last year's crop. This grain must be put into condition in order that it can be sold. We must prevent it from spoiling.
I think I am being very conservative, and I use that word advisedly, in estimating the total cost of this operation at a minimum of $70 million. Surely it is only fair that a third of this cost should be paid by the federal treasury. I hope members on the opposite side will endeavour to convince the Minister of Finance that for every dollar he puts into this operation now he will get $2 back next year and the year after as a result of higher income and corporation tax returns and foreign exchange benefits through export markets. If one wants to look at this situation purely from a dollars and cents point of view, the country will benefit as a result of money being spent in this way by the government. All the money spent now will be returned over and over again as a result of higher income and corporation taxes paid by farmers and industries associated with agriculture. It will also, without question, benefit our export sales and our foreign exchange position.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Surely it is good business, therefore, for the federal government to now allocate at least $20 million, and preferably $30 million, in direct cash assistance. I suggest to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt that later this session he should introduce a measure to provide that the $600 taken as a cash advance
DEBATES	5005
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act under this bill will not have to be repaid by any farmer who has used the money to dry his grain.
A number of statements have been made by members of the government, and I am sorry to say by some people in the higher circles of the grain industry and even in one farm organization, to the effect that there is apathy and complacency on the part of the farmers in not drying their grain. These people have said that the driers are not all being used. This is perfectly true; they are not all being used. There are a number of excellent reasons why all the driers are not being used. Some of these machines are so old and obsolete that a farmer would be foolish to try to dry his grain in them, because a great deal of damage could be done to the grain.
The farmers of western Canada are not stupid; they know of this and other reasons that cause them to hesitate or delay using on-farm driers. I should like to illustrate why some of them are not being used. Farmers have heard about the large number of samples that have come back showing that grain that had been put through a drier had been damaged. The farmer therefore thinks he had better not take a chance in drying his grain and further spoiling it because it is in bad enough condition already. This farm income position inhibits, and that is a mild word, any further expenditure in drying his crop. I should like to illustrate this. I spoke on the telephone last night and this morning with elevator agents and a few farmers in my constituency. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert can confirm that Lake Centre is pretty well in the middle of the wheat growing area of western Canada. I think it is a reasonably good sample of the grain industry in the west. A great deal of the wheat being hauled to the elevators is graded No. 4 northern or No. 5 wheat. The initial price for No. 4 northern is $1.36f a bushel, and if it is damp it brings the farmer $1.19$. I am informed that after drying No. 4 northern wheat is often graded No. 5. In many instances wheat drops a grade after it has been dried. This brings the price down to $1.22 a bushel, which is a further loss of 14 cents a bushel for drying No. 4 wheat. This is when the frost shows up in the grain, and it is graded accordingly. The farmer knows that No. 4 wheat may after drying be graded No. 5. In this case he loses money on the price of the wheat in addition to the cost of drying it.
There is another reason why all the driers are not being used. The cost involved is not just a matter of the rental of the drier. There
January 31. 1969
5006	COMMONS DEBATES
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act are costs involved for trucking, for grain loaders and the fuel required for both these machines. In addition there is the cost of storage and hiring labour. All these are added to the cost of drying the grain.
A test has just been carried out by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They installed, 25 feet from a country elevator so they did not break the fire insurance regulations, an MC600 continuous-flow drier. They bought 10,033 bushels of wheat for $10,584. After drying the wheat they had left 9,267 bushels. It was worth more per bushel, namely, a total of $11,260. There was a net loss in the drying process of 716 bushels. Therefore, after the wheat was dried there was a profit of $675. But while they made a profit of $675 on the value of the wheat, namely, 10,000 bushels, the charge-and the wheat pool kept very meticulous figures when carrying out this test-for 66 hours while the drier operated, at $13 an hour, was $858. This meant there was a net loss of $182.65 on those 10,033 bushels of wheat which had originally been purchased. This is another reason why farmers are not making use of all the driers available.
The farmers know, if the Minister without Portfolio does not, that in many instances, after paying for drying and meeting all the accompanying costs involved therein, they will be even farther in the hole. Making available an additional $600 cash advance will not even begin to solve the problem; the felony will only be compounded.
We have instances in the northern parts of the province where grain has sprouted, or after being hauled into the elevator is found to be heated. There has been very little of this so far but the situation will get worse before it gets better. When farmers haul in wheat in this condition, because it is out of condition they are paid as little as 91 cents or 98 cents a bushel. If they have already taken the $1 advance they will not receive enough money to repay the advance. Now the minister suggests they should take another ten cents cash advance.
There is a further reason why all the driers are not being used. There is a natural desire-it is perfectly understandable; I would do the same, as I am sure my hon. friends opposite would-on the part of the farmer to save all the expense, time and effort that he can by holding off and trying to get the maximum amount of grain into the elevator on the three bushel damp wheat quota. As I say, this is perfectly reasonable; I would do the same and so would any member

