1969-06-17

ISSUE OF EXPERIMENTAL ORDER PAPER IN ABRIDGED FORM

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will notice that a special abbreviated issue of the Order Paper has been circulated this morning. The normal Order Paper will be circulated later this morning, as is the custom.
I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that a suggestion was made some time ago that considerable savings could be effected if the complete Order Paper were published once a week only, perhaps on a Monday, and an abbreviated Order Paper, perhaps in the form which is now before hon. members, on other days from Tuesday to Friday. This, it was said, would result in a great saving of money.
Of course nothing would be done without the agreement of hon. members, but it was thought that on an experimental basis until the end of the current part of the session, we would publish both the ordinary Order Paper and an abbreviated issue so that hon. members might look at it and see what might be the advantages and the disadvantages in each case. In due course the Chair will be pleased to hear from hon. members. I might add that this proposal was discussed by the Chair with representatives of parties, with the house leaders. It was agreed that the matter might be looked into by hon. members and that the best way to proceed would be to distribute, on an experimental basis, an abbreviated issue of the Order Paper for hon. members to consider.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras (p. 10136) for the third reading of Bill No.
C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when the house
adjourned last Friday evening I had been discussing what we in this party consider to be two of the major sins of omission in this legislation. One is the lack of any comprehensive program to provide housing for people on low incomes. I also expressed deep disappointment and indignation about the fact that the public low rental projects now being removed from the deep freeze, in which they had been placed following publication of the report made by the task force on housing, should be allowed to proceed without the provision of inside recreational facilities. I expressed the hope that the minister in charge of housing would take steps even at this late stage to rectify that situation.
I suggested that this could be done in these projects by modifying them in such a way that, if necessary, planned suites could be converted into recreational facility areas or, better still, that the minister should use this occasion to work with municipal or metropolitan authorities, as the case might be, in order to erect community centres in adjoining neighbourhoods that would serve both the people of these low rental projects and the people of the adjoining communities. This would be a method of preventing the walls of the ghetto rising around public housing projects.
I am sure that the responsible people in the various cities would be only too pleased to see such an initiative taken by the minister so that they would be able to create community centres with federal help. Such community centres would do much to avoid the development of the ghetto mentality. As the Canadian people will find out in years to come, they are being short-changed on these two counts, the failure to provide public housing, and the-failure to provide at least inside recreational facilities in some of the projects now being built.
[DOT] (10:10 a.m.)
I see no reason why the mistakes which caused the task force to be formed in the first place and which caused the task force to

June 17, 1989
National Housing Act
recoil in horror from starting fresh ghettos should be repeated, as they will be by the minister's own admission, unless some change is made in respect of the housing projects now in process.
This morning I should like to touch very briefly on the other great sin of omission. I refer to the failure of this legislation to provide a program by which owner-occupiers of elderly down-at-heel houses can restore them to good condition. My colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) dealt thoroughly and ably with this matter which affects people in the larger cities. While the minister says the bill will permit the upgrading of such housing stock as can be salvaged, this relates only to houses within urban renewal districts which by definition are already blighted, or substandard areas. What we need is help for small homeowners in areas threatened with blight but which are by no means yet decayed or beyond redemption.
What is required is legislation to provide preventive measures which can be taken by small homeowners and which will save the general taxpayer many dollars in the long run. To run over a whole area with a bulldozer is not the way to save the taxpayers money any more than it is the way to help the human beings who will be displaced and have to find other premises. We want to see measures taken outside these already blighted areas, in those areas which have not yet fallen into decay and blight.
Measures should be taken now to prevent the decay in the core of the cities. The Home Improvement Loans Act has failed to do this over a long period. It has been of service to those who could afford the loans, but not to those on modest incomes. In the words of my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood:
The total expenditure in 13 years tor the whole of Canada on home improvement loans by the federal government amounted to $2.3 million or $177,000 a year, so the big talk of raising the ceiling from $550 million to $600 million means very little when you look at the real government contribution of only $170,000 a year across Canada.
Then he concludes by saying that this is not a serious contribution to the solution of the problem.
What is needed now is a very substantial fund to provide interest free loans for older, moderately priced homes occupied by the owners. Such loans should be repayable when the house is sold or at the death of the owner.

It is because we in the New Democratic party are convinced that these two great gaps in the housing legislation now before us must be filled before there is hope of coming to grips with the most urgent housing needs of this country that I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) the following amendment:
That Bill C-192, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, for the purpose of amending it so as to provide more housing for lower income groups and interest-free loans for the rehabilitation of existing housing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that the Chair may have second thoughts in connection with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I am worried particularly from a procedural standpoint by the suggestion that this bill should not be read a third time but be referred to a standing committee for the purpose of considering the provision of interest free loans for the rehabilitation of existing housing. This would appear to be a money provision. Hon. members may wish to let the Chair have their views, but it seems clear to me that this amendment implies the expenditure of funds which must be covered by the Governor General's recommendation. I have serious doubts about accepting the amendment and putting it to the house.
If there is no view expressed by hon. members, I would have to rule with regret that the amendment cannot be put to the house because it involves a charge on the public purse. This type of amendment cannot be moved by an hon. member without the recommendation of the Governor General which I understand has not been obtained.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: She
might have tried.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
June 17, 1969

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio) moved:: That Bill C-201, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on Friday, June 6, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Robert Knight Andras: third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-195, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with this measure I should like to raise a point of order. My point of order in respect of Bill C-195 is that the provisions of this bill are in part inconsistent with certain of the provisions of an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, chapter 20 of 1968-69 Statutes which passed the house in the present session as Bill C-151. The most recent precedents on this point of order are Mr. Speaker's ruling of January 26, 1967, Commons Journals page 1231 with regard to a proposed amendment to a clause in the transport bill and Mr. Speaker's ruling of March 11, 1968, Commons Journals page 753 with regard to Bill C-193 and Bill C-207 which dealt with taxing provisions.
[DOT] (10:20 a.m.)
This bill and the earlier bill, now an act, both deal with amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The original act is simple in its scheme: it provides for a government guarantee on loans made to fishermen by lenders. Restrictions of various kinds are then placed on the guarantee, the loan, the fisherman, and the lender.
The earlier bill removed some of the restrictions on the definition of a lender; changed the interest condition of the loan and widened the government liability on the guarantee. In
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act short, out of four elements-the borrower, lender, loan and guarantee-the two bills affect two identical elements; the loan and the guarantee, plus the fact that the present bill by clause 1, subclause 2 affects every element in the earlier bill by extending the life of the original act.
The resolution on the first bill defined the amendments that could be made to that bill and thereby negatived the amendments proposed in the present bill. A maxim of interpretation is that "The expression of the one is the exclusion of the other"; when the house approved the resolution and the two clauses relating to the loan and guarantee and, by implication, confirmed the determination of the entire scheme on June 30, 1970, the house negatived the further amendment, now proposed in the present bill, to the loan, the guarantee and the extension to the life of the scheme.
There is a loophole, however, that parliament has provided for some-not all-cases of this nature. The present case can be made to come within that loophole.
The Interpretation Act, 1967-68 statutes, chapter 7, section 35(2) provides:
An act may be amended or repealed by an act passed in the same session of parliament.
The effect of this provision is that where one bill has been enacted in a session, a second bill can amend, vary and repeal that act. The mistake that has been made in the present case is that both bills purport to amend the original act which, of course, was passed in an earlier session.
A proper procedure was followed in chapters 7 and 44 of the 1918 statutes which were respectively titled "An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act" and "An Act to Amend the Act of the Present Session Intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act". In 1919, chapters 25 and 26 were passed. These were titled "An Act to Amend the Immigration Act" and "An Act to Amend an Act of the Present Session Intitutled An Act to Amend the Immigration Act''. In the statutes of 1926-27, chapters 34 and 62 were titled "An Act respecting the Department of National Revenue" and "An Act to Amend An Act of the Present Session Intituled An Act Respecting the Department of National Revenue".
An important step to curing the defect in this bill, which otherwise would be unacceptable, so as to bring Bill C-195 within the loophole of the Interpretation Act is to amend the title so that Bill C-195 amends an act of the present session.
June 17. 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
The title of the bill having been changed, it is not possible to proceed under the Governor General's recommendation for this bill or the recommendation for the earlier bill. The resolution on Bill C-151, now chapter 20, does not support the provisions of the present bill; while the resolution on Bill C-195 applies to an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. This is obvious by reference to the resolution and to the drafting phraseology of the bill itself. The resolution does not apply to an act to amend an act that was passed earlier this session.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill must be amended to take advantage of the provision in the Interpretation Act, which overcomes the parliamentary rule that the house cannot again consider a question upon which the house has already made a decision in the same session. Changing the title involves no expenditure of public funds.
If this point of order is accepted I would request that Your Honour put to the house the proposed amendment standing as No. 3 in my name.


Mr. Thomas S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the point of order. I have made a brief examination of the question raised as a point of order, in view of the fact there is an amendment standing in the name of the hon. member who just spoke in this regard. I have not prepared any statement of reasons along the line of that just given to the house, but I have examined the subject matter of the two bills in relation to their various clauses and also in relation to the wording of the recommendations from the Governor in Council introducing the bills.
Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I can determine there is no infringement upon the basic principle, with which I am sure we all agree, that the house be not asked to reach a determination on the same question twice in the same session. In other words, as far as I can see it, Bill C-195 does not ask the house to repeal or alter in any way the provisions of the earlier bill C-151. Therefore I would suggest that this is really not a serious point of order and that the time of the house should not be devoted to debating a question as to whether the title to the current bill should be amended.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) for bringing this very interesting point to the attention of the Chair, and also the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for his participation in

the discussion. I thank all hon. members for their confidence in the Chair in allowing me to reach a decision. The hon. member for South Shore was generous enough to indicate to the table and the Chair some time ago a point of order which he proposed to raise, and which worried him. This has given me an opportunity to look into the matter.
As the hon. member for South Shore has pointed out, the Interpretation Act does provide the possibility that an amendment may be debated at the same session with respect to an act of that session. The hon. member suggests today that to do that and conform with the Interpretation Act the title of the bill should be amended. I really do not see how a simple changing of the title of the bill would bring this particular legislation within or put it outside the scope of the Interpretation Act. I think the proposed bill must stand on its own merit.
I cannot imagine how a simple change in the words of the title of a bill would make it acceptable or unacceptable. I had some serious reservations initially as to whether it was in order to move an amendment to the title of the bill at this stage. I have looked at the precedents and there are very few to support the hon. member's contention that the title of the bill can be changed in the way he suggests.
I am quite willing to overlook this slight difficulty that may exist and, when we reach the proposed amendment, allow the hon. member's motion to be put to the house and let the house decide whether or not the title should be changed. However, I have an additional serious reservation in regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for South Shore The house will have reached a rather late stage in the consideration of this bill. The bill has already received second reading. I am wondering whether it should be said, when we have had the bill reported from the committee, that it is not in order and that it should be changed in some material way.
For that reason I would have serious reservations about accepting the hon. member's position that this bill is not properly before the house at this time. I do recognize that there is a very interesting point, and I assume that the law officers of the Crown will want to study very closely the point made by the hon. member. This would perhaps be of assistance when similar legislation is drafted in the future.
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
For the moment, and in view of the fact that we have proceeded this far with the consideration of the proposed legislation, I would suggest to hon. members that there be a submission to the house of the amendment to be proposed by the hon. member for South Shore.
[DOT] (10:30 a.m.)
Mi. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore) moved:
That Bill C-195, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be amended by deleting clause 1 of the said bill and substituting the following therefor:
(1) All that portion of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act following subparagraph (ii) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"did not exceed fifty thousand dollars;"


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will
appreciate that there are in connection with this motion objections of the same nature as those raised with regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) on another subject.
I would like to hear the hon. member on that point.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in moving the amendment calling for an increase in the amount which may be borrowed under this legislation from $25,000 to $50,000, it is not my intention to speak at great length or unduly delay the passage of the bill. When this matter came before the house for second reading on Tuesday, May 27, there were, unfortunately, very few members in the chamber actively interested in fisheries and forestry problems, because second reading was called at the same time as a meeting of the Fisheries and Forestry Committee. I mention this because you, sir, referred to the delay in bringing these amendments before the house.
As a result of this lack of planning very few members of parliament representing fishing and forestry constituencies were in the chamber and unfortunately they did not hear the minister's statement on this important legislation. I hope this action will not be repeated in the future, because I do not believe it makes for good government to have a minister of the crown piloting legislation through the house at the same time as a committee is sitting to deal with the department concerned. The legislation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the point before the house at the present time is whether the
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act proposed amendment is in order. I indicated to the hon. member that I have serious reservations about the amendment. The objection I have is that the amendment appears to imply a charge on the treasury. If it does, it cannot of course be moved by the hon. member at this time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the legislation as it now stands, raising the ceiling on loans from $10,000 to $25,000 under the act, is in accordance with an amendment that we on this side proposed to Bill C-151 when it was before the Fisheries and Forestry Committee on February 6 of this year. To indicate the reasons for moving that this amount be raised from $25,000 to $50,000 I would point out certain changes which have occurred since Bill C-151 was passed.
There have been debates in this house with regard to the inflationary expansion in the economy. Our fishermen are subject to the same inflationary strains as are faced by other Canadians. I believe it is important that we raised the amount of the loan, because loans made under this legislation are only backed by the government and are in fact made by the lending institutions. The government only guarantees the amount. Since the legislation has been in effect the number of loans the government has had to repay has been very small in relation to the over-all amount lent by the lending institutions. For this reason I believe the amendment is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out to the house before calling on the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that perhaps the arguments the hon. member is now advancing would be more properly made at the third reading stage of the bill. In any event, I will hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni on the point of order raised by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On the point of order under consideration, I would submit to Your Honour that in the light of the statement contained in the recommendation this proposal does two things; first, it limits the maximum liability of the Crown to $10 million and, second, it increases the amount of a loan that may be made to an individual fisherman. I submit for Your Honour's consideration that the amendment as proposed would not increase the liability of the Crown. If the hon. member's proposed amendment were agreed to, it might result in
10218	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act fewer fishermen having access to loans; but I suggest that the amendment in itself does not increase the total liability of the Crown which is suggested in the recommendation of the Governor in Council.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposed amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore appears to me, as I indicated a moment ago, to be irregular in that it proposes an increase in the amount of a loan that may be made under the provisions of Bill C-195. If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will look at the recommendation of His Excellency as printed in the bill, he will notice that it places a limit of $25,000 on a loan to a fisherman.
I bring to his attention that not only cannot the total amount of the expenditure be changed by a motion such as this, but the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the moneys authorized by the recommendation of His Excellency cannot be changed. On this point I would like to refer hon. members to paragraph 3 of citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisers of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
In other words, this restriction applies not only to private members but also to ministers of the Crown; they are restricted by the recommendation of His Excellency in the way indicated in the citation I have just quoted.
[DOT] (10:40 a.m.)
It is suggested that for those reasons the hon. member's motion cannot be put from the Chair. If I may add one more word I should like to say that perhaps the arguments advanced by the hon. member are the type of arguments which could be considered in debate on third reading of the bill at which

DEBATES	June 17. 1969
time the hon. member will have all possible freedom to advance his views.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That BUI C-195, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be amended by inserting therein the following clause:
(2) Paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'(e) the loan was repayable in full by the terms thereof in not more than fifteen years.'
And that clause 2 of the said bill be renumbered 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to say that I also have reservations about this amendment. I wonder whether the hon. member for South Shore feels he may be able to convince me that his proposed amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
might as well have stayed upstairs.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In moving this amendment to the bill we did so realizing the many difficulties which our fishermen on the east coast, and on the west coast as well, are facing at the present time. They have established a record for the repayment of any loans, but there are times when, due to storm, fire or other disaster, they are unable to meet their commitments. Recently there has been an incident in the province of Newfoundland where man-made pollution has completely destroyed the earning capability of the fishermen in one area of that province.
Realizing the attitude of our fishermen toward their obligations and also realizing that they have always met these obligations whenever it was possible for them to do so, we feel that it is only fair, just and proper that they be given an extended period of time on their loans so that it is available to them if required; and since the extension from the present period to 15 years would not place any additional obligations on the Crown, as the original loans would be in the same amount, we believe that this is a valid and just amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) joins the procedural fray, I should indicate to hon. members that the reservations I have in connection with the second amendment apply with equal force to the 4th amendment, the one proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which of course follows closely the suggestions contained in the amendment
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
proposed by the hon. member for South Shore.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni may want to address his procedural arguments to both proposed motions at this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Shore in respect of this amendment. I think he has outlined, in part at least, what I think is the very close relationship between his proposed amendment and the proposal in the bill which raises the total amount of the loan which can be made, even though the amount is not adequate in the view of the hon. member for South Shore, as indicated by the earlier amendment he proposed and which Your Honour ruled out of order.
I suggest that in view of the close relationship between his amendment and the part of the bill which has to do with increasing the amount of the loan, it lies closely within the scope of the subject matter of the bill. It merely proposes a modification in the matter of repayment as related to the increased ceiling on the amount of loans. Therefore I believe it is within the scope of the bill and is a necessary adjunct of the proposal to increase the maximum allowable loan.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their views as a guide in connection with the amendments. I wish I were in a position to allow those amendments or motions to be put to the house, but I believe that I must be guided by the decisions which have been taken by the Chair from time to time since we introduced this new stage in the consideration of legislative proposals. I think it is basic for us to respect the principle that such amendments moved at this stage should not go beyond the scope of the bill itself. I believe that this type of amendment would normally have been ruled out of order if it had been proposed in committee of the whole house, and I think that the same ruling would have to apply when it is proposed at this stage of the consideration of bills.
Again, the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni concerning the amendment of the hon. member for South Shore can very well be advanced during consideration of the bill on third reading, and I assume that the hon. members will want to take advantage of that stage of our consideration of this bill to advance his proposals.
However, for the moment I must rule strictly on procedural grounds and suggest to
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act hon. members that both these amendments- amendment No. (2) and amendment No. (4), the second one standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena-are out of order in that they are in the nature of new legislative proposals and introduce matters of substance which are not covered in the bill itself. These motions propose the deletion of sections in the act which are not dealt with in Bill C-195.
Beauchenes's 4th edition, citation 406 in part states:
Amendments are out of order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope,
As I said, I suggest that I must take into account my rulings made in this session with respect to similar motions as recorded, for example, at pages 7604 and 7605 of Hansard of April 16 last.
For these reasons the Chair regrets that the proposed motions cannot be put.
The motion which is yet to be considered is amendment No. (3) standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That Bill C-195, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be amended by striking out the title and substituting the following:
"An act to amend an act of the present session intituled an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act."


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated earlier that I have some reservations about this amendment proposed to the title of the bill. But I think I have been difficult enough until now, and if the hon. member wishes to proceed with his proposed amendment, it is now before the house for consideration.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, there is very little I can add to the point of order which I have already raised on this matter. I have endeavoured to provide the Chair and the house with precedents* relating to procedures which were followed in previous instances when it became necessary to deal with an act which had previously been before the house. Therefore I can only suggest that, having outlined my reasons for moving the amendment, the question be put to the house for a vote at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour has already admitted, this has not been a very good morning for private members' motions or amendments. All those that have been moved thus far have been ruled out of order, except for this one; and what is there to this one?
June 17, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act [DOT] (10:50 a.m.)
I rise simply to say that I did not take part in the discussion of the point of order earlier because it seemed to me it was in good hands, and Your Honour has our confidence. I should like to say, now, that the motion to change the title of the bill would, if passed, I suggest, put us in a somewhat ridiculous position. The text of the bill makes no reference to a previous act of this session; it makes no reference to what was Bill C-151, and what is now chapter something or other. Rather, the text of this bill refers to the original statute. It would be odd if we were to amend the title to make it read "An Act to Amend an Act of the Present Session Intituled An Act to Amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act" and then went on to pass a bill which does not do this at all, but which amends provisions of the original act. I think this would look somewhat strange. The Law Officers of the Crown and the drafting officers would have quite a time trying to sort it out.
The point of order raised originally by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) was a legitimate one, but since Your Honour ruled the way you did it seems we have no option but to reject this motion.
Motion (Mr. Crouse) negatived.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries) moved:: That Bill C-195, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as reported (without amendment) from The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on June 10, 1969, he concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


John (Jack) Davis: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, you extended an invitation to us to comment at this stage on certain aspects of the bill, both with regard to its contents and its deficiencies. I had hoped to be able to move during the report stage on behalf of my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard) the addition of what he and I consider to be a very necessary feature, that is, the extension of the coverage provided in this measure so as to permit fishermen to refinance debts previously incurred-


Mr. McGrath:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is now referring to an amendment on which Your Honour has already ruled and I submit he is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will appreciate that the amendments were ruled out of order only because they could not be moved at the report stage. This does not mean that the subject matter might not be discussed on third reading. Indeed, I made a point of suggesting to hon. members that they might wish to make their points on third reading.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I certainly have no desire to debate the amendment which Your Honour has ruled out of order but I did understand I might make reference to the subject matter.
I was on the point of referring to the provision in the legislation which spells out the purposes for which fishermen can borrow money. Generally speaking they include the purchase or construction of fishing, vessels, the purchase of major equipment, major repairs or overhaul of fishing vessel engines, and the purchase of certain shore installations associated with the fishing industry.
The suggestion put forward by my hon. friend from Skeena was that, while this legislation is open, the bill should remedy what has long been a serious deficiency, namely that no provision has been made for fishermen to convert loans secured previously from other sources into insured loans under the terms of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I am siue anyone who is familiar with boat financing on the west coast recognizes that this is an important matter, because over the years in the absence of any more adequate arrangement for the financing of fishing vessels and equipment fishermen have made various borrowing arrangements with the fishing companies.
The result is that over the years many fishermen have become captives of the large fishing companies. They have never really acquired ownership of their vessels and equipment or been able to operate as independent fishermen, with the freedom to sell their catch to any buyers they might choose. It is more important than ever at this time to take steps to enable fishermen to achieve a greater measure of financial independence vis-a-vis the fishing companies; bearing in mind the program of licensing of fishing vessels which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has put into effect. I suggest there is an opportunity now for the minister, and
June 17. 1969	COMMONS
for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who is to administer this program, to mitigate some of the difficulties which will be created for our fishermen.
[DOT] (11:00 a.m.)
I am sure it was with this situation in mind that the hon. member for Skeena felt that section 3 of the act should be amended in order to make it possible for fishermen to borrow money without having to be under any liability to the fishing companies but, instead, liable for repayment of the loan only to insured lenders, as specified in the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I think it is regrettable that the government did not see fit to propose such an amendment to the act at this time. I cannot seriously quarrel with Your Honour's ruling on the report stage amendment and whether it lay within the scope of the bill, but I suggest to the house that this proposal certainly lay within the scope of government action and should have been taken into account when the bill was brought forward for the consideration of the house.
So far as the proposals contained in the bill are concerned, perhaps there may be some common ground between myself and the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in that he may feel that the proposed increase in the amount of loans has moved in the right direction, though perhaps not quite far enough. At the same time I found myself in agreement with his suggestion that the repayment period should be extended to a more appropriate term. Originally it was a shorter period than is provided in the present act, but under the present proposal I would agree that the ten-year repayment limitation is, under some circumstances, going to be difficult for the fishermen to meet.
I believe I covered the points that are foremost in my mind in relation to the bill, and I hope that the government will give consideration to the ideas put forward with regard to further improvements that could and need to be made to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, it had not been our intention to speak at any great length on this measure, but since the New Democratic party has decided to open a debate on third reading I think it only fitting that I say a few words at this time.
As the legislation now stands it raises the ceiling on loans from $10,000 to $25,000 and is in agreement with an amendment that we on
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act this side proposed to Bill C-151 when it was before the fisheries and forestry committee on February 6 of this year. At that time the amendment did not carry, but we are pleased to see that the government and the minister have given the matter some sober thought which has resulted in the new bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act that is now before us.
When the former legislation, Bill C-151, was before the house in February I suggested that the ceiling on loans was inadequate and should be raised to $25,000. In the period between February and today a number of changes have taken place which lead me to believe that the $25,000 ceiling will be inadequate. For example, we learned during the recent budget debate that galloping inflation is eroding the purchasing power of our dollar, that it has become a nightmare to industrialists, our senior citizens, our pensioners, and especially those citizens on fixed incomes. Consumer prices are rising at the rate of 4.7 per cent per year, and a man has to earn at least that much more per year just to keep even.
Our fishermen are subject to the same inflationary strains faced by other Canadians. In fact, they would appear to be the forgotten people of this country. I say this because everything that they require for their fishing industry, such as boats, gear, paint, rope, repairs and insurance-especially insurance-[DOT] to name but a few items, has gone up and up in price while their catches have grown smaller and the returns for their efforts have remained static or in some cases have actually declined.
Those who have no other training or ability by which to earn a living, or who desire to remain in the fishing industry following the loss of their boat or fishing gear by fire or storm, find that as a result of inflation the replacement cost has skyrocketed. In fact, the finance minister told the house only recently that the rate of inflation this year would at least be as high as the rate of inflation last year, when it was the highest it has been in the past 17 years.
In addition to facing the high costs of replacing ships and gear, the fishermen can no longer look for any assistance in the form of a shipbuilding subsidy from the government. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have money available for the C.B.C., for arts centres, or for expanding the national capital region, but we have no money available to assist our shipbuilders and our fishermen who find it
10222	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act necessary to make replacements. Faced with this fact, what can our fishermen do? They have to continue to work in the fishing industry since in many cases they have no alternative. However, with inflated costs and no assistance to them in the form of shipbuilding subsidies, I submit that a loan of $25,000 is inadequate today when one considers the over-all cost of ship and gear replacement.
These are not my views alone; they were endorsed by fishermen from various fisheries organizations that appeared before the fisheries and forestry committee at the hearings held by the committee throughout the minister's own province of British Columbia. In fact, as the minister himself stated when speaking to the bill on second reading, the raising of the ceiling was due to submissions directed to his department by the provincial ministers of fisheries to the effect that the optimum size of fishing boats and gear involves costs well in excess of $10,000 and sometimes in excess of $25,000.
In view of this fact I quite frankly cannot understand why the minister did not raise the ceiling at this time to $50,000. If he had done so he would really have been only endorsing his own point of view which he expressed quite forcefully when he spoke on second reading of the bill. After all, money will be lent only to fishermen who are vitally interested in expanding their operations; it will not be lent to those who are lazy, to laggards who are not desirous of going forward. This money will be lent only to those who are energetic and want to make a greater contribution to the over-all economy of Canada.
The government itself only guarantees the loans, with the discretion for making loans still retained by the lending institutions. A search of the repayment record of all loans made to date under this legislation indicates that the government would not be assuming any great additional responsibility if the ceiling on loans were raised to $50,000. In the over-all interests of our fishermen, our shipbuilders and the economy of Canada, I hope the minister will give further consideration to raising the ceiling on loans when he introduces legislation in the next session dealing with fisheries problems.
For the same reason I hope the minister will consider extending the repayment period. After all, we now consider 40 years a suitable repayment period for loans made under the National Housing Act. If we extended the 
DEBATES	June 17. 1969
repayment period for loans to fishermen from 10 years to 15 years we would enable the fishermen better to plan their finances. They are subject to every hazard possible while carrying out their operations-to fire, storm and man-made pollution. Their record has shown that they will not abuse any privilege granted to them. They are as desirous and anxious as any group in Canada to meet their commitments and to make their payments when they fall due. Bearing in mind their record in this regard, I think it would be fair and just if we made it possible for fishermen to plan better their entire fishing operations. We can do this by extending the repayment period from 10 years to 15 years. We would then make it possible for our fishermen to fish more efficiently, to meet better their financial obligations and to plan better their over-all contribution to the development of this country's fisheries.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, most of the points I wished to touch on have been covered by my colleagues in the N.D.P. and the Conservative party. Nevertheless, may I briefly emphasize a couple of points that I consider important. As Your Honour may know, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) originally submitted an amendment which, if it had been accepted, would have permitted fishermen to refinance existing debts they had incurred for their vessels. The hon. member was most sincere in his desire to be helpful.
All hon. members who know anything about the fisheries on the west coast know that west coast fishing companies control many privately-owned fishing vessels. The reason for this is that the owners of the vessels are indentured, so to speak, to the fishing companies. Our fishermen are in debt. It is not correct to say that the fishing companies have been motivated entirely by altruistic motives in advancing money to fishermen. The fishermen have used the loans to buy fishing vessels and have been obliged by the terms of their contracts to supply the fishing companies with catches of fish. Many west coast fishermen are anxious to escape from the clutches of the companies but are unable to do so as they are tied too tightly to the companies through financing arrangements. As I said, the companies have been willing to advance these loans with strings attached because they want the fishermen to supply company canneries with fish. In fairness I must say that when other sources would not
June 17, 1969