of this house who was in the same position. Therefore the farmer is not in any great rush to use the driers.
There is no apathy or complacency on the part of our farmers, but they are saying there is indeed apathy and complacency on the part of the government. This attitude of the government has further frustrated them. If the government is not interested in doing something to improve the situation with regard to grain driers and the use thereof, the farmers wonder why they should carry all the cost.
I submit that I have given six reasons, some of which are stronger than others, why grain driers are not being used to the full extent. The strength of the reasons depends upon the part of the west from which you come. I hope I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid that this additional cash advance program will not mean the increased use of driers that is hoped for. I am afraid that a large number of farmers will still hesitate to dry their grain any sooner than they have to. As long as the weather remains 35 or 40 degrees below zero, the situation will not be corrected. As the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) can tell you, if the farmer is faced with the cost of loading his grain on to trucks for delivery to a drier, having the grain dried and then hauling it from the drier back to his farm in 40 below weather, the driers will remain idle.
Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker: we are not blaming the government for the weather. There are many other things for which the government can be blamed and we do not have to use the weather. I assure the minister that neither I, my colleagues, nor hon. members to my right are in any sense of the word panicking when we bring these matters to the attention of the government. I tell him quite frankly that I have been angry for many weeks because of this situation. I think the minister and his colleagues from western Canada have also been angry and frustrated at the inability of their colleagues, particularly those in higher places, to understand not only the magnitude of the problem but the need to provide money to assist in solving it. I must say, sir, that if the Minister without Portfolio were able to persuade the Minister of Finance to part with that amount of money, I for one would be happy to decorate him outside the city hall at high noon in front of all his constituents and applaud him.
January 31, 1369
COMMONS DEBATES	5007
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The measure that the minister has put before us is an amendment to a bill that was originally passed in November of 1957. I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister another section of the bill-here I may be wrong, and if so am subject to correction-that I think needs amending in the light of experience in the repayment of cash advances. Unless there are some other regulations of which I am not aware, and I am not aware of any other amendments, section 13 of the act puts forward the instances in which a recipient is in default in repaying a cash advance.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I have a couple more minutes, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wanted to point out this one item to the minister so that when the bill reaches the committee he may agree with me, if I am correct on this, and agree to bring in an amendment. Section 13 illustrates the instances in which the recipient is in default in repaying the cash advance, and paragraph (c) says that if the cash advance has not been returned by December 31 in the new crop year immediately following the crop year in which the advance payment was made, or at such later date as the board may authorize in special cases, then the recipient is in default. May I suggest to the minister that a farmer who takes out the full cash advance, if he is eligible to get the full $6,600, will be extremely unlikely to market enough grain between now and the end of December to repay the entire amount. I would like to suggest to the minister that he amend this bill further and extend the date to at least March 31 of the following crop year for the repayment of these cash advances.
I realize the board can make exceptions in special cases, but there may be so many cases that it will go beyond the realm of special, individual cases. Therefore it seems to me that extending the length of time when the repayment can be made in the new crop year to March 31 would not constitute a major change in the legislation, and the likelihood that the farmer will only get five bushels delivered at the end of July, or at the best six, and perhaps units and a one bushel quota by Christmas, will not enable him to repay
the entire advance. Even in the case of a farmer who is not eligible for the full amount of advance payment, it just means he is farming a smaller acreage and will haul proportionately less wheat with which to repay the advance. I hope the minister will look at this measure and, if there are no other regulations or amendments to correct, that he will bring in this correction.
I close by making a final plea to my hon. friends opposite and by saying that this matter is beyond any partisan politics. If it will help, I will even say I am sorry I made the nasty remarks I did about Liberals in my speech in order to strengthen my effort to persuade the hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly those from western Canada, to mount a campaign directed at their colleagues, particularly at the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, to allocate not less than $20 million and preferably $30 million amongst the farmers of western Canada toward paying a fair cost of putting our grain crop into condition. In our opinion it is certainly a reasonable share of the cost that the rest of the nation can bear.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill may I say I agree with the $600 advance payments to the farmers for the purpose of drying grain, but why does it take so long to get action out of the government? It is the same old story-too little and too late.
Any member from western Canada could see the tough and damp grain situation building up early last fall. Many areas of western Canada had the wettest and poorest harvest conditions we have seen in the last 20 years. On top of this, many areas had their crops touched by early frost and the grain did not ripen properly or took longer than usual to do so. Every week in the House of Commons it was pointed out to the government that there were going to be problems getting the crop dry.
Any farmer in western Canada knows that by October, no matter how good the weather, your combine and harvest day is very short. The farmer is lucky if he can start combining before noon hour and usually, because of moisture, he has to stop by 5 or 6 p.m. This is a far shorter harvesting day than in August or September. Any person driving round western Canada in October could see by the amount of crop still in the swath that there were going to be problems. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made a tour of western Canada at that time and stated that
January 31. 1969
5003	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act things were not good but that there was no emergency. After hearing this statement I am sure that when he assessed the situation in Manitoba he must have just walked round the Winnipeg Airport and looked at the situation from there. I know I was alarmed when he made that statement. I know the majority of the crop in the Winnipeg area was under water. The majority of the crop in western Manitoba was still in the swath and getting wetter each day.
Finally, in late November the Wheat Board announced a special three bushel quota for damp grain. By this time the majority of wheat was testing anywhere from 20 to 21 or higher. However, in October this same grain was testing around 17 or 18. Why did the government not take action then? They were told of the situation, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that grain is far easier to dry at 17 or 18 than it is at 21 or higher.
Another question I would like to ask is, why did it take so long to get the drying facilities at the Lakehead operating on a 24 hour seven day a week basis? Surely the government must have felt concern, and could have made some attempt to solve this problem sooner. By January we heard questions being asked as to why more dryers were not being used. Any farmer will tell you it is an expensive proposition to dry grain when the weather is 25 or 30 degrees below zero.
I stated earlier that I am in favour of the advance to assist farmers in drying grain. But this government must realize that credit is not the answer to the problems of agriculture in Canada today. Right now many areas of Marquette have not even had a one bushel quota for dry grain, and here we are at the end of January. How much longer does the government think our farmers can exist on yearly quotas of five and six bushels? Our farmers need drastic action by the government to face up to the problems confronting agriculture. Let us have more aggressive efforts made to sell our grain. How can we expect the Wheat Board to be concerned about wheat sales when the Prime Minister makes statements such as he did in Winnipeg when he said "why should I sell wheat?" The government has to show leadership and direction to the whole agricultural industry, and it is time they got on with the job.
We have all heard now about the deplorable situation that exists at Vancouver with the large number of boats waiting for dry grain. Here again the government was slow in acting. It took a special debate on agriculture 

last January 22, proposed by members of the official opposition, to get the grain moving. Why, within 24 hours of that debate, were trains moving out of Moose Jaw with No. 2 northern wheat? It was the prodding of the members on this side of the house that was responsible.
Again I say that credit is not the whole answer to our agricultural problems. It is time the government reviewed the serious situation facing the farmers of Canada and came up with a concrete agricultural policy so that the farmers can also share in the so-called just society that this government has advocated.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I presume the minister would close the debate if he spoke now so I should like to make some comments with respect to Bill C-162.
Like the previous speaker I find I must support this bill because it does offer some measure of financial assistance to the wheat producers of western Canada. But surely it cannot be said that the bill is of any substantial significance relative to the size of the problem faced by the prairie grain producers. I listened with interest to the remarks made earlier today with respect to this bill by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others. I find that this government has indeed been guilty of sins of omission. By mid-October of last fall it had become evident that the harvest situation on the prairies was extremely bad, from which it might have been assumed that a large part of the harvest would be out of condition. Nevertheless, in the two months from mid-October to the end of the year no real effort at coordination was made by the government or by any of its agencies to cope with the situation. It is only now, at the end of January, that any systematic effort is being made to get a sufficient number of grain dryers together and distribute them proportionately in the areas where there is need.
The question could be asked: why was the government so nonchalant about this problem throughout November and December? The weather now is cold; there has been a cold spell on the prairies since mid-January. I would imagine that the amount of drying taking place at the country elevators and on the farms is small. It is a pity that the months of November and December were wasted. It can be said without exaggeration that the government must take the blame for the fact that out of the 200 million bushels of grain which
January 31, 1969