lend the fishermen money, the fish companies did.
The hon. member's amendment shows the government how it may help west coast fishermen. If the government is really sincere in wanting to help the fishermen it will do all it can to resolve the problems resulting from vertical integration within the fishing industry. All hon. members from the west coast know that the number of fish companies operating on the Pacific coast has diminished markedly, with only three companies remaining in operation. They co-operate extremely well, controlling between them most of the market. This is not a myth, Mr. Speaker. This situation is very real.
The amendment of the hon. member for Skeena sought to help our fishermen by enabling them to refinance existing debts incurred for vessels and equipment through an independent and unbiased source of funds. In that way our fishermen would be less dependent on the fishing companies.
The minister told us in committee that he was aware of the problem but, since the matter rested in part with the Department of Finance, he could do very little. He also said, and I hope I am paraphrasing him fairly, that he was interested in seeing less company control of fishing vessels on the Pacific coast. The companies, too, have said they do not particularly want their money to be tied up in fishing vessels. I cannot accept completely the position of the companies. On the other hand, I think the minister is sincere in wishing to see the fishing or catching end of the business separated from the packing or canning end.
The minister announced to the committee that there is under way a new, experimental program which is designed to develop new kinds of fishing vessels of great efficiency.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) said, at the moment a large number of vessels owned by Indians are under complete company domination. These Indian fishermen, I think it is not unfair to say, have often been intimidated by the companies from which they secured loans. Often the outstanding indebtedness runs on and on. Having purchased their gear from the company these fishermen often are unable to pay back their loans owing to the small size of their catches. The situation continues in perpetuity, with the fishermen unable to extricate themselves from the clutches of the company. They owe their souls to the company store and every year, if they are not deeper in debt,
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act they are just as much in debt as they were the year before.
The situation I have alluded to has concerned many of us. The difficulty may even be aggravated by the introduction of the new licensing regulations. Let me explain it this way. It is well known that many gill-netters catching salmon in our rivers are operated and owned by our native peoples. It is possible for an individual or company to buy a licensed gill-netter and then to transfer the licence to a much larger fishing seiner which is capable of catching ten times the amount of fish the gill-netter is able to catch. While this matter may not be entirely germane to the point I am discussing it illustrates, I believe, another difficulty that faces the fishing industry. As Your Honour knows, the number of licences is limited in order to limit the amount of fish taken from our waters. What is the good of limiting licences if a gill-netter's licence can be transferred to a fishing seiner capable of ten times the gill-netter's catch? By limiting licences that way you are not limiting the total catch. I submit that our licensing regulations have not been examined thoroughly enough.
We are pleased to see that the government has increased the maximum amount which may be borrowed under certain circumstances to $25,000. That figure is much more realistic. Some fishing vessel owners who want to buy larger and more efficient ships still feel that this figure is too low and that other kinds of financing ought to be introduced to take care of these bigger ships. The hon. member for South Shore who preceded me suggested that the $25,000 limit was too low. However, I do not think we can quarrel with the fact that the increase is a step in the right direction. It should also be pointed out that the government itself is not lending the money but is merely guaranteeing the loans. The raising of its obligation from $25,000 to $40,000, I suggest, would not involve an additional responsibility of any great magnitude.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
When we were on the west coast fishing tour one of the problems we noted was the difficulty of getting any money at all. Last fall we debated fisheries improvement loans legislation, the main provision of which was to raise the interest rate one per cent above the yield on government bonds. Many of the financial institutions, including credit unions, felt that this was too low considering their obligations to their membership. In spite of
10224	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act all the discussion about anti-inflation measures it was interesting to note that credit unions which had fishermen members felt the interest rate was too low to lend money on this kind of venture, an anomaly and a contradiction if ever there were such.
It has been suggested that the government might be interested in depositing money in these financial institutions so that they could lend it at a subsidized interest rate because banks, trust companies and credit unions are dragging their feet at the thought of lending money at the present rate. This is one of the limiting factors on the effectiveness of this measure, and if nothing can be done about it this will become merely an exercise on paper. The bill will become an act but it will not ensure the actual provision of more money for financing. Another criticism that is frequently made is that it takes a fisherman too much time to get a government backed loan.
In connection with the business of refinancing the licences have traditionally been controlled by the large fishing companies. In fact at one point the licences were actually issued by them. There has been a constant struggle by the fishermen within the industry to get out from under this kind of company control. The situation now is not as serious as when the companies were in fact issuing the licences. However, if the companies' financial involvement with the fishermen is such that they can control the industry without actually issuing the licences, then it does not appear to me that we have gained a great deal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say as a private member that I am extremely pleased that the minister is pursuing anti-pollution measures with respect to salmon spawning streams. I certainly wish him well in this work. I compliment him on his zeal in pursuing it. It is a matter of great interest to conservation-minded people anxious to maintain this common property resource in as plentiful supply in the future as it has been in the past.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay unduly the passage of this legislation. I was of the opinion that members, especially members from British Columbia, were anxious to have the bill passed. As a consequence it was with some considerable surprise that I heard some of the speeches, albeit outstanding ones, by hon. gentlemen from B.C. Now that the measure has been opened up for debate I wish to ask the minister whether
DEBATES	June 17. 1969
this would not be an opportune time for him to put on the record of the house exactly what the situation is in Newfoundland regarding the very serious pollution that occurred in Placentia Bay and his subsequent action in closing the bay in order to protect the Canadian fishing industry, in particular to protect our markets for both fresh frozen and salted cod fish. In the press I have read a number of statements that have been made outside the house both in Ottawa and in St. John's, Newfoundland. I understand certain action has been taken. Perhaps the minister might feel inclined to take the house into his confidence.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister might tell the house the outcome of his first meeting at St. John's a few days ago with the new advisory committee set up to advise him on his new program to aid the salt cod fish producers in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, Mr. Speaker. My questions were not rhetorical.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the minister that any statement he wishes to make at this stage should be limited to the bill before the house, and I would point out to the hon. member for St. John's East that some of the matters he raised go far beyond the scope of the bill. I certainly would not be prepared to allow the minister to reply to many of the points mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I only raised this matter because hon. members in the New Democratic party raised the subject of pollution and how the minister was dealing with it. The subject of aid to the salt cod fishery program comes directly under this legislation because these fishermen will benefit from the increase in the loans proposed in this bill. I say this to Your Honour with great respect.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to the subject matter of the bill before us, and I shall be brief.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It will be realized that the minister, having moved the motion, may make no reply on third reading. But hon. members may want to give the minister unanimous consent to allow him to make a statement, which I still insist ought to

June 17, 1969	COMMONS
be within the four corners of the bill before the house. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is first to raise the maximum amount of any one loan to a fisherman from $10,000 to $25,000, and also to put the government in funds to honour these obligations by raising the government guarantee to $10 million in respect of chartered banks and to $10 million in respect of other eligible lenders.
When the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was first passed in 1955 the maximum amount of loan authorized was $4,000, and it remained at $4,000 until 1965. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I find some of the protestations of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) rather anomalous in that his party, when it was the government for five years, did not see fit to make any change in the $4,000 limit.
I would also like to point out that now that the maximum amount of an individual loan is $25,000 it is possible for a fisherman to finance the construction of a new vessel costing as much as $37,500, because two-thirds of the funds required can be provided under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and two-thirds in this case is $25,000. This bill, in other words, makes possible the purchase of equipment costing as much as $37,500.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
This is legislation in respect of improvements. The name of the act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, suggests improvements. It is not intended to accomplish all the objectives of the fishing industry or of the federal government. It is the intention of the government in the next session of parliament to set up a loans program which will enable fishermen, by means of direct loans, to finance the construction of new vessels. So the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act should be viewed in the context of other legislation and other forms of financial assistance made available by the government.
The hon. member for South Shore also mentioned the question of insurance. It is our intention to redraw the fisheries indemnity legislation so as to improve the coverage of fish boats and to reduce the cost of insurance to fishermen.
The question of refinancing seemed to be the main concern of members from British Columbia. However, refinancing is a problem in all parts of the country. The hon. member
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) referred to the companies owning the soul of the fisherman. There are some 800 loans on the west coast in the nature of agreements of sale. These agreements are conditional on the fisherman selling all his catch to the fishing company which advances the money. This is a hangover, I suppose, from earlier days, the days of barter when individual fishermen were dependent on the companies for their supplies, as well as for the sale of their fish.
This is an old-fashioned way of financing, but perhaps we can hurry it on its way by refusing to recognize it in our new boat licensing scheme. With regard to any new agreement of sale, when one of the fishing companies proposes to refinance a boat for a fisherman it could be required to draw up a proper mortgage so that the financing would be more equitable. In other words, the fisherman would not be obligated to deliver all his catch to a particular company.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask a question of the minister?


John (Jack) Davis: If I may be permitted to conclude my remarks I will be able to stay within the time limit I suggested I would observe. There are fewer companies, as the hon. member said, on the west coast. Indeed, he said that only two large companies are operating there. The fewer the companies the less meaningful these agreements are. However, it is a matter of some concern and I think that with the aid of our boat licensing scheme we can eliminate these agreements of sale.
There are other reasons for refinancing not being part of this fisheries improvement loans legislation. If it were introduced in respect of the fisheries, undoubtedly it would have to be introduced in respect of farming and small businesses through the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act This would require amendments to these acts.
There are good reasons that refinancing is not attractive to the private lenders who are not obligated to make loans under this act. They may find that the government guarantee is useful, but they are not required to make loans. I imagine that the banks and other credit institutions would be less enthusiastic about refinancing loans made by their competitors, small loan companies and so on. This is not of great interest to the lenders. I would think it would also be contrary to the public interest to have an arrangement made whereby a loan could be made by some
June 17, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act unscrupulous individual to a fisherman which could later be refinanced with a public guarantee at a lower rate of interest. Presumably the first lender would make a very substantial charge for tearing up his initial contract with the fisherman. So perhaps the inclusion of a refinancing clause in the legislation would be undesirable even from the point of view of the fishermen themselves.
Finally, in this connection I should like to refer to the facilities offered by the Industrial Development Bank. The Industrial Development Bank does lend money to small enterprises. Many of its loans are for amounts less than $25,000. I am told 1,150 loans were made last year in amounts of less than $25,000. This represented 45 per cent of all Industrial Development Bank loans made last year.
The Industrial Development Bank also has the expertise to look into the affairs of individuals and to give advice from the point of view of the operator and form the point of view of the design of equipment required to carry out the activities. So I suggest that the fishing industry should be made more aware of the facilities of the I.D.B. so that the fishermen would lean a little more on the Industrial Development Bank when it comes to refinancing the vessels and equipments which they require.
I think I have covered most of the points raised by hon. members opposite. I can assure them that we will be looking at this legislation from time to time with a view to improving it, but I cannot see any other change that we could make this year which would be beneficial.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister? The minister said there are 800 agreements of sale. Was the minister speaking of the demand type of agreements between the fishermen and the fish companies regarding financing of boats? Are these 800 agreements different from the traditional demand type of financing which has been so common on the Pacific coast?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different types of agreements' of sale. One of the principal features is the requirement or obligation that the fisherman deliver all his catch to the lending company. There are other aspects, however, such as the ability of the company in respect of these agreements to claim that the fisherman has not respected the terms of the contract and unilaterally tear up the agreement. This is a very bad requirement. It is one which we would


like to eliminate at once, but no doubt we will be able to phase it out later.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, may I ask-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should point out to the hon. member that it is unusual on third reading to have a protracted question and answer period. If the hon. member has another question I shall allow him to put it, but we must bear in mind that this is a practice which could open up the debate for other members who may have questions. As a practice I do not think it should be encouraged.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw my question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Thank you.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ATLANTIC REGIONAL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-207, to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I speak I should ask leave to have the motion altered so that the bill will be sent to the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of its clauses.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion by the minister with people on this side and I believe this course is acceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Caouette:: Accepte, monsieur l'Orateur.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of brevity I have prepared some note on this new bill so members may have as concise an explanation as possible of what it is we are proposing to do. Before dealing with them I may say in a general way that this is only part of the comprehensive transportation policy which is being evolved for the Atlantic
June 17. 1969
region, and these are measures that it was felt, and I believe hon. members will agree, ought to be put into effect as quickly as possible. There will be, of course, considerable additional legislation, and I hope in the course of my remarks to indicate some of the areas within which we will be proposing at a subsequent date amendments to existing legislation or perhaps entirely new legislation.
On March 19 of this year the house gave first reading to a bill respecting maritime freight rates for the purpose of extending beyond March 22, 1969, the so-called freeze on non-competitive freight rates within the Atlantic region which comprises the Atlantic provinces and the southeastern part of the province of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence and east of Levis, an area technically described as the "select territory" and is the area to which the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 applies. The so-called freeze was extended for two years by the National Transportation Act of 1967 to give the government an opportunity to work out a more effective means of achieving the objectives of the Maritime Freight Rates Act in conformity with the changes in transport technology and patterns which have taken place in the 40 years the act has been in force. Appropriate changes could not be made when the National Transportation Act was passed because the MacPherson commission had not dealt with the matter, and further inquiries and studies were still required which had not been completed in 1966.
My immediate predecessor as Minister of Transport had asked the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces to form a joint committee to make proposals to him for a revision of transport assistance for the region, and very comprehensive and constructive proposals were made on behalf of the four premiers in early March of this year. The matter has also been studied by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which visited the capitals of the four provinces and held public hearings.
It is evident that comprehensive legislation to deal with the special problems of the Atlantic region cannot be brought before parliament at the present session, but it has also become clear that certain urgent changes, some going beyond the scope of Bill C-182, are required in advance of such comprehensive changes.
The government proposes, therefore, to ask parliament to consider a new bill, which is the one now before us, to make certain of
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act these changes at the earliest feasible date. The new bill includes in amended form the provisions of Bill C-182 but, perhaps of more importance, it extends to commercial trucking and railway express shipments the same degree of Maritime Freight Rates Act assistance that is 30 per cent, as is now paid to the railways to reduce for shippers the costs of shipments outbound from the Atlantic region. It is proposed that the necessary subsidies be paid to licensed common carriers of goods by motor vehicle who have registered their tariffs with the Canadian Transport Commission by July 15, in accordance with regulations to be made to ensure that substantially equal treatment is given to rail and road transport.
In other words, we have a commitment to put this subsidy into effect for truckers at the earliest appropriate moment and, if it can be done and these operations can be registered by July 15, then it would be our hope we could begin the program as of that date. It is proposed that the necessary subsidies, I repeat, be paid to licensed common carriers, and therefore there will be, as there is within the bill, a definition of just what constitutes a common carrier.
In order to provide the necessary funds for those subsidies which will place truckers on a basis of equality with railways on outbound traffic, it is proposed to authorize the Governor in Council to terminate the so-called freeze at an earlier date than originally contemplated in Bill C-182, thereby removing another discrimination between railways and truckers.
While the MacPherson commission and the subsequent studies have recommended the removal of the 20 per cent reduction and subsidy on railway rates within the Atlantic region, it is not proposed to remove this assistance immediately but to ask parliament to give the Governor in Council authority to remove M.F.R.A. assistance from time to time on certain commodities or classes of traffic as circumstances may warrant. Consideration was given to reducing the rate of this assistance and extending it to truckers on a temporary basis, but it seemed preferable, in conformity with the spirit of the recommendations of the Atlantic premiers with whom I discussed this matter, to set up a joint federal-provincial committee to examine the economic effects of these M.F.R.A. subsidies on rail traffic within the region and to recommend, from time to time, to the government specific and detailed methods of assistance to

10228	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act the transport and distribution of goods within the region which might be substituted for the general assistance now given under M.F.R.A. to ensure that the funds provided by parliament can be used to the best advantage of the region.
The government intends to set up such a joint committee without delay and undertakes not to exercise the power to be given to the Governor in Council to remove or reduce M.F.R.A. subsidies except to the extent that financially equivalent assistance is proposed by the joint committee and accepted by the government. This would be the first task of the joint committee.
In addition to the examination in detail of the M.F.R.A. assistance on rail traffic within the region, the joint committee will be asked to review all the subsidized water transport services into or out of the region, from the rest of Canada, or wholly within the region, except those which are being examined as part of the transportation study set up under the comprehensive rural development plan for the lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands. The joint committee will review all other subsidized water carrier services and recommend any revisions or improvements in these services which will contribute better to the economy of the region. Meanwhile, in order to ensure a competitive service to the railway from Montreal to Newfoundland the government has decided to ask parliament to provide an interim subsidy to the existing water carrier service between Montreal and Corner Brook and Montreal and St. John's for the season 1969, and thereafter until the two studies are completed.
The joint committee will also be asked to consider whether and to what extent a subsidy on outbound air and waterborne freight from the region might contribute effectively to provide producers in the region with more effective access to the markets of central Canada.
Finally, the joint committee will be asked to examine in detail the economic effect of the outbound assistance under M.F.R.A. to see whether a more selective approach might not provide a more effective use of the funds provided by parliament.
In order to provide the Atlantic region with an economic, efficient and adequate transport system making the best use of all available modes of transport, it has been recognized since 1963 that special federal assistance in

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
the upgrading of trunk highways in the Atlantic region is needed, because the provision of an adequate highway system is beyond the financial capacity of the provinces. this approach will be continued by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Once the joint federal-provincial committee has made progress with its work and the joint development plans of the provinces and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have been formulated, it is planned to bring forward legislation of a more permanent character. I hope that this will make the subvention policy more effective for its purpose of assisting economic development, and one important change in that respect would be to institute a system under which the shipper, rather than the carrier, is assured of the benefit of the subvention. The future legislation will also deal with many particular points of great importance, such as the rates on the ferries to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
Meanwhile, it is hoped that parliament will see fit to deal expeditiously with the new bill. I want to thank hon. members for their concurrence in having it referred to the Committee of the Whole, so that a first step can be taken toward the provision of equal treatment for road and rail traffic in the region and the provision through competition of more efficient and adequate transport services to the public of the Atlantic region.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all there will be a general disposition to meet the plea of the minister to grant quick passage to this legislation. I believe this can be done more willingly than otherwise would be the case because we anticipate that the broad package will come before us in the fall. This bill, as the minister has said, is an interim measure. I believe that this afternoon the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications will be presenting a long document for the consideration of hon. members. This document will set forth a suggested policy for the Atlantic region which I think could fit within the minister's comprehensive legislation in the fall. Anyway, this is devoutly to be hoped.
I should now like to turn to the points presented in the bill. I suppose there are really five principles contained in the bill, and I should like to address myself to a couple of
June 17. 1969	COMMONS
them in particular. First, I think the amendment which will bring aid to truckers can be welcomed. This is a matter about which the maritime trucking industry has felt keenly for many years, because big brother railway had certain advantages which little brother trucker did not have. As the minister said, this provision has not only the advantage of providing an element of competition, which I think is a good thing, but it will also provide the immediate answer to one of the problems that have bedevilled industry in the Atlantic region since the National Transportation Act was passed a number of sessions ago.
The worst by-product of that legislation was that l.c.l. rates took off into the great beyond and in some instances maritime industries were faced with increases in the transportation of less than carload lots of up to 500 per cent. This threw an enormous burden on those industries, to say the very least. It seems to me that this situation will be improved by providing the truckers with the advantages set forth in the bill. Truckers will be dealing with the kind of traffic that I presume could be classed as l.c.l., though in their case it would have to be modified at least in name. In any event, with regard to small volume shipments that a truck can easily carry but which occupy only part of a railway freight car the provision in the bill will go a long way toward removing what has become a very unhappy situation for many industries in Atlantic Canada.
I now refer to the minister's suggestion which is not contained in the legislation but is a method of carrying out the purposes of Bill C-207, that is, the establishment of a joint federal-provincial committee to deal with subsidies. This will give us a very useful guide when the complete package of legislation is introduced in the fall. We will be able to see how the representatives of the Canadian Transport Commission have been able to work with representatives from eastern Canada. We will know what unexpected pitfalls have developed in their dealings over a period of a few months, what sort of pressures have been placed upon that body to grant subsidies, those asking for help, those who need help and those who do not need it. This information should be very useful as a guide to what should be included in the legislative package which will come before us in the fall.
I think we would all agree that the Maritime Freight Rates Act, commendable though its purposes were in 1927, has probably
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act become out of touch with the times. The complaint is often made that it helps a certain segment, that is, the railways, but not particularly the shippers. I believe that taking steps to change the focus from help to the carriers to help to the shippers is a good one initially, and I hope it will be reflected more fully when the new legislative package is introduced in the fall.
In my final point I am in complete disagreement with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the legislative approach that has been placed before us this morning. I refer to clause 5 of the bill wherein the Governor in Council is given the power to vary or remove the reduction in tariffs for the preferred movements of traffic described in section 4 of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. In my opinion this is indeed a very bad principle. If this clause is passed we will, in effect, be repealing a statutory provision and replacing it with an administrative decision. The voice of parliament has spoken one way and we are being asked to muzzle that voice by granting to the government-that is what it amounts to in effect-the right to take statutory provisions and knock them completely out of action or vary them.
If this bill were not an interim measure, such an approach would give rise to a debate lasting many days. I believe this sort of provision strikes at the very heart of the operations of parliament. I give the minister fair notice that we intend to resist this clause. Our spirit of co-operation this morning in trying, hopefully, to get the legislation through before the house turns to other business this afternoon is justified in my mind by the fact that this is an interim measure, and we look forward to a much more orthodox legislative approach when the Minister of Transport presents the full legislative package to us in the fall session.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Transport and Communications Committee which visited the Atlantic provinces. On that visit we had five or six days of very intensive work and heard a large number of briefs on all aspects of the problems of transportation and regional disparity in the Atlantic provinces. The plea heard most often and stressed most emphatically was that the trucking industry be allowed the subsidy advantages accorded the railways in that region. Because of the justice of the case presented by the truckers during our visit to that region of Canada, I
10230	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17, 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act do not think this party will have any difficulty in agreeing to that aspect of the bill.
I am concerned about the minister's statement regarding that part of the bill which provides that a subsidy shall be granted to common carriers as defined in the bill. My concern is that the carriers, be they rail lines or truck lines, are not always too concerned about passing on the subsidy they receive to the people who most need relief, that is, the manufacturers and consumers.
[DOT] (12 noon)
In the Transportation Committee report which will be tabled this afternoon it is suggested that the carriers be phased out gradually as the recipients of these payments and that instead the shippers be awarded whatever subsidy or freight advantage is given on a particular product, because the purpose of the Maritime Freight Rates Act was to assist the shipper and not necessarily the carrier. It is all very well to subsidize the transportation industry if it in fact does the job it is supposed to do, to assist the producers and consumers in that area to be more competitive in the markets of central Canada.
The rationale behind this assistance is that it will ultimately lead to the development of industries in the area which, because of its geographical situation, is at a disadvantage. This, however, is negated if the carriers gobble up the subsidy and do not in fact pass it on to the shippers. So in the Transportation Committee report it has been stated that, where feasible, the award of the subsidy should not go to the carriers but rather should be paid directly to the shippers so that in turn the price of goods shipped to central Canada can be lowered.
One concern that I share with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is his reservation about the way in which the Governor in Council can gradually phase out assistance on specific commodities. I believe this power is contained in clause 5. I do not think there is anything wrong with the intent behind it but the manner in which it is to be done may be open to some criticism because, as was suggested earlier, parliament will have no control over this matter once the authority is granted.
I do not think there is anything wrong with phasing out assistance on specific commodities. The subsidies are paid because a particular industry or a particular commodity is not competitive or economically viable, but subsidies, useful at the time they are given, tend