are out of condition and unsuitable for sale only a small percentage has been dried to date. I calculate, in a rough and ready way, that only between one-fifth and one-quarter of the total amount of grain which is out of condition has been dried so far, and it is unlikely that anything will be done in the next few weeks. It is only at the end of winter and the beginning of the spring season that we can expect any substantial amount of grain to be dried on the prairies and at the terminals.
The question is asked whether the job can, indeed, be done with the number of dryers available, before spoilage sets in. I know the government was entertaining a notion that if the matter were left to individual farmers they would make their own arrangements. However, when the problem is of the present magnitude it seems the only logical course is for the government to take a major part of the responsibility by acting as co-ordinator in connection with the major effort required.
I have been informed that in the months of November and December some farmers were thinking in terms of action at a higher level to ensure the use of country elevators as points where drying equipment could be set up under the supervision of operators who knew their business. In all too many cases weeks, even months, passed without anyone being prepared to take responsibility for coordinating the effort to get drying machines set up at strategic points.
I understand from an hon. member representing one of the Ontario ridings-I do not know whether he has yet spoken in this debate-that a significant number of grain dryers from the Ontario corn-growing belt were made available to elevator companies at the Lakehead and even farther west in Manitoba and that this was done on the personal initiative of individual corn growers in those areas. We must be happy and grateful that there are people in eastern Canadian agriculture who are prepared to do such things. But one can only scratch one's head in amazement that so little initiative was shown on the part of those directly concerned-the government, particularly the Department of Agriculture, the Wheat Board and the elevator companies. What in the world was going on in the months of November and December when no action was taken? Of course, I do not blame the officials in any direct way. The onus of taking decisions, formulating policy and bringing in programs rests with the government, with the ministers of the Crown.
DEBATES	5009
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
We had high hopes that the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and some of his colleagues would show themselves to be well versed in western agriculture and that they would have been anxious, willing and prepared to take remedial action. There is an old story that at the time Rome was burning the emperor was fiddling. I think it is appropriate to mention in this connection that at a time when western agriculture was experiencing grave difficulties because of a bad harvest and low sales, at a time when western farmers were facing a desperate situation, the Prime Minister of Canada, if not fiddling, was diddling. I do not doubt that some members opposite think we are exaggerating when we say that conditions in western agriculture are desperate.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If they are of that opinion I should like to refer them to the year's end analysis, if I may call it that, that was made by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Having followed Mr. Bentley's public statements over the years, I am convinced that he is a man who is not given to overstatement. If anything, he tends to understate the facts of a situation. He was sufficiently frustrated with the present situation in which western agriculture finds itself to say, as he did about two weeks ago, that the conditions in which western farmers find themselves today are- and I pause for emphasis-desperate.
In face of this situation, the government brings forward legislation. Government spokesmen point out that the government has proposed other legislation besides simply Bill C-162 which is now before us. I agree; the government has provided other legislation having to do with agriculture. They have brought forward legislation governing interest rates on farm loans and increasing the amount of cash advances that are available. Now, there is this piece of legislation.
In every piece of legislation related to agriculture that the government has put before the house, one will notice there is nothing contained therein that will have any effect upon farm incomes. The government has increased interest rates and also the amount provided by way of interest free advances, which is fine. We now are discussing ancillary amounts up to a maximum of $600 in the form of cash advances, and for what? Apparently, it is to enable the farmers to pay the added costs caused by having to dry the grain they harvested after a bad season last fall.
January 31, 1969
5010	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
There is nothing in this legislation that goes to the heart of the problem of the low incomes of farmers. For that matter, one can say that there is nothing in this bill that will really be of direct assistance to farmers who are put to extra cost in drying their grain. The day of reckoning is merely postponed. I confess there is one advantage: given the high rate of interest now prevailing in the economy, a few hundred dollars made available without interest will be of some concrete benefit.
In conclusion, if in addition to increasing the amount of cash advances available to pay specifically for drying grain the government had shown some leadership in co-ordinating operations and giving assistance to farmers, elevator companies and the pools in setting up grain dryers last November and December at strategic shipping points on the prairies, then I think the government would have been deserving of some commendation. Whatever effort is underway at the present time in the way of setting up grain dryers, very little of that effort has been made by the federal government. It seems to me that some of the provincial governments have been more prepared, and have acted more quickly, than the federal government in the setting up of grain drying equipment. The fact that we are going to support this piece of legislation should not be taken to mean that we do so with any feeling of enthusiasm whatever.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to voice my disappointment in this government for what has been called their inadequate effort to deal with the wheat problem. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), who has just taken his seat, said that this government has shown no leadership in connection with our grain problems. If the bill presently before us is an example of the government's efforts in helping the farmers with their wheat problems, then I say those efforts are much more than inadequate. I hope that when the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) gets to his feet he will give the people of Canada seme idea how much money is involved, so far as the federal treasury is concerned, in the implementation of this bill.
The word "peanuts" has been used time and time again in this house, but I say that this proposed amount is even less than peanuts if it is intended to give assistance to the farmers. I doubt whether many will take advantage of this legislation.
IMr. Schreyer.]

I suggest that the government does not know what the wheat problem really is. Certainly, it does not know how to solve it. There are reasons for this. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) say he regretted saying nasty words about this government. I was going to compliment him on the statement he made about the ability of this government to handle this problem. In fact, I was going to add some words of my own.


Mr. Lang (Saskaioon-Humboldi):: Feel free.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do feel free, and I certainly will. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said that as far as grain policies are concerned this Liberal government is apathetic, complacent and inadequate. I say that this government has no policies with regard to grain. This fact was exemplified by the statements made by three ministers in this house a week ago Wednesday. I want to refer to those speeches for a few moments, including the speech of the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. The government has shown no leadership; and this bill is not going to help the western farmer very much, perhaps to the tune of a few hundred dollars and that is all.
The government wonders why it has been placed in this situation. I want to quote some of the words used by the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt, because I submit that the three ministers who spoke in this house on January 22 offered Canadian farmers nothing but excuses. The government suggested there had been problems with the weather, with the transportation system, with the efficiency of the railroads, and alleged the demand for grain had been stronger than anticipated. Every member of the house who comes from a western riding knows that these problems face the wheat industry every year. There is nothing new in those aspects this year compared with previous years. Our problems may be more serious, but that is all.
I suggest that if you are in a position of responsibility you should anticipate things. You should forward plan for all eventualities. If you do not, then your administration gets in a mess. This is exactly what has happened to this administration so far as the wheat industry is concerned. Why is the government in a mess, and why is our wheat industry in a mess? The answer, in part, lies in the attitude of our ministers. I understand that the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt said on a former occasion that representatives of western Canada in this house do not really know the
January 31, 1969

history of the wheat industry. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members from the west may be more fully aware of the history of that industry than the minister is. When the minister states that the farmers this year are in a better position than last year, he is really making poor excuses which are not acceptable to the farmers of western Canada. The problems facing our western wheat farmers are every bit as bad this year as they were last year.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Let us look at the history of wheat farming and show this minister who aspires to be a history teacher just how the wheat farmer fared during 22 years when the Liberal party was in office. The policies of the Liberal administration in previous years led to a huge surplus of wheat piling up on the prairies. The Liberal government of those days did not attempt to sell that wheat, so the prospects facing farmers were bad. Many farmers wanted to move off their farms but could not do so because they lacked money. Our farmers didn't have a nickel.
What the Conservative government took office in 1957-58, they made the selling of western wheat their responsibility. I know many people wonder whose responsibility it is to sell our wheat. In the present administration the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) seems to have no jurisdiction over the wheat industry, but he said that the members of my party were in some way hurting the wheat growers. At the same time, he suggested we were afraid to attack the policies of the Wheat Board. That is not correct. We are not afraid to criticize Wheat Board policies and never have been. The Minister without Portfolio ought to read the remarks I made on August 6, 1960. Of course, it may be argued that if the Wheat Board does not prove capable of marketing wheat, we ought to get rid of the Wheat Board.
I am not suggesting that should be done. Nevertheless, we faced our responsibilities in 1960. At that time we had one minister who was responsible for wheat and not three ministers, as in the present government. Right now three ministers are each partially charged with responsibility for wheat matters. One may well ask how any government can solve problems in the field of wheat when the responsibilities in this area are divided between three ministers. Each minister in the present government tries to pass the buck to
DEBATES	5011
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act his fellow ministers, the result being confusion and chaos. It was different under the Conservative government. That government realized the problem existed and did its best to solve it. The government of that day gave leadership when leadership was needed. Today there is no leadership, the result being that our wheat industry is faced with major problems.
The major difficulty today does not stem from lack of cash advances but from lack of markets. The minister ought to examine what happened in the past to see how the Conservative government solved the problem of wheat sales. We recognized that we had to increase markets for our wheat. It is true that the responsibility for selling wheat rests to some extent with the Wheat Board, but it also rests with the government which controls the Wheat Board. The combined efforts of government and the Wheat Board are required to sell wheat.
The problem facing the Conservative government was that not enough customers were looking for wheat. Then, when a large customer for wheat was found the cabinet decided to make credit available to that customer to facilitate the sale of our wheat. It may not be fair to give the credit for that sale to any one individual. It is enough to say that wheat was sold when our minister co-operated with the Wheat Board. Administrative difficulties were overcome, credit was made available to our customer, and wheat was sold.
Those who maintain that we were afraid to criticize the actions or policies of the Wheat Board ought to read Hansard. In particular, may I refer hon. members to remarks I am reported as having made at page 7692 of Hansard for August 6, 1960:
I am aware that under the Canadian Wheat Board Act the Canadian wheat board is given very wide powers pertaining to the delivery and merchandising of western wheat, oats and barley. I also realize that these powers were given to the wheat board by parliament. However, I feel that the present officials of the Canadian wheat board are not carrying out the policies of this government; and I wish to stress that point. They have also become too complacent in their attitude to their duties as members of that board. I might say here that the powers they have been given are too wide to be administered by bureaucrats.
I agree with that statement at the present time. I do not say the members of the wheat board have no ability; obviously they have. Yet, I cannot help harbouring the suspicion that bureaucrats are interested mainly in their pay cheques at the end of each month. That may be a harsh judgment but it is one
January 31, 1969
5012	COMMONS
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act that was made back in 1960. The Conservative government was in power at that time and backbenchers supporting the government made such charges. That just shows the value of having backbenchers express their opinions on these matters. I submit that backbenchers who represent constituencies in western Canada speak the truth when telling hon. members of the problems of western farmers.
I wish to refer again to my remarks of August 6, 1960, as reported on page 7693:
I have reason to believe that the present wheat board policy in determining its daily selling price for Canadian wheat offerings to domestic and foreign buyers is too rigid, and that as a result of this inflexibility we have lost foreign sales which should have been available to our western producers. I am aware that those who do not agree with my remarks will charge that I am trying to interfere with the orderly system of marketing of western grain. I hasten to say that if such a system solves or will solve the problem of the western grain surplus, then I will support it wholeheartedly. On the other hand, if the present orderly system of marketing works to the disadvantage of the western grain producers whom I represent, then I suggest that some of the conditions in this system should be changed.
In so many words I have said the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt is not competent to deal with wheat matters.
I ask, how can any man charged with the responsibility for overseeing one third of the operation of the wheat industry, without knowing what the ministers charged with responsibility for the other two thirds, are doing, possibly do a good job in selling wheat or administering any phase of the wheat industry. Only one minister ought to be responsible for wheat matters. At present the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has a primary responsibility in this field. That is not good enough.
If I were charged with responsibility for deciding our wheat Policy, I should make sure that one minister was responsible for selling wheat. It is folly to have three ministers overseeing one industry. They cannot do a satisfactory job. For that reason, I urge the government to allow one minister to handle all matters connected with wheat. I do not care whether it is the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), or any other minister. It is important to concentrate responsibility for all matters pertaining to wheat under one minister. As I have said before, our primary problem lies in our lack of markets. We shall not solve our problems by making available interest free loans for the drying of grain. If the government is to