to be perpetuated. We know of all kinds of subsidies that have been given but very few that have been phased out. They are always welcomed with open arms when they are granted because they fill a particular need, but then they persist long after the need has gone. I do not think we can criticize the investigation of a particular industry or of its commodity to see whether or not the continuation of a subsidy is really justified. I do-not think we can quarrel with that aspect or the rationale behind it. However, we can quarel with the lack of parliamentary control over the administration of this matter.
We have been told that this is an interim measure but, except for certain clauses, I cannot see any expiry date. I hope we are going to have very comprehensive transport legislation. However, I am not certain that we can actually divorce transportation from all the other factors which operate in this region to make it one of economic disparity meaning high unemployment and low income. Transportation is only one of the problems, and if we patch up transportation in isolation from all the other problems that together make this region disadvantaged we are not looking at the whole matter from a comprehensive point of view. Perhaps it might be worth while to look at transportation as it fits into the whole milieu of economic development.
So in general we are pleased that this is an interim measure. I hope that Bill C-207 is only interim legislation and that we are not perpetuating something with which we may be stuck because of delay in implementing a comprehensive plan of transportation and regional development. We might have this legislation with us a good deal longer than we anticipate at this time because things like this have a way of being delayed. An interim measure is not always interim, just as an interim subsidy is not always interim. We believe that subsidies should be selective. They should be used when they are needed and they should be phased out when they are no longer necessary.
The fact that the trucking companies are going to receive transportation assistance is only fair provided, of course, that all the trucking interests are not owned by the same interests that own the railways, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., and that the trucking assistance is not just used as an excuse to phase out more rail lines. If it is for the benefit of the region we have no quarrel with it. If, on the other hand, it simply enables the railways to escape their responsibility after
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
having accepted huge land grants and other advantages, then, of course, we will be extremely critical of it and fight it at every turn.
So the fact that this bill awards assistance to truckers is a step in the right direction. As the minister said, they have to have roads to operate on. It seems to me that this is a limiting factor. The trucking industry may be forced, because of the lack of adequate truck roads, to operate in precisely the same areas as the railroads do now. Unless accessibility to the more remote areas that need transportation assistance is increased, the alternate transportation system will not be of benefit to those areas. If the trucks are going to be controlled by the same companies that operate the railroads, competition will not bring about the expected advantages. The minister and hon. members on the other side of the house place a great deal more faith in competition than I do. Nevertheless, there are many interesting suggestions in the bill, and I hope it will not be too long in passing because it is necessary to increase transportation services in the region for the reasons I have mentioned.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-207 is to authorize freight assistance in the Atlantic region and we support this measure introduced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson).
The only point on which I wish to direct the attention of the house is clause 2(c), and I quote:
"select territory" means the territory consisting of the Provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, the Island of Newfoundland and that portion of the Province of Quebec that is south of the St. Lawrence River and east of Quebec Highway 23, being the highway connecting Ldvis in Quebec with TJ.S. Route 201 in the State of Maine;-*
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister could have included the whole province of Quebec in the bill authorizing freight assistance in the Atlantic region because we feel that the province of Quebec should be recognized as a designated area.
In my area, for instance, which is located north of the St. Lawrence river, we find farmers and small industries in need of help. They cannot be helped directly through subsidies; however, we could help them by means of preferential transportation rates.
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
Not so long ago, I met the president of a Saint-Hyacinthe manufacturing company which exports plastic articles. The company can do so in summer when it uses shipping facilities, for water-borne freight rates are enormously lower than those of any other means of transportation.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
This manufacturer told me that in winter it was impossible for him to export to the West Indies, just because of the excessive transportation charges between Montreal and Halifax. From Halifax transportation is by sea and the cost is accessible. But from Montreal to Halifax transportation rates are prohibitive.
There is seasonal unemployment in the winter just because of the preposterous transportation rates. Now it seems to me that, in such cases, the minister should be able to grant subsidies for rail or road transport so as to enable those small Canadian industries and the province of Quebec to carry on their operations during the dead season.
There are therefore improvements to be made. I do not doubt that the minister is thinking of those cases, even if there is no mention of that in the bill, and that it will be possible for him to widen the scope of Bill C-207 so as to encourage small industries to compete and to go on doing business.
As for subsidies to truckers, they are justified because truckers today are providing better transportation than railways. This is a national business concern. That it should belong to private enterprise, I agree. Individuals must assume greater responsibilities.
We believe the minister to be right when providing in his legislation for subsidies to trucking companies, and railways as well, and for a reduction of freight rates in order to help the underdeveloped areas.
In closing, I say that the whole of the province of Quebec needs assistance in the field of transportation of goods coming from other areas of the country, so that the economic revival will reach that province which, as everybody knows, is economically less prosperous than the others, although it has whatever is required for an important development of its natural resources.
I think that all the provinces, including the Maritimes, would agree that the province of Quebec should get those subsidies, in the same capacity as the other provinces or areas which need them.
10232	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17. 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
We are in favour of Bill C-207. I congratulate the minister for having introduced it in the house, and I urge him to extend its application so that more people can benefit from the assistance which the government wants to offer.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of this bill because at least it recognizes a principle which we on this side have been advocating for so long, namely, that some assistance should be given immediately to shippers and plants in the Atlantic provinces to enable them to compete in the Canadian market.
I am glad the minister has finally brought this bill into the house. As he has indicated, it is only an interim measure but I feel it will bring some degree of relief to those affected and it does recognize the principle we have been advocating that subsidies should be paid to all modes of transportation, not just to the railways. Our trucking industry has suffered for years as a result of inequitable competition, and I know this bill will be welcomed with some degree of relief.
Since I welcome the legislation I do not wish to impede its passage, but there are three or four questions I should like to put to the minister for clarification. First, why should it be necessary to bring in a completely new act under a new title? Those who have studied the report of the Atlantic premiers will have noted that while the premiers wanted many changes they worked on the assumption that those changes would be made to the existing Maritime Freight Rates Act. I do not think this was merely because the old name was familiar to them; there may be a good basis for the position they took. The Maritime Freight Rates Act finally, by statute, recognized not only the constitutional obligations assumed at the time of confederation but also the many commitments which have been made over the years to the Atlantic provinces-that they were entitled to certain subsidies to enable them to compete in the Canadian market, and so on. I am not a legal authority and maybe this point is not well taken, but it seems to me there is a feeling that the bringing in of a completely new act, one which does not include these commitments in the preamble, will mean these commitments may be lost in the shuffle. Yet they are the basis of the special claim for assistance advanced by the maritimes. Why could not the old act have been reopened and revised to include the word "Atlantic" if that 
is considered desirable? Possibly the minister could explain this to us later.
The second point has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Here again I should like to refer to the report of the four premiers. It seems to me that if we are really interested in assisting the Atlantic region we should certainly listen to the presentations and requests of those directly involved. This was always the position taken by the former Minister of Transport. Every time we questioned him as to what was being done to assist maritime transportation he told us he was awaiting the premiers' report. Now we have that report. It confirms what we heard in almost every brief submitted to us during the trip through the Atlantic provinces, first, that subsidies should be paid not to the truckers or the carriers but to the shippers. The fear was many times expressed that if the subsidies were not paid to the shippers they would not receive the full benefit.
In the second place the premiers felt that the subsidies should be administered by an agency they proposed to set up in the Atlantic provinces. As reason for this, they said the subsidy should be allocated on a selective basis; it should be used to assist industry and should be capable of adjustment as need for assistance was required. They felt this could best be arranged by an agency composed of people from the Atlantic region with an intimate knowledge of local conditions. I would therefore ask the minister to tell us why the government has decided that the subsidy should be administered by the Governor in Council rather than by a separate agency as proposed.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The third point I want to raise is in connection with the premiers' report. Running through the report one will find the distinct theme that change should not be made by the dominion government just for the sake of change or to save money. In more than one place in the report it is stated that if the government of Canada alters the Maritime Freight Rates Act it must accept responsibility for making sure that any changes that are made are for the purpose of assisting the region, not just to save money.
At page 14 of the Atlantic premiers' report appears this statement:
In fact, the modification of the Maritime Freight Rates Act proposed in this report is made by the four governments on the clear understanding that
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
the acceptance of such modification by the federal government is equally an acceptance by that government of the responsibility to ensure that the revised act substantially improves the marketing position of regional industry both now and in the long term.
This is something that the premiers emphasized and that I also would like to emphasize.
Fourth and last, I do not see any specified amount of funds provided by the bill to pay subsidies. I should like to know whether there is any limitation on the amount. Subclause 2 of clause 3 of the bill makes reference to a ceiling on assistance payable of 30 per cent of the charges for movement of goods by any individual carrier, but I should like to know whether the total amount of funds available by way of subsidy is limited. Perhaps the minister would clarify that point later.
Briefly, those are the points I wanted to make. I welcome this temporary measure and I hope it will be an interim one. I ask the minister to give full consideration to the committee's report. Many of the suggestions should and must be adopted right away if we are to develop a viable Atlantic transportation act. We suggest that subsidies are very important to the maritimes, and we suggest they be granted on a selective basis and administered in such a way as to encourage industries to develop into viable enterprises. I hope the minister will consider these remarks as well as the report of the committee, and that in the near future we can expect an over-all transportation policy for the maritimes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think the normal reaction of hon. members would be that we are in a rather strange position procedurally at the moment in being asked to deal with the second reading of this bill on the eve of receiving and discussing a comprehensive report made by a parliament standing committee which it has been indicated will be placed before the house later today. One's normal reaction is that this is a pretty bad case of putting the cart before the horse. However, inasmuch as there seems to be some indication of agreement to this course of action on the part of members of the transport committee, who recently made a rather extensive tour of the Atlantic region, perhaps other hon. members will go along with this proposal on the understanding given them by the minister that this bill represents an interim and perhaps temporary measure.
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
There are one or two aspects of the bill about which I am concerned, particularly with reference to the extension of subsidies to truckers. I hope the minister and the government are not going to go overboard in this respect. I have sensed a disposition on the part of truckers in the various representations they have made to the members of this house over quite a period of years to feel that they have some sort of divine right to equality of position with the railways in regard to matters such as this and in relation to transportation generally. My concern is that if this matter is not watched very carefully we are going to find ourselves, in effect, in the position of paying a double subsidy. In other words, we are going to be subsidizing truckers, even though the result of their operations will be to reduce the volume of traffic provided to the railways. Therefore we will find ourselves in the position of subsidizing two uneconomic operations.
I think this discussion stems from the debate in the house at the time the National Transportation Act was under consideration. In my view that act was a rather peculiar one. It set a precedent that I am not sure is at all desirable in that when it was introduced it contained a kind of preamble. Actually it was not a preamble but a clause of the bill which in effect set forth a particular philosophy of approach to transportation matters.
I am concerned that in the follow-through from the passage of that act there is going to be a slavish adherence to the principle of supporting the virtues of competition for competition's sake, rather than the recognition that in a matter as basic to the economy as transportation there are situations where the concept of complementing one form of transportation with another is really a more economically sensible approach. In my view the practical effect of slavishly following the concept of the virtues of competition is that we in this country will indulge in a lot of wasteful and uneconomical capital expenditure. I think we have an historic reason to be concerned about this happening. The whole history of the boom of railway construction, competitive railway lines and the resulting chaos that eventually caused parliament to place severe restrictions on the operation of the railways and the construction of ne v railway lines should, I think, be kept in mind by the parliamentarians of this generation. It has been argued that the wasteful expenditure of capital funds at that time seriously endangered the proper growth and development of Canada as a nation.
10234	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
On the other hand, coming back again to the relationship between the truckers and the railway companies, I think we should recall that by its acts at that period of our history parliament emphasized the original understanding of the Fathers of Confederation, namely, that in a country such as ours the railways were, and in my view still are, basic to our liability as a nation. I do not think the interests of any particular group of truck lines should be allowed to supersede our understanding of that basic concept as far as the movement of bulk goods in this country is concerned.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I would not want it to be said that I am arguing that there is no place for proper support of the trucking industry in the provision of transportation services to the producers and shippers of this country. At the same time I remind the house that one of the things that must go with that is the expenditure of major funds in the construction of highways. This burden will in large part fall on the taxpayers of Canada at the provincial level, although some of the requisite funds for this region will be provided by the government of Canada through federally raised taxes. These are some of the considerations that came to my mind as I listened to the minister introducing this interim measure to assist transportation in the Atlantic region.
I was interested in the observations of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) about clause 5 of the bill. I can see the virtue of the flexibility which that clause provides in the administration of subsidies. I think, nevertheless, that at the committee stage the minister ought to explain to us why this kind of detailed action is to be implemented directly through the Governor in Council and not through the mechanism of the Transport Commission. It seems to me that normally parliament has set up regulatory bodies in the field of transportation and they have had well-defined responsibilities to enable them to carry out the will of parliament. In view of what the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has said, I think it might be a good idea for the minister to spend a little time in committee outlining the reasons behind this proposal.
I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), one of the committee members to visit the maritimes, that it is better to provide assistance for the sake of shippers, producers and consumers than for