An hon. Member:: They are making it for us.
DEBATES	5013
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: Don't make any more nasty remarks which you may have to withdraw. I still say the efforts of this government are inadequate, apathetic and complacent. The minister should inform this government that more legislation is required to help the western farmer with the problem he faces today. I hope he gives some indication that the problems connected with the marketing and handling of grain in western Canada will never occur again. I am looking for the minister to come before the house and give excuses why this or that has not been done. We are interested in what the government intends doing about the situation. We are aware of the fact there will always be problems such as weather conditions and shortages of box cars at certain times of the year. These conditions should be anticipated and forward planning should be carried out to offset them.
Wheat growing is not a new industry in Canada and I doubt if there is any problem in connection with this industry which has not been dealt with previously in some manner, successfully or otherwise. I suggest to the government that the whole wheat industry should be under the jurisdiction of one minister, even if it be the Minister of Agriculture-although I doubt that he is capable of handling it. However, I do have some hope for the Minister without Portfolio because he may be able to solve the problems of the wheat growing industry in western Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: am not going to say much in this debate because I think most of the points have been raised by the official opposition or the government. But coming from a constituency which is almost 100 per cent rural, I feel I should make a few general comments regarding this particular piece of legislation. Although my constituency is basically rural, we do have a few larger towns and cities. In Saskatchewan, whether or not you are a farmer, you are indirectly involved with the farm economy, e (3:30 p.m.)
It is for this reason a bill of this nature should be not only of interest but of grave concern to everybody in that province and to all the western members. The previous speaker, before he concluded his remarks, made a comment about somebody making nasty remarks. Whether, or not the government or the opposition like it, I believe farmers today in all parts of western Canada make a lot of nasty remarks. I was surprised, perhaps I should not have been, by some of the comments I heard during the Christmas and New
January 31, 1969
5014	COMMONS DEBATES
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act Year's recess as I toured the constituency of Yorkton-Melville. I also made a speaking tour throughout southern and western Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The farming people in western Canada are becoming very concerned about conditions as they are. They are asking a lot of basic questions, such as why the farmer is getting rougher and rougher treatment all the time. Why is it becoming increasingly difficult for him to meet his needs? Why is the farmer the only person today who, when he goes into a store, must ask how much a certain commodity is and must accept it at that price? Yet, when he sells his produce he must ask how much he will be given for it.
The farmer is one of the few people left today who finds himself suffering within the so-called free enterprise market. This is the position the farmer is strapped in; everything works against him. The whole system seems to be working against him. He is becoming increasingly frustrated and restless. This is the reason, I believe, that he is starting to ask a lot of very basic questions. This mood can be found everywhere. One finds farmers asking questions, talking about organizing, seriously protesting and demanding that they get more recognition. They are beginning to demand a reduction in the prices paid for the commodities which they must purchase before they can produce a bushel of wheat. Farmers are demanding more markets. They say the government asks them to produce grain, but when they do the same people in the government do not find markets for their grain.
We know that a great deal of food in the form of grain is going to waste. The Canadian farmers have the capacity to produce grain, but it is not sold. This is the reason they are asking a lot of basic questions. I think we should look at the real problem. It is not only the farmer of western Canada who is concerned. The agricultural industry, I think, is still one of the most important industries for Canada as a whole. It is a vicious circle. If the farmer and the agricultural industry are having a bad time, then the business community right across the country is having a had time. This has an adverse effect upon the entire economy and they there are repercussions right through the entire nation. This is the reason we must find some new and radical alternatives in the agricultural field, rather than just attempt to solve one or two problems by one or two minor pieces of legislation.

We cannot ignore the problem. We cannot hope to solve it by just approaching it here and there, then locking the real problem in the closet and forgetting about it. It will not go away. We must take the problem by the horns and explore some new avenues. Many people have grain in their bins which they cannot sell. Some of them are on a one bushel quota, others are on a two bushel quota and perhaps a few are on a three bushel quota. But these people have tough and damp grain which they are unable to dry because they cannot afford to do so. Many of these people are in debt up to their ears because of the price of farm machinery and land. I know people who are going to the bank and the credit union begging for money and for extensions on their loans. This is how drastic things are becoming. Many of them may be forced out of business. This is the reason we must explore some radical alternatives and consider giving grants rather than loans to some of these people who are in really serious circumstances.
We can look around us. We can look, for instance, at the movement of grain. I say that we should start campaigning for a more vigorous marketing policy. I have before me some statistics from the Board of Grain Commissioners concerning shipments from country grain elevators. For the month of December, 1967 there were some 28,696 carloads of grain shipped from grain elevators. During the same period in 1968 there were 21,311 carloads of grain shipped from grain elevators. This is a decrease of about 7,300 in a year when we need increased rather than decreased shipments. All of us remember quite well the emergency debate in this house last week concerning the tie-up in the shipments of grain from the port of Vancouver. We can't afford this type of situation when it so seriously affects the people on the farms. We must speed up these things and restore some of the faith people have in all of us in this chamber, not only the farmers in western Canada but many people across this country.
Many people are losing faith in this institution. They want us to be more relevant and produce results right here and now. We see that in January, for example, of 1967 there were some 14,885 carloads of grain shipped. In the same two week period of January last year, 1968, there were 5,835 carloads of grain shipped. During the first two weeks of January this year the figure was down to some 4,674. We see a steady decrease in the number of carloads of grain that are being shipped. I
January 31. 1969
believe these things prove one point. No matter how you look at it, the farmer in western Canada seems to be getting a rougher and rougher deal all the time.
I do not wish to take up too much more time. Much has been said in this debate and much more probably will be said by other members. I want to beg and plead with the government that they really explore some new avenues and alternatives in order to restore the confidence the people once had not only in the government but also in politicians, especially when these politicians refer to the basic issues which concern the people themselves and the livelihood of the people.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, members of this chamber may wonder at my participation in the debate on second reading of Bill C-162, a bill to help the prairie farmers receive funds for the drying of grain. My interest is not very difficult to understand because I can remember quite well back in the years 1956 and 1957 when the grain was piled high in the west. Then, all the western farmers took to feeding that grain and glutted our livestock market in eastern Ontario which we more or less consider to be our market to help us keep the eastern agricultural people in a prosperous position. I remember that very well. It was not until 1957 when another government took office that things were rectified to a certain extent. I believe that even today the agricultural people consider the Conservative party to be their friend.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I welcome this legislation and the assistance it will provide in alleviating the problem in western Canada in respect of grain drying. This grain must be dry if it is to be exported. If it is not to be exported, it will be used as feed for livestock. If that is done the cattle will be a glut on an already full market in eastern Canada. Transportation is such that this beef can be transported very easily from western Canada to eastern Canada.
Hon. members will remember that a few weeks ago I mentioned there were many dryers available in Ontario, particularly in the constituency of Huron, which could be used for drying some of this grain if someone would co-ordinate the operation. At that time those responsible people opposite suggested that a lack of dryers was not the problem in western Canada, but rather that the problem involved money. One energetic individual in my constituency decided to do something
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act about the situation and I am happy to report that he has placed a number of dryers from Huron county at the Lakehead. He moved them there on his own initiative, and they are now set up outside the Saskatchewan wheat pool elevators and the Richardson operation. The Richardson people started this operation first, so that is a mark in favour of free enterprise.
This same energetic individual who initiated the use of Huron county dryers at the Lakehead went to Vancouver to find out the situation there. He is familiar with this drying operation because in my riding the farmers dry a lot of corn. This is a normal operation unless the corn is stored on the cob. This drying business is unusual in western Canada. Under ideal harvest conditions western farmers do not have to dry the grain, but at this time there are well over 200 million bushels of damp grain in western Canada. If it is not looked after before the frost leaves it will either spoil or have to be used as feed grain. Surely, we do not want a repetition of the livestock situation which existed in 1956 and 1957.
When this individual went to Vancouver he found a desperate situation. I do not like to criticize the Canadian Wheat Board, as it has done a tremendous job in the past, but like any other body, I suppose it can become careless after being complimented for many years. There is a tremendous apathy in western Canada on the part of those who should be responsible for moving this grain to Vancouver. The president of the wheat board, Mr. McNamara, has indicated to the house through the minister in charge that the problem does not involve dryers but involves money. This is not entirely true. Inspectors from the Board of Grain Commissioners are not available to go out to each farm to make sure that the grain is not dried too fast with a resultant loss of protein quality. I do not think Mr. McNamara has looked into this situation thoroughly. The onus is on him and the board to co-ordinate operations in order to move dry grain from western Canada to the Lakehead and to Vancouver.
The gentleman to whom I have referred discovered that the elevators and storage facilities in Vancouver were filled to capacity. He was prepared to move any number of dryers to Vancouver to assist in drying this grain. Money is being made available to cover the cost of this move. The terminal elevator operators in Vancouver have not faced such a situation in a long time, and the apathy on


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order involving the business of the house. I understand there is a willingness on the part of all concerned that a bill standing in the name of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) be called at this time and proceeded with long enough to dispose of the matter. I understand there is no unwillingness that this should happen. I bring this matter to the attention of the house and Your Honour. If I am correct, the minister might like to make that request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is there a motion to adjourn the debate?


Gerald William Baldwin: If we do this it will involve the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Crouse, moves:
That this debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-10, to amend the Customs Act.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief as I think that it has been agreed to pass this
January 31, 1969

bill as soon as possible and to refer it to the committee. The purpose of the bill is as follows:
The purpose of Bill S-10 is to update certain provisions of the Customs Act giving force of law to a number of proposals presented by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and, besides, authorizing amendments which would be more in keeping with the modern and more efficient methods of clearance of imported goods and which would meet the requirements of Canadian industry.
It is proposed to authorize by legislation the collection of revenues on goods which formerly had to be destroyed according to the law.
Previously, the goods had to be destroyed unless they could be sold, so as to produce an amount sufficient to pay the duties imposed on them.

Under the proposed amendments, and in keeping with modern business requirements, greater flexibility would be permitted in respect of the examination of imported goods. It is also proposed that the period during which eligibility for certain types of refund payments may be established be extended to overcome the difficulty the importing public has experienced in establishing entitlement to refund within the shorter period specified in the present act.

It is also proposed Mr. Speaker, to ratify the long-standing practice of granting a refund of duties, for the sake of justice, on goods imported at a high rate of duty, but which are subsequently diverted to a use for which they could have been imported at a lower rate of duty than that actually paid when imported.

In brief, Mr. Speaker, this bill simply has as its purpose the implementation of certain recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the granting of authority for up-dating and improving certain departmental procedures and practices.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, although the minister did not say it, I suppose he could have said that really the purpose of this bill is to provide for some minor housekeeping in the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise Division. It certainly is not my purpose to deal in great detail with the principle of the bill as it now stands. The bill will go to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, where we can look into these matters generally.
Customs Act
I would, however, like to make one observation in connection primarily with the purpose of clause 1 of the bill. I refer to a matter raised by the minister's colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), when dealing with Bill S-4. That bill was considered by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and concerned the Precious Metals Marking Act. That act is very straightforward, but lo and behold, near the end of it there is a reference to the Fisheries Act.
One might well ask, why does the Fisheries Act intrude upon the Precious Metals Marking Act? The answer is, because there is a seizure procedure in the Fisheries Act which is deemed to be possibly the best method of dealing at the present time with articles which should be forfeit to the Crown or received on behalf of the Crown. I think it is absolute nonsense that there should be these cross-references to other acts. This matter will be discussed at the committee stage. The minister may share some of my concern in this regard, because my experience in the Department of National Revenue has led me to the following conclusion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There should be one act that deals with commodities that are seized or forfeit to the crown for their disposal, then we would not have to have this nonsense of cross references to one act or to another. So, I am sure we will be able to explore that particular facet of the problem at the committee stage. Therefore, I would commend the bill to the house for second reading and referral to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see before us Bill S-10, an act to amend the Customs Act, because I think it is long overdue. It is a very good example of how archaic legislation can become if it is not under constant scrutiny. My distinguished and learned friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) alluded to the fishy nature of seizure procedures, if I may be excused for putting it that way. One tends to think that much of our legislation was drawn up at the time when we were basically trapping animals1 and fishing and when those were our only occupations. Perhaps this legislation has not been reviewed since. The Customs Act is perhaps a good example of that kind of legislation which has not been updated. There is a need for a continuous evaluation of legislation, particularly that which