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
the sake of the transportation companies. The hon. member displayed a legitimate concern and, if I am not mistaken, his point will be discussed in the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Having said these things, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to support those hon. members who were on the committee as well as other hon. members with constituencies in the maritimes in saying that I think it is desirable to give this bill passage at this time, on the understanding that the general policies which will no doubt be considered and discussed in the committee report will be given proper consideration when future government legislation in this field is introduced.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying I regret that the minister has found it necessary to bring in a temporary measure in order to deal with the urgent needs and problems of maritime transportation. I was a member of the committee and toured the maritimes earlier this year. We heard many briefs and saw much evidence to substantiate the fact that transportation is a problem of major dimensions in the maritimes. The very fact that for many years the Maritime Freight Rates Act has been on our statute books indicates that this problem is of long standing. I am therefore disappointed that the newly appointed minister from that region has brought in a temporary measure. We have had problems with transportation in the maritimes almost since confederation. Why did he, therefore, introduce temporary legislation? Why did he not introduce substantially different and new legislation? After all, we want to solve the transportation difficulties in the maritimes.
This bill, which in my opinion will not be as beneficial as the Maritime Freight Rates Act was, will assist only the trucking industry in the maritimes. Its provisions will make available to truckers hauling goods out of the region assistance that was formerly available under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Smaller operators carrying on trucking operations within the maritimes will not be helped. As I read the bill it seems that there is to be no assistance to truckers moving goods to the area.
Why should the Governor in Council be involved in regulations governing truckers? Trucking concerns operating within the region will have to come to the Governor in Council for authority to do certain things. Why should a trucker or his agent have to lobby the minister in order to obtain a
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
licence? Surely the provisions of clause 3 are not fair. It is not fair for people to have to beg the Governor in Council for permission to do anything. Why should anyone have to go on bended knee and ask for assistance?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member does not wish to misrepresent the case. He was not here when I made my opening statement. I mentioned that a federal-provincial committee will be formed to be made up of representatives of the four provinces as well as federal representatives. That committee will consider just such cases as the hon. member has alluded to.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What difference does that make, Mr. Speaker? We now have another committee, another board. I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) that there may be some justification for giving truckers the assistance formerly available under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, but I am very suspicious. Any assistance made available to the trucking industry may not be passed on to shippers. In other words, shippers may not benefit. It is well known that the railways set the basic freight rates and that truckers tag along. If truckers are to be given a subsidy it may mean that they will make greater profits and not pass on to shippers the benefits of any assistance. Frankly, I doubt very much that the trucking industry will pass on to its customers the benefit of any assistance. I do not think this legislation will have much effect on truckers hauling goods out of the maritime region. I think this is a disappointing piece of legislation which does not go far enough in meeting the very serious transportation problems the maritime region has experienced almost since confederation. It will do little to improve those economic factors that tie our country together.


An hon. Member:: It is discrimination.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In my hand I have a news release dated June 13, 1969. It says in part:
The new bill incorporates the substances of Bill C-182 introduced on March 19. 1969, wider which it was proposed to extend for one year the existing freeze on non-competitive carload rail freight rates on Atlantic region shipments, but it provides that the freeze can be terminated before the end of the year by the Governor in Council.
What kind of security are we giving the transportation industry of the maritime region? The freeze is to be extended for one year. Yet, as the news release says, the freeze can be terminated at any time before the end 29180-647J
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act of this year-before December 31, 1969. How can the government act with such permanency on some matters and yet take such temporary action with regard to some of the more important economic factors that bind us together? These economic factors must be made cohesive.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
This bill does not go far enough. It does not ensure that the shipper will receive the benefits. It does not give any real benefit to the trucking industry except to the large trucking firms, and it gives all power to the committee that the minister is establishing.
I have one suggestion to make to the minister. I know it will be difficult for him to follow me without having a copy of the National Transportation Act in front of him. The Maritime Freight Rates Act has been in existence for many years, but even the National Transportation Act makes special provision for the movement of grain for export over railroads leading to eastern ports. This is the eastern grain policy. It was promoted to provide for the continued development of harbours such as Halifax and Saint John. I believe it would also be possible to build another large port on Bay d'Espoir.
Surely the concept of the development and continuance of the harbours in the Atlantic region should be incorporated into a new Maritime Freight Rates Act. When the standing committee visited the maritimes we received many briefs about containerization which will modernize the whole transportation industry. Surely such transportation legislation should give consideration to inbound freight arriving at Halifax for transportation into the interior of the country.
The other point I wish to raise with the minister concerns the right of appeal by a carrier within a region. I discussed this matter with knowledgeable men serving on the Atlantic Transportation Commission. Section 16(3) of the National Transportation Act reads:
In conducting an investigation under this section, the Commission shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) whether the tolls or conditions specified for the carriage of traffic under the rate so established are such as to create
(i) an unfair disadvantage beyond any disadvantage that may be deemed to be inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected therewith, or the type of traffic or service involved-
10236	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
In other words, if the disadvantage is because of location or smallness of volume of traffic there is no appeal to the new C.T.C.
I asked the Atlantic transportation people about this section. I asked whether they felt they had ample room to appeal any case under it to the C.T C. They immediately replied no because this provision prohibits an appeal on the ground of location or smallness of traffic. I suggested removing the word "beyond" from the subsection and they said that would improve the act 100 per cent and would give them an opportunity to appeal any unfair rate that may be imposed upon them, whether it be because of their location or because of the small amount of traffic. This would not be a subsidy. This would not be a grant of money. It would just give them an equal opportunity with persons in other regions to appeal to the Canadian Transport Commission.
The minister has told us that a more permanent piece of legislation with respect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act will be coming before the house in the fall. I repeat that I recommend to him that he give consideration to removing the word "beyond" from section 16(3) of the National Transportation Act. There is no question in my mind that this subsection does not apply to Ontario central Canada, although it might apply to some vast regions of the west. But as it is now worded it certainly does apply to the Atlantic region.
If the minister is going to make a subsidy available to the trucking industry he should do so in such a way that the benefit will be passed on to the shipper. Second, he should give consideration in more permanent legislation to provisions governing outgoing export traffic similar to those provisions covering the eastern export of grain. Containerization can add to the permanency of some of the great all-winter ports that we have on the east coast. My third suggestion is that he delete the word "beyond" from section 16(3) of the National Transportation Act.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I also suggest, if the freeze on non-competitive rates is to continue, that it should not continue just until the end of the year. Let us give some permanency to it if it is justified because of there being no corridor road through the state of Maine or because of a number of other reasons such as there being no causeway to Prince Edward Island. A number of reasons could be brought forward for the freeze remaining, but let us not have

DEBATES	June 17. 1969
it at the prerogative of the Governor in Council so that it may be discontinued at the end of a six month period. Certainly the minister, who comes from this great region of Canada, should not demand that this be on a temporary basis at the whim of the Governor in Council. In the permanent legislation which is to be brought in this fall I hope the minister can do better than that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, pursuant to special order made this day, the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-207. Clause 1 stands.
On clause 2-Definitions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the house would be disposed to call it one o'clock. We have been sitting since ten o'clock and we are to sit again at two o'clock.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, that would be agreeable to me. I think it is clear that we would not get through before the normal time of rising. If other hon. members wish to speak, I have no objection to rising at this time.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock the business now before the house stands adjourned pursuant to special order made Friday, June 13, 1969. I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle).
[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Morison.
[Editor's Note: For reports of Committees above referred to, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
June 17, 1969


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, last week I advised the house that I would be making a statement on road and motor vehicle traffic safety. As hon. members are aware, responsibility for the federal government's role and leadership in this field has been assigned to the Department of Transport. When the department had identified all aspects of this problem in which the federal government had concern or responsibility the departments responsible for motor vehicle administration and highway safety of each of the ten provincial governments were individually and collectively consulted so that the department could define a program by which the federal government might make the greatest possible contribution. These preliminary discussions were successfully concluded when my predecessor met in Quebec City on January 14 of this year with the ten provincial ministers responsible for motor vehicle administration.
As the house was told following the conference, the provincial ministers welcomed the suggestion of an expanded role by the federal government in certain fields related to traffic safety and specifically in the field of traffic safety research, in facilitating international co-operation in the field of safety research and in developing safety standards for motor vehicles and parts at the point of manufacture.
The federal and provincial ministers also agreed on further periodic consultations to ensure the closest co-ordination of programs and the most profitable exchange of views. As a result of the proposed future ministerial meetings, one of which will be held in September of this year, the appointment of the Public Advisory Board previously envisaged has been deferred. For the present it is believed that the periodic discussions between the federal and provincial ministers and our officials will provide the required source of information for the guidance of our program on motor vehicles and highway safety.
On January 1, 1969, the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office was officially established in the Department of Transport with the appointment of a director. The program of this office will be related to: (1) safety standards for new motor vehicles and parts at the point of manufacture in or importation into Canada; (2) co-ordination of all federal
Federal Authority on Tire Safety government activities related to road safety; (3) correlation of road safety research in Canada; (4) international liaison in matters related to road and motor vehicle traffic safety; and (5) planning and support of research programs.
Legislation to establish mandatory safety standards for new motor vehicles and components, including tires, at the point of manufacture in or importation into Canada is now being actively considered. Twenty-nine motor vehicle safety standards have been prepared and issued by the Canadian Government Specifications Board, while additional standards are under study. These standards could be promulgated as soon as suitable legislation has been adopted. Consideration is also being given to means for ensuring compliance with standards. Pending the adoption of federal legislation, Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers and importers have given the government assurances that new motor vehicles and components, including tires, sold in Canada will comply with the existing federal safety standards. The Canadian manufacturers and importers have also agreed to notify the Department of Transport and purchasers of any defect coming to their attention bearing on the safety of vehicles manufactured by them.
The Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office has been working with other federal departments on road problems related to safety, such as traffic control devices. The office is working with various national organizations such as the Canadian Good Roads Association to correlate the numerous road research activities throughout Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The office is actively participating in the road research service and working party on automobile safety of the International Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is also monitoring the activities of the working party on road safety of the Economic Commission for Europe which is attempting to prepare international motor vehicle safety standards. Contacts have been established with the ministries in France, Great Britain and the United States responsible for traffic safety.
As staff is recruited for the new office during the current fiscal year, their efforts will be directed toward the compilation of an inventory of current road safety research in Canada, an assessment of the needs for an
June 17, 1969