January 31, 1969
Customs Act
affects government revenues and expenditures, because a private member can do very little about making suggestions for improvements in legislation of this kind. We are fortunate, in a sense, that through private member's bills we can make suggestions about such legislation as the Criminal Code. So long as such a bill does not involve government expenditures, worthwhile suggestions can come from the private members of this house. It might be interesting to go over the history of this parliament to see how much of the progressive legislation that is now on the books or is being contemplated found its first expression is the form of a private member's bill.
As an example of how archaic this legislation has become, we have only to look at what Bill S-10 is trying to change. It does not take into consideration the existing legislation nor the fact that we have a department, formerly called the department of defence production, which now has a new name and superior methods of finding customers for some of the goods that are abandoned. The existing legislation makes reference to the means of sale and specifies that it must be done by public auction. Certainly, this is recognized as unduly restrictive on the government's ability to find the best way of disposing of these goods. The exisiting legislation goes on to say in section 23 (2):
-if offered for sale for home consumption, or the charges, if offered for sale for exportation, such goods shall not be sold, but shall be destroyed.
One wonders what fine protectionist finger found its way into that legislation when it first saw the light of day. Imagine saying that unless you can get a certain amount for the goods, they have to be destroyed. This method is no longer acceptable, and I am glad to see that one of the purposes of Bill S-10 is to change this notice.
If we read the bill we will run across a rather interesting little item which appears under clause 11, subsection (2) of section 170 which reads in part as follows:
-shall be entitled to demand for each certificate a fee of fifty cents before delivering the same.
It is quite obvious that you can no longer issue a certificate for 50 cents. In fact, it is hard to hold a two minute conversation with a civil servant without costing the government more, let alone deliver a receipt. Therefore, very wisely, the amended bill permits the government to establish a fee that is more in harmony with the actual cost to the government.
[Mr. Saltsman.l
This bill will be going to the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee, and like the other legislation that has gone to that committee will receive a very careful scrutiny. Perhaps, it may emerge a better bill. I certainly hope the government will show a willingness to accept amendments that members of that committee may see fit to offer, because it has been our experience that some excellent amendments have been put forth by members of the Opposition. When those amendments have been incorporated in the bill it has been an improvement on what was first presented to the committee.
Therefore I say on behalf of this party that I am very pleased to see Bill S-10 introduced to the house and sent to the committee from here.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill but for certain reasons will do so. I have always been interested in the operations that take place in customs offices, and in reading this bill, which I did not have the opportunity of seeing previously, I find a number of changes that will have some significance. One of the changes which I notice is that those areas which were originally designated as ports of entry are now referred to differently since these ports no longer exist. In fact, they have not existed for a period of time. This bill removes those ports of entry which no longer exist. I suggest that there is a better way of doing it. Obviously, places where there is no physical facility for bringing in goods or no collector stationed, cannot be designated as ports of entry.
For many years the argument has been advanced that goods that are imported into Canada at an excessively high cost and were seized for non-payment of duty or because of illegal entry had to be sold at a sufficiently high price to cover the costs or else the law indicated the goods had to be destroyed. I am sure that years ago at a time when our armed forces travelled frequently across the border and when there was some difficulty in purchasing such commodities as cigarettes, which were both expensive and restricted as to brand, many people went over to the United States, particularly servicemen who lived near the border.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. It is my duty to remind hon. members that it is past four o'clock. I understood that this bill was to be given second reading within a short
January 31, 1969



time, but if the house wishes to proceed at length with discussion of this bill I would ask it to say so. Is it the pleasure of the house to extend the time allotted for this discussion?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think agreement has been given because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has asked that consideration of Bill No. S-10 be completed, even though we might have to take part of the private members' hour. This debate was supposed to take only a very short time.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there was an agreement to go over the time limit to dispose of this bill. It seems to me that if the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) wishes to cooperate he would not take so much time out of the private members' hour, in order that there might still be an opportunity to debate the items raised by private members.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): My
understanding was that this matter would take only a short time. I do not think there is unanimous consent that we should proceed to discuss this bill until five o'clock. If hon. members agree that we should set aside private members' hour until this bill has been disposed of I would, of course, be willing to accept its decision.


Mr. Drury:: I think there would be
unanimous consent to our continuing for another five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it
agreed that the time given to this bill will be extended by five minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: There are many things I should have liked to have said about this bill during the next 15 or 20 minutes, but I shall certainly abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, It always seems odd to me that the high duty charged on certain goods coming from the United States should result in these anomalies. Cigarettes are a good example. You pay duty of about a dollar per carton. If the officer demands the payment of duty it costs as much to pay the duty as it did to buy the cigarettes. These cigarettes could obviously not then be sold at a profit. Yet, the law says they have to be destroyed if customs duty and costs cannot be recovered. I am glad the
Customs Act
minister has decided these articles are to be sold by auction where it will not make much difference whether or not the total amount is realized.
There are a number of other clauses here which I think are important. I am sorry the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is not familiar with the difficulties which develop in this field. Obviously, there is no port of entry near him. In places such as Cobalt, where there are ports of entry, disputes often arise between customers and customs officials when goods purchased in the United States are found to be below expectation either in quality or in quantity. This often results in disagreement about whether the full duty should have been collected on such goods. I know the minister is giving consideration to extending the time during which these discussions can take place from 30 to 90 days. I am glad this is so, because sometimes the process involves writing to the shippers of the commodity concerned to ascertain whether the labelling was correct or whether the bill of lading only covered a partial shipment.
Then again, differences often arise because a person purchasing goods covered by what he believes to be a specific rate of duty finds that the goods can be used in another category where the rate of duty payable is different. In some cases no duty is payable at all. I am pleased the minister should have agreed that in such cases, though duty must be paid initially, it can be refunded.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to abuse the time allowed me by unanimous consent of the house. I am prepared to see this bill go to committee for consideration.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to say a few words on this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the house agree that we should proceed with this bill at length? I would remind hon. members once again that it is past four o'clock. The chair could not care less whether or not it is decided to stay on this bill until five o'clock, but I would like to have a determination made whether we should proceed with this bill until its completion or whether a time limit should be placed upon the discussion. I say this because private members' hour has not been called; it should have been called, and the proper motion has not been made.


William Arnold Peters: May I suggest that my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) be given unanimous consent to make limited

January 31, 1969
Customs Act
remarks. I can assure hon. members that his observations will not be in the same category as mine. I did not object to Your Honour's advice to me because of circumstances which 1 have already indicated, but these do not apply to my hon. friend. Maybe the house would be disposed to listen to what he has to say on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, it is not my wish to delay the passage of this bill but there are one or two points I should like to raise in connection with the legislation before us.
I believe several additional amendments could and should be included in this legislation. A number of problems have been experienced in my area in connection with the Customs Act. I should like to ask questions about these points and possibly the minister could answer them later. We have in the city of Nelson a customs warehouse for perishable goods. Why cannot its use be extended to cover general goods? An application in this connection has gone to the department. It has been approved by the region and by the local people. It would not cost the department one single penny to implement it. The customs officers are there. The buildings are there. This is something which would prove of immense convenience to the business people of the area. To my mind, this is a logical and sensible request by the people of this area and I can think of no reason why the department should turn it down. In fact, I cannot imagine why a general customs warehouse was not set up many years ago. That is one question I wanted to raise in connection with this bill.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have one more point to make. I have received another complaint from people in my area concerning goods sent over the border. In this case they were wedding gifts. If a wedding gift costs more than $10, customs duty is charged on it. I say this is sheer and utter nonsense. In this age of inflation, and with customs regulations that were drawn up donkeys years ago, I suggest there should be an upward revision in the value of goods crossing the border duty free. Certainly, the ceiling of $10 on genuine wedding gifts that are sent to a couple should be sharply raised. In the particular case to which I refer the couple was forced to return a number of gifts to the senders and they will have to pick