Federal Authority on Tire Safety improved documentation centre, the identification of all safety-oriented activities and their inter-relationships, and the drafting of a modest research program which may effectively contribute to the reduction of crashes, fatalities, injuries and property damage on Canadian roads.
The principal features of the government's initiative in the field of road and motor vehicle traffic safety are co-ordination of activities with the provinces to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and co-operation with industry, safety organizations and other interested groups. This is typified by the agreement worked out with the provincial ministers to limit federal safety standards to new motor vehicles and components, leaving the control of safety for vehicles in use on the highway systems with the provinces who have the necessary legislation and administrative machinery to regulate this aspect of the problem.
I might add a word with regard to the recent comments and questions which I have been asked on tire failures. The information recently released on the results of tests performed on tires by the national highway safety bureau of the U.S. Department of Transportation was based on a sample comprising 176 tires from 15 different United States manufacturers. The test involved only replacement tires. No testing of original equipment tires- which account for one third of all tires produced-is being done by the United States bureau. Of the 176 tires tested, 33 or 18 per cent failed one or more of the separate laboratory tests for endurance, high speed operation, penetration strength, bead unseating, dimensions and labelling. Due to the difficulty in interpreting the results from such a limited sample, the United States national highway safety bureau began in January an additional testing program on 1,900 tires. No results are as yet available from these tests. The Department of Transport will be studying the results of the new United States testing program and will be particularly interested in the relationship between the results of these empirical laboratory tests and results from actual use on the road.
No results are available from similar tests on Canadian tires to indicate non-compliance with Canadian standards. As previously announced, the government is now considering legislation requiring mandatory safety standards for new motor vehicles and components, including tires. Safety standards for used vehicles, including replacement tires,


are a provincial responsibility. Most provinces now specify in their motor vehicle or highway traffic acts that replacement tires shall conform to a standard similar to that enforced by the United States bureau. When federal legislation is enacted, it may be possible to arrange a tire standard program jointly with the provinces to ensure compliance in both original equipment and replacement tires.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: First of all I would like respectfully to suggest to the minister that when in future he is going to deliver rather lengthy and complicated statements on motions, perhaps he might have someone send copies to members on the other side of the house who sometimes have to comment instantly-instant comment, you might say. This would be helpful.
I think the minister's announcement will be generally welcomed by everyone. It sounds good, anyway. But it presents the house with a problem with which all major governments are constantly faced, that of divided jurisdiction, perhaps the root of all problems in Canada today.
I am very glad to hear that the minister is going to take an active part in safety research and the standardization of safety equipment in the manufacture of motor vehicles, and particularly in the co-ordination between the activities of the federal government, such as they may be, and those of the provincial governments.
One thing the minister might do is to refer this matter to an appropriate committee of this house at some future date, probably in the fall when we resume the session or begin a new one. I was going to rack my brains, such as they are, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to suggest a particular committee to which this might be referred, but since so many committees are affected the only course I can suggest is that the minister might appoint a special committee. The Department of Public Works would be involved because of its connection with roads and highways. Trade and Industry will certainly be affected because of the connection with manufacturing and safety standards. The Department of Transport, into whose hands the whole matter seems to have been dumped, is of course concerned. The National Research Council will have a role to play and, from the minister's remarks, it appears that even the Department of Consumer Affairs may be involved. I cannot think of any one committee of the house to which this subject might be referred, so I
June 17, 1969

suggest the minister consider appointing a special committee to look into the matter and to make recommendations. I might, incidentally, express the hope that if such a course is followed the recommendations of that committee will have more effect on the government than have the recommendations of any committee to date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In conclusion, let me say it is quite obvious that co-ordination will be desperately needed between those engaged in the federal government's rather limited activities in this regard and the activities of the provincial governments. The minister has shown considerable promise since assuming his portfolio. I am glad to see he is taking a lead in this matter, and I hope he will continue to do so.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: The announcement made by the Minister of Transport has to do with a very serious problem, one which affects Canadians everywhere. For some years we have been killing on our highways rather more than 100 persons each week, injuring over 3,000 every week and causing economic losses running into many millions of dollars.
There are three main causes of accidents: one, the driver; two, the vehicle, and three, the highway. In 1967 several hon. members of this house, who had private members bills down on the order paper calling for action with regard to various aspects of traffic safety, undertook to remove their bills from the list when the government agreed to send their subject matter to the committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study. After careful consideration some major recommendations were made by the committee, one of which was put into effect last week by the enactment of the drinking-driving law.
The minister's announcement today, though it leaves something to be desired, does represent a step forward with regard to the co-ordination of federal, provincial and industrial action to control the number of accidents and improve car safety ingredients, as well as the highway system itself. I wish to express some disappointment over the fact that the minister failed to announce the appointment of the public safety board to which reference was made by his predecessor. Only a week ago the Canadian Automobile Association, which has a million members, urged the government to appoint such a board, whose purpose would be to work for greater safety on our highways. I urge the
Federal Authority on Tire Safety minister to consider making appointments to this board soon.
As a measure of the gravity of this subject, may I say that while we have been speaking on this matter at least one Canadian has been killed on our highways, some 30 have been injured, and the toll in dollars has amounted to over $100,000.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we quite agree that road safety should be watched closely in the country.
In fact, when the minister insists on the fact that standards of security will have to be applied more and more during the construction of the vehicles themselves, we agree all the way, but we feel that it is not the main factor in all the accidents that happen.
It may be that the best car will carry more guarantees than it really offers against defects capable of causing serious accidents. Of course, this can be remedied, but I believe that this is only a minute part of the problem and that road security rests on the education and training of the drivers. Indeed, these two factors represent the biggest cause of the accidents which we all deplore and which are now almost innumerable. It all depends, in the majority of cases, on the training of the driver, and on his sense of responsibility towards himself and other drivers.
Drivers' incompetence and carelessness, in special circumstances sometimes, should be looked into. The training of those who are granted a driver's permit should be checked. That is a provincial matter, of course, but the federal government can help the provinces to improve the education of all drivers of motor vehicles.

[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Roberi L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. May I ask him whether he is now able to answer a question asked in his absence about a week ago about how many meetings of the Canada-U.S. joint committee on oil, which was established last March, have now taken place?
[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there have been two groups or sets of meetings on the subject mentioned, and another set is in the planning stage at this moment.


Mr. Stanfield:: A supplementary question. Arising from the statement attributed to the Prime Minister that yesterday's meetings with representatives from the petroleum industry were "a useful input into the federal government's current review of Canada's oil policy", is it safe to assume from this statement that the Canadian government has not yet decided on its oil policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government has been looking very hard at this question from many sides. There are many aspects to it, some of which have in fact been the subject of certain decisions relating to how far we go at this point, and others of which are the subject of further discussion before a final decision is made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister could explain to the house how the representatives of the Canada-U.S. joint committee can carry out and discharge their responsibilities and negotiate intelligently with the United States group without Canada having made a decision regarding its oil policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the various statements the minister has made while answering questions, may we take it that there has been no change in the oil policy that has existed since 1961?


Mr. Benson:: Since 1966.


Mr. Hees:: No. Since 1961.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is too complicated for there to be a simple yes or no answer, because it would take a fairly long analysis of the policy considerations resting behind the statements that were made, and actions that were taken.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In future when answering questions of this importance, would the minister kindly answer in a straightforward way instead of giving us this meaningless gobbledegook he has been speaking for some time.


An hon. Member:: That was not very nice.


George Harris Hees: It may be good gobbledegook, but it is not intelligible.



EXTENSION OF WESTERN CANADA DISTRIBUTION TO MONTREAL REGION

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether the government is giving serious consideration to the proposal of the Independent Petroleum Association repeating the extension of markets for Canadian Oil to the Montreal region. I should also like to ask the minister whether he would consider making available to the members of the house any studies that have been carried out by the department with respect to the economic feasibility of pipe line extensions to Montreal.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are very few matters connected with the expansion of Canadian markets for oil that the government is not considering. It is considering all problems and looking at the apparent merits of solutions. There is no study of a non-confidential nature which would be available for tabling.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In discussions with the oil industry yesterday, were any commitments made? Was there any indication to the oil industry in these discussions what future oil policy would be?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no announcements of government policy were made to the representatives of the oil industry yesterday.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce may I direct my question to the acting minister without portfolio. Can he advise this house whether Kaiser Jeep of Canada Limited, a subsidiary of a United States company, has informed the minister's department of the parent company's decision to discontinue production in its Windsor, Ontario plant. If so, is the department contemplating any action?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Department of
Industry, Trade and Commerce was informed
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
about the impending action. Although discussions took place between the company and the department, no action on the part of the department is required. The company has invited the Department of Manpower and Immigration to assist in connection with the problem of manpower.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this company has probably received thousands of dollars in tariff concessions from the Canadian government as a result of the auto pact, does the government plan to take action in an effort to recover some or all of this money?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The automobile pact between the United States and Canada was designed to much improve the position of the automobile producing industry here. It has brought about that improvement, to the extent that we have experienced a vast increase in employment. That is what was really involved in the agreement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Edward Broadbent: May I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. When was his department informed that this production was to close down? Also, what action does the Department of Manpower intend to take in efforts to help displaced workers?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, may I check on the first part of the hon. member's question. If I may answer the second part, the department will offer its usual facilities in this case, and co-operate.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the acts of barbarity and vandalism perpetrated by irresponsible maniacs in the city of Sherbrooke, and more especially near the buildings of the St. Jean Baptiste Society, has the Prime Minister had talks with the authorities of the province of Quebec
Inquiries of the Ministry so that effective measures will be taken to put an end to those acts of terrorism in Quebec?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had such talks, but I have had the opportunity to say publicly what I thought and I feel that it belongs to the people themselves and the authorities to consider what would become of a state where individuals responsible for such acts of terrorism would come into power.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Was he officially informed that these celebrations have been cancelled and that he would be unable to attend them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received notice yesterday that the celebrations planned in Sherbrooke have been cancelled.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Since he has stated in public that provinces, and specially the province of Quebec, would be well advised to watch their territory more closely in order to prevent such acts of terrorism, does the Prime Minister intend to advise the Quebec government, and is he prepared to offer the federal government services in order to stop terrorism in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the R.C.M.P.
services are available to provincial authorities when they ask for our co-operation.
I only repeat that this cannot come from the legal authorities, but from the people who will finally realize that when a minority in the opposition resorts to violence as it does, it give us an idea of what the partisans of that ideology would do once in power. If it were to happen tomorrow, violence would be in the hands of the established authorities.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Is he aware that the people of Salaberry-Valleyfield are anxious to welcome him on July 13 next and are eagerly awaiting him?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my ques-

June 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry tion to the Prime Minister. It has to do with a matter that must have been brought to his attention frequently in recent weeks, namely the dire financial straits in which many thousands of Canadian veterans and their dependents find themselves. Between now and the end of this present portion of the session would he give consideration to having legislation introduced, even though it be only a temporary measure at the moment, to increase their pensions, and in particular war veterans allowances, so that those who served and made possible our being alive today, and in freedom, will not suffer for another two or three months before the session reopens in the fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is linked to the policy which has been acknowledged by the government, that we have to review all aspects of social legislation. We are doing this; we do not want to settle special cases. A special plea can be made not only for the veterans but for old people, for retired civil servants, and for all sections of people in society. We are trying to establish a policy that will review this legislation at as little cost to the Canadian people as is necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as cost is concerned they gave almost everything for you and me, and it should not be forgotten. They should receive preference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether the results of these various reviews will be available to parliament before the end of this session, so that action might be taken on them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they will not be ready for the end of this session; but even if they were, we would still need to impose new income taxes to pay for the added benefits recommended by the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister if he would like to test parliament and see whether it would be willing to pay for these increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, gladly, Mr. Speaker; next time we introduce a budget to increase taxes we hope we will have the unanimous support of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the Prime Minister aware of the fact that he

will have such support if these various pension increases are brought forward at the same time?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is not the answer he gave to the right hon. member for Prince Albert simply the parliamentary way of saying that "we have done nothing, we are doing nothing, and we have every intention of doing nothing"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You said nothing, you are saying nothing now, and you will continue to say nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period is becoming too spirited.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF WOODS REPORT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will he be tabling a white paper on the Woods report prior to the summer adjournment of the house?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked that question several times previously and I have always said I hoped to be in a position to table that white paper very soon.



AIRPORTS


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
When he stated last week-end, that the decision about the site of the future international airport was irreversible and final, was the federal government still studying the representations made by the province of Quebec or was the study completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it depends from what viewpoint the matter is considered.
As far as we were concerned, the discussions had been going on for several months with the provincial representatives. After a while discussions and consultations must lead to a decision. Well, we reached a decision. It is possible that others would have liked to carry on the consultations indefinitely, but we do not share that viewpoint.
June 17. 1969


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the average Canadian, I am asking the Prime Minister the following question.
At the time the Prime Minister made that statement, had the province of Quebec been advised that the choice was irrevocable and irreversible?



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On May 20 he indicated that he would be giving a report to the house regarding the report of the Royal Commission on Security. Is he able to tell the house when the report itself, or an expurgated copy of it, will be made available to the members?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful that this will be done on one of the days of next week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the same time will the Prime Minister be able to give some indication to the house as to which, if any, of its recommendations are to be implemented by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the reasons I am suggesting it will take another few days. We do not want to table the report without giving some indication by the government of the position it intends to take on some of the recommendations.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the recent Cornwall incident involving court action against Canadian Indians, is it now the policy of the government to allow free movement across the international boundary of the personal goods of these people as provided in the Jay Treaty and longstanding government practice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question was asked yesterday.
29180-648J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. V/ith regard to the question I addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may I say that the question was not asked of the minister yesterday. It concerns the fundamental rights of all Indian citizens which have been established from time immemorial and I think the minister would like to clarify the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must go by my memory. My memory is that the question was asked yesterday. If the hon. member thinks it should be asked again, he can give notice according to the rules of the house and it will be considered at the time of adjournment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister tell the house, and hopefully reassure members of the Greek community in Canada, the results of the investigation into allegations of harassment by supporters of the Greek military government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, representations to this effect have been made to the department and these allegations are currently under investigation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As it would have been a relatively simple matter to ascertain well in advance if Communist China-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: May we have order, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: So that the house will not be deprived of my words I will start again.


Mr. Speaker:: To this point the hon. member is in order.

June 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: As it would have been a relatively simple matter to ascertain well in advance if Communist China was in any way interested in being recognized by Canada, why did the government find it necessary to put Canada in the humiliating position of being snubbed openly and continually for the last several months by a government which obviously could not care less about being recognized by Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point the hon. member is out of order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is argumentative and therefore is not acceptable.


George Harris Hees: Then I will ask a supplementary in a very acceptable form.


An hon. Member:: You can't.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Thank you.
Could the Prime Minister confirm the report that two days ago the cousin of a third secretary of the Chinese Embassy at Stockholm spoke to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the streets of Stockholm?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is unacceptable.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is a big move forward; it is a sensational move forward.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The minister indicated in the house recently that he was considering making a statement on motions regarding what consideration would be given in respect of assisting university students to obtain summer jobs. Could the minister advise the house if and when this statement will be made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I told the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I would consider making such a statement. I have considered the matter and do not feel there is anything I could usefully add to the discussion at this time.



TRANSPORT


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the announcement that the Canadian Transport Commission is to survey delays and frustrations in travelling between Toronto and Quebec City will the minister suggest to the commission that this study be extended to include southwestern Ontario and travel between centres such as London, Sarnia, Windsor and Toronto, which are not immune to similar problems.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt that the question as asked is in order at this time. Of course, as we reach the end of this portion of the session it becomes more difficult or even embarrassing to the Chair to suggest that questions might be placed on the order paper. If things go the way they might go, we may recess in ten days or so. Therefore it is difficult to suggest that questions be placed on the order paper. After having said all this, the hon. member's question might be allowed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be glad to make these representations to the Canadian Transport Commission, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of Premier Thatcher to the Saskatchewan provincial-municipal conference that the phasing out of the $35 million equalization payment from Ottawa along with some shared cost programs, coupled with the loss of $300 million of farm purchasing power, would sharply reduce the ability of the province to help local governments, does the federal government plan to discuss with the province of Saskatchewan any new approach to deal with this disastrous situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the President of
June 17, 1969

the Treasury Board. Did the government authorize Dr. O. M. Solandt, Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, to appear before the Canadian Transport Commission yesterday to support the application of the Bell Telephone Company for an increase in rates?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that this is the type of question which should normally be placed on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. It is supplementary to that which was put to him earlier with regard to veterans and civil servants for whom we are seeking higher allowances.
The Prime Minister said that it would be possible to grant increases provided we increased taxes in the country. However, would he accept an increase in productivity, an increase in employment, as a favourable alternative to the tax increase he advocates, in order to increase the allowances paid to retired veterans and civil servants?


Mr. Speaker:: I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this question should normally be placed on the order paper.



AIRPORTS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question arising from reports that the intercity jet port at Toronto is being delayed for a year because of the federal government's unwillingness to make a decision. Does the Minister of Transport intend to reject the site located on the sand spit in Toronto bay, a site which the Department of Transport has decided is feasible for the intercity jet airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: To answer that question fully would require a quite comprehensive statement on the whole planning for the southern Ontario region. I can say that this site is being considered in relation to the whole complex of a new airport for Toronto, expansion at Malton and other related matters.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the question to the many millions of Canadians in that part of Ontario, would the minister consider making a statement on motions before the house adjourns, in which he would say when he expects to announce the location of the new facility and in which he would give us a progress report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This might be an appropriate course of action. I am anxious to give as much information as possible to the public.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon take note of the clear concise way in which the Minister of Transport answers his questions, and try to do better in the future.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Prime Minister. It does not deal with expenditures, but deals with human rights. Since the rate of murder per capita is up during the last 18 months, what now is the position of the Prime Minister's government in reference to commuting the sentence of Otto Borg, particularly in light of the split judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say that I have been unaware of the details of the matter raised by the hon. member, but I have some doubt that it is a question which could be asked at this time.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. In view of his expressed concern to provide housing for the low income groups, would the minister make a statement on motions setting forth the allocation of C.M.H.C. moneys to fulfil these needs?


Robert Knight Andras: I will take that representation under advisement.


John Gilbert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the representation by representatives of the Chinese community that they have not been consulted with regard to urban renewal schemes, would

June 17. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister in respect of his guidelines on urban renewal take this into account?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister.



GROUP PHOTOGRAPH-ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since tomorrow pictures will be taken in the House of Commons-


George Harris Hees: Start again. He is not paying attention.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could I have attention?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must
address the Chair.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of concern. The picture that will be taken in the House of Commons tomorrow will be given wide circulation, and faces will be noted. It will not be very satisfactory if there are absences, and if this is noticed by constituents. Will the Prime Minister give permission for the appearance in the house tomorrow of those cabinet ministers whom he has forbidden to appear, so that the people will not know the truth about the members of this government failing to be in their places?



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Hey, wake up!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You had better come up with better questions.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the cost of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has now reached a figure of approximately $9 million, it is the intention of the government to ask the commissioners to conclude their study and report to this house?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and arises from reports that China is now producing and will soon test nuclear missiles with a range of 6,000 miles. Will he say whether the Canadian government has received confirmation or supplementary information in respect of this report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not received any of these missiles yet.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in light of the answer, will the Prime Minister assure the house that he will instruct his wandering Secretary of State for External Affairs to ask representatives of the Peking government about these reports, if and when the minister catches up with these representatives?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not invite a supplementary answer.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he is going to make a statement on the native people of Canada, and when he does so will he make a statement about any changes in the political status of the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as concerns the first part of the question, I hope to make a statement in the house before the summer recess.
As concerns the second part of the question, I hope to be in a position to make a statement during the coming weeks.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATION OF TREATY RIGHTS

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the requests made by the
June 17, 1969

national Indian Brotherhood and by spokesmen for the delegates to the recent National Indian Conference for financial assistance from the government to allow these people to investigate and research their treaty rights, can the minister say whether a decision has as yet been reached and what that decision might be?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision so far but one will be made very soon.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
Since the Mint comes under his department and that seven female employees will be laid off on July 4, I made inquiries this morning at his office and was told that the laid-off female staff would not be reemployed elsewhere, according to government policy-I should like to ask the minister whether he can confirm or deny that fact or at least assure the house that an inquiry will be held in that connection, so as not to lay off those people or to provide them with other employment.


Mr. Speaker:: An hon. member cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny a report.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the house, could I rephrase my question?
Could not the minister inquire and report within a reasonable time, so as to protect the rights of those seven persons?



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio, from Saskatchewan.
Following the decline of new investments in the Canadian textile industry and the statements made by the president of the Canadian Textile Institute blaming the decline on the government that has not yet disclosed its
Inquiries of the Ministry policy, would the minister tell us when we can expect a statement on the steps to be taken to ensure the growth of this important Canadian industry?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this whole question is continuing to receive attention. I cannot give the hon. member the specific date of any announcement in regard to this policy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio, from Saskatchewan.
Could he tell us when he expects to make a statement concerning the agreements on import quotas reached with South Korea, Colombia, Greece and Japan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will draw this question to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ascertain when he may want to give full details. The government of course is continuing to consider this question of imports and has taken action to stop distress sales in excess of understood quantities. Of course, the government understands very well the problem of the industry, which is affected seriously by these distress sales. On the other hand it is interested in the country generally in respect of trade.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY ACTION TO REACH QUOTA

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not here. In view of the fact that under existing quotas and the rate of movement of grain it is unlikely we will reach an over-all quota of five bushels on the prairies, what emergency action is the government considering so that we may reach that declared objective?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree with my thought that this type of question will be considered during the rest of the day when the motion is placed before the house within a few minutes.

June 17, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION



REPORTED AGREEMENT AT DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE AS TO AMENDING FORMULA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of statements made yesterday in respect of agreements reached at the federal-provincial conference held recently. Am I correct in understanding the position of the government to be that it will not proceed to translate any such agreements into constitutional amendments until an amending formula has been agreed upon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly what I said. The question of an amending formula will eventually have to be considered when once we have reached agreement on substantive issues on the constitution. We have decided to proceed first by seeking agreement on the substance of the constitution before looking at the mechanics of amending it, reversing the procedures which had been unsuccessfully tried by the Conservative government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from what the Prime Minister has said that he will be seeking amendments to the constitution before an amending formula is agreed upon?
This is a matter of some importance to the country and we should like to know the position of the Prime Minister in this regard. I should like to know how he proposes to proceed with the implementation of any constitutional agreement reached, whether he intends to proceed with amendments before an amending procedure is adopted, or whether he intends to proceed by direct address to Westminster?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just gave the answer but I will try to give it again in simple language. We have decided not to deal with the amending procedure until we have reached agreement on a certain number of questions of substance. When we have reached agreement on a certain number of questions of substance, then the provinces and the federal government can discuss the question as to how they should introduce these amendments into a new constitution, or into a form of the British North America Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate the Prime Minister's condescension in order that the rest of us who are not quite so bright can

clearly understand what he means. If he had simply said yes when I asked him the first question, he would have been perfectly clear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether any of the substantive changes which the government has in mind will be submitted only if the federal government has the unanimous consent and agreement of all the provinces; or does the government have some other formula in mind for introducing these substantive changes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the agenda for the conference we have not yet come to the issue of ways in which to amend the constitution; therefore, no federal government position has yet been stated on this matter.


Mr. Baldwin:: Very sloppy!


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to answer it in the simple form that was recommended by him a short while ago. Would he say what he meant a moment ago when he used these words, "either to amend the constitution or the British North America Act". What was the meaning of that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, most everyone knows that the present constitution of Canada is contained in the British North America Act; however, it is conceivable that following the constitutional discussions which are now going on we will come up with a Canadian constitution which is not the B.N.A. Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There was nothing particularly wise in that answer to warrant such applause from the Liberal seals. Of course, the trained seals must applaud.


George Harris Hees: It is a condition of promotion.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any step been taken confirming the optimism of the Prime Minister that in the foreseeable future arrangements will be made with the provinces for an amending formula whereby the constitution will be made in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker. It is my belief that all the provincial governments and the federal government would not have embarked upon this process had-
June 17, 1969	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: But you are putting it backwards. You are not amending the constitution first.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that the constitutional debate has ended at the same time as the question period. Orders of the day.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont rises on a question of privilege.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: For some time during the question period I attempted to get Your Honour's eye because of the nature of my question, which would be completely outdated by tomorrow. It deals with the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the house would allow the hon. member to ask his question. The hon. member for Egmont.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would like to put this question to the Prime Minister: In view of his acknowledged interest in regional disparity, I wonder whether he would agree to give his support to the great step being taken in our capital city today to alleviate cultural disparity through the opening of "Anne of Green Gables" at the National Arts Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That this house condemns the government for its failure to take steps to relieve the critical cash position of farmers in western Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I have moved is very clear and concise. It simply states that this house condemns the government for its failure to relieve the critical cash position of farmers in western Canada. Anyone who is familiar with the prairie