them up in a year or two's time. I do not think that this type of gift is really what those who drew the regulations had in mind. This is something that the minister should look into.
With those few remarks I close, and I should like to thank the house for its generosity in allowing me these few moments to express my views on this particular piece of legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being four o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Bills:
January 23, 1969-Consideration of Bill S-6, an act respecting The Canada Trust Company as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs -Mr. Blair.
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), who is responsible for this bill and also the following one on today's list, is ill. Therefore I would ask the agreement of the house to stand these two items, retaining their position on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Shall items 1 and 2 stand at the request of the government?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed I should like to raise a point of order; this is the first opportunity that has arisen to do so. Your Honour will note that under item No. 1 there is this statement:
For text of amendment to be proposed at report stage, pursuant to section (5) of standing order 75 -see Notice Paper as appended to Votes and Proceedings of January 28, 1969.
My point is that if an amendment is going to be moved, then for the orderly conduct of business it should be attached to the original motion on this paper. I suggest hon. members will be confused if they have to look at Votes and Proceedings to find amendments. Obviously, the amendment has to be recorded in Votes and Proceedings, but in the interest of the orderly conduct of our business it seems to me that Your Honour would serve us well
January 31, 1969



if you would consider having printed at this place on the order paper any amendments that are to be moved, with a notation where they appear in Votes and Proceedings.
I do not want to pursue this point of order but I would entreat Your Honour to take this matter under advisement for decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: This is a point that was raised by many other hon. members, and speaking personally as a private member I myself was surprised that the amendment was not included. However, I will refer this question to the Speaker for his decision.
Item stands.



THE EXCELSIOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 5, 1968, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weatherhead for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-13, an act respecting The Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this bill in this chamber, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), explained the purpose of the bill on December 5 last. If one were to go by the explanatory statement of the hon. member only, one would conclude that the bill is innocuous enough, that its sole intent and purpose is to change the form of organization of Excelsior Life Insurance Company from its position under provincial letters patent to a federal corporation. This is one aspect of what is involved here and might be the bill's superficial purpose, but I submit what is really involved in terms of policy implications is considerably more profound.
In fact, I find it difficult to support the notion that really there are no policy implications involved in Bill S-13. We will be doing more than simply agreeing to allow this particular life insurance company to receive a federal style of incorporation if we pass this measure. We know that this is an old insurance company that has been in operation in this country for many decades, even before the turn of the century. However, we also know that it is a subsidiary of a United States parent, which itself, in turn, is part of the Connecticut complex of the life insurance industry of the United States. In addition, as an insurance company it is, in a sense, a financial institution only a little removed from the chartered banks in terms of the
Private Bills
impact it makes upon savings and investment in this country.
Since this government is only too aware that there is in Canada at the present time a very acute and evident inflation problem, and since I think that the government should be only too willing to take specific action to counter the problem of inflation, I suggest that one matter that specifically relates to the bill and which the government should consider is this. A financial institution is asking us for incorporation under federal charter, and this it does by presenting a private bill. Although this bill has implications for public policy, we have no indication of the government's attitude to it. The matter is dealt with simply by getting the concensus of private members.
I join with those who on previous occasions have taken the position that it is about time the rules of procedure of this institution were changed so that when financial institutions and life insurance companies present private bills to this house we are given an indication by the present government of its attitude to such bills. The amount of money in this country that is available for investment purposes is not infinite, it is finite: the amount is fixed at a given point in time. At a time when interest rates are rising and funds for investment, housing construction and business expansion are increasingly difficult to get, I think this government should be concerned, and should show its concern, at what is being done with the capital that does exist in this country.
[DOT] (4:30 p.ra.)
As an insurance company, Excelsior Life is competing for funds that will be invested. To the extent Excelsior Life is successful in its operation, it deprives other financial institutions of this country of money which those institution would obtain to invest. That must be borne in mind.
In the report on housing tabled by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), a predominant recommendation has to do with the availability of mortgage funds. So fierce is the competition for mortgage money in this country that the minister has been driven to the absurd length of recommending that repayment periods for mortgages be extended from 25 to 40 years and that the ceiling on N.H.A. mortgages be raised from $18,000 to $35,000, I think it is. Clearly, the minister made those recommendations because he was desperate to
5022

January 31, 1969
Private Bills
make mortgage funds available to the Canadian public. Yet, while he has been driven to making his absurd recommendations, and I emphasize some of his recommendations are absurd, we find that the chartered banks and life insurance companies of this country are gathering increasing amounts of the money which ought to be made available as capital.
I admit that in some cases our chartered banks are acting wisely and making available the savings they have gathered to our people in the form of mortgage money. In other cases, though, our chartered banks are gathering in supplies of money; instead of investing those moneys in mortgages or worthy investments, they are diverting such moneys into childish and even foolish channels.
Our banks spend much money in advertising loans which go towards non-productive activities. They promote red convertible loans, boots and saddle loans as well as many other types of loans for recreational or nonproductive purposes. I submit that money which is presently being lent for such nonproductive purposes could be used better if it were invested in mortgages or other productive fields. That money can help in the development and expansion of the less developed regions of this country. It could help to provide employment in those areas of the country which at present suffer from unemployment levels of between 7 and 8 per cent, as is the case in parts of the Atlantic provinces and northeastern Quebec.
One can understand why chartered banks are diverting their money into the field of soft consumer lending. Such loans bring high returns and our chartered banks seek to make the greatest profits on their outlays. Clearly, they are not motivated by a concern for the public interest. The diversion of money which ought to be used for housing and other worthwhile purposes into the field of soft lending is a clear indication that the banks are not concerned about the public interest. Life insurance companies have tended to display a similar attitude in the investing of savings they have gathered. From time to time when the policies of life insurance companies serve the wider public interest, everyone is happy. When those policies do not coincide with the public interest, the story is different.
Our present rate of inflation is between 4 per cent and 4.2 per cent per annum. There is fierce competition for investment capital in this country and therefore we ought to scrutinize carefully the policies and actions of all our financial institutions, among which is
[Mr. SchreyerJ
included the insurance company referred to in Bill S-13, now before us.
The behavior of our financial institutions seems to be inconsistent. At the end of the 1950's and in the early 1960's a number of chartered banks felt it necessary to amalgamate. The result was that fewer chartered banks operated in this country. Presumably we felt that to be in the public interest. Yet at the present time the number of financial institutions in this country seems to be growing. We are adding new financial institutions to ones already existing. Clearly, the present trend of proliferation runs counter to the past trend of amalgamation. If the trends in the past were in the public interest, can it be said that present day trends serve the public interest?
Another aspect of Bill S-13 deserves to be mentioned, and the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) spoke about this when talking on the bill before Christmas. If his colleagues wish to comment on this point I hope they do; we shall be glad to hear what they have to say. The hon. member indicated he was unhappy with the prospect of this particular life insurance company being given a charter which would allow it to operate on a nationwide scale. He was unhappy because the company was approximately 75 per cent foreign owned. There seems to be a trend, if not a tendency, in the province of Quebec for outside firms to purchase life insurance companies, particularly foreign firms. One does not have to go into the reasons, but there are a large number of insurance companies operating in the province of Quebec who finds it important, right and fair to operate their day-to-day operations in both official languages. There was a tendency with the purchase of some of these smaller firms for the new owners to discontinue conducting their day-to-day operations in the same manner.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There are quite a large number of insurance companies in Canada at the present time. I understand there are approximately 16 insurance companies in this country in which the majority of the shares are foreign owned. Apparently, they are given preferential treatment if they have been operating in Canada prior to 1964 as they do not come under the general provisions of the amendments to the insurance act passed in 1964.
I conclude my remarks by saying, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) moves the adoption of a bill such as Bill S-13 he should
January 31, 1969

be prepared to give a more convincing argument if he wants private members in the House of Commons to vote in the affirmative for the granting of a federal charter to a life insurance company, the majority of which is owned by foreign capital. The question can be asked, what harm will it do? One can equally ask, what good will it do? There has to be more than just an absence of arguments against, there must be a presence of arguments in favour before we are motivated to vote to grant a federal charter to yet another life insurance company.
I believe our financial institutions, which include life insurance companies, play an important role in our economy. The importance of this role is accentuated in times of inflation and offers competition for investment of capital. So much so the government should arrive at a policy, or should have definite attitude or position relative to applications for incorporation or charter which come to parliament from time to time from private insurance and money lending institutions. These matters should not be left to private members hour any longer.
What is involved is whether the government should have complete control over the investment situation in this country or whether the government should continue to play a laissez faire and negative role, leaving many important investment decisions in this country almost exclusively to directors who sit on the boards of these money lending and life insurance companies. With each passing year more and more cabinet ministers are of the view the government must adopt a more active role with respect to investment decisions in this country. One or two cabinet ministers are known to be in favour of the notion to establish a Canadian Development Corporation. There is only one reason for establishing such a corporation, and it is a very important one. Such a corporation would give the government an instrument for the marshalling of capital in small and medium sized amounts from hundreds of thousands of Canadian investors. In turn, the government could use this capital to the best effect, investing it in regional and economic development, where required.
We have the very antithesis of a situation where the government is playing an active role in fulfilling its responsibility to the Canadian public, because the government opts out, continues to opt out, and leaves large sums to investment capital to be gathered by private money lending institutions 29180-3181
Private Bills
such as life insurance companies which, in turn, invest as they see fit. I have given some very good examples in recent weeks where this has been done, sometimes having regard to public interest which is fine, but often without any regard to public interest.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to ask the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weather-head) whether he is prepared to answer a question with regard to this bill?


Mr. Weaiherhead:: I understand that if I speak now I will close the debate, which I would be happy to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: If the
hon. member speaks he will close the debate.


Randolph Harding: would like to speak briefly on this bill. As the previous speaker mentioned it is indeed odd that in private members hour we have very important bills such as this which in effect are setting government policy as far as control of the Canadian economy is concerned. The government itself should be very desirous of setting rules to govern this type of investment in our country.
Our policy for many years has been concerned with the alarming control being exercised over the various aspects of our economy. When a private member presents a bill such as S-13, an act respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company, one wonders where we are heading and whether the government in control of Canada today really cares where we are going or what is taking place in the investment field.
s (4:50 p.m.)
This bill is a rather interesting one. Anyone who looks at it can read the explanatory notes. Again, it is another piece of legislation which looks rather innocent. The average reader would not be disturbed by just checking the bill. He would think possibly that there is nothing here which could be of any harm to the Canadian nation. Yet, when we go back into the history of the company we find the same old story that has been going on for many years in this country. Here, we find that the Excelsior Life Insurance Company was incorporated in Canada on August 7, 1889. Then, we find that it is a subsidiary of the Aetna Life and Casualty Company, which is a wholly owned United States company that was incorporated in Connecticut on August 25, 1967. There are a host of subsidiaries under this company.

January 31, 1969
Private Bills
I,	for one, believe it is high time the members of our party and members of other parties directed the attention of the Canadian public to the control that is gradually creeping into every aspect of our economy. Here we see today a move to incorporate this company federally. The old company had business branches in every province in Canada and Canadians are given the impression that this is the same old Canadian company doing business at the same stand. Behind the scenes, however, control is being exercised outside the boundaries of this nation. This is the very point which I think members should discuss, debate and bring to the attention of the Canadian public; that is, that we are gradually losing control of these insurance companies. The banks in Canada are by law required to retain their Canadian identity.
Gradually, we have seen the erosion in other fields. It started in the field of resources where companies gained control of many of the major resources in this country. Oil is a good example. We find these big oil firms outside Canada almost exclusively control the oil development within this nation of ours. The refining facilities, for example, in oil are 99 per cent foreign controlled. This is a disgraceful situation in the year 1969. Now, we see the tentacles of foreign control extending further and further into a host of other businesses. This is one of them.
I feel that matters of this importance should not be left to private members or that private members should hammer out government policy in this regard. This is what is being done here. I have no objection to certain bills going through the house sponsored by private members. Some of them certainly have a place in parliament. Over the years many bills advanced by private members of all parties in this house have served the purpose of drawing to the attention of governments problems which should be investigated.
In this way, after a sufficient amount of debate, public opinion has been formed around the idea pro and con and quite frequently governments have brought in the type of legislation which would support the idea initially advanced in the private member's bill. But a bill such as S-13, to my way of thinking, should not be presented here. I might point out to members of the house and to the government that bills in respect of other life insurance companies have passed through the house. One went through I believe in 1967 to incorporate the United Investment Life Assurance Company. When

this bill was passed there was written into the agreement something which I think should be written into all bills of this type to ensure that eventually Canadian investors will have an opportunity to buy into these companies and finally obtain majority control of them.
I shall place on the record some of the detail in order to show what has happened, and what I think should have happened in the case of Bill S-13. The United Funds Management Ltd.-this is the company I have been talking about-decided to subscribe for $500,000 of the capital stock of the company and to make a further contribution to a surplus of $500,000. Then the statement continues:
Within two years of commencement of business, United Funds Management Ltd. will sell to officers, directors and employees of the Company and, if necessary, others who are Canadian residents 25% of the capital stock of the Insurance Company for the same price.
Regulations of this type are absolutely nonexistent in the legislation which is before us. I shall skip some of the statement. Then, we have the following:
Waddell & Reed, Inc. will, within two years of commencement of business of the Insurance Company, make a public offering to Canadian residents of a sufficient number of the shares of United Funds Management Ltd. to bring its share ownership to below 75%. Accordingly, within two years of the Insurance Company commencing business, the indirect ownership of Waddell & Reed, Inc., in the Insurance Company will be reduced to a maximum of 56.25% with practically all of the balance owned by residents of Canada.
United Funds Management Ltd. will undertake to sell to Canadian residents within 10 years of the commencement of business of the Insurance Company-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour for private members' business has expired.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the house rises for the week I wonder if I could put on the record the proposed business for the first two days of next week? As I said in my announcement yesterday, it is our intention to call as the first item of business on Monday, item 33 in respect of the Aeronautics Act. The second item of business will be item no. 41 in respect of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The third item
January 31. 1969	COMMONS
will be no. 37 in respect of the Canada Evidence Act. The fourth item to be called on Monday will be number 12 on the order paper in respect of the Veterans' Land Act.
My colleague the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt (Mr. Lang) will be attending the Grains Council meeting in Winnipeg and will not be available to proceed with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. On Tuesday, we will call that as the first item of business. When that is completed we will consider the bill to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act in respect of gifts.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a matter of information, Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member any idea as to
DEBATES	5025
Business of the House
when the omnibus bill will again be considered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would appear unlikely that we would be able to call the omnibus bill again before the week of February 17.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being
five o'clock, this house stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m. May I express the hope that you will all enjoy a pleasurable and restful weekend.
At 5.03 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, February 3, 1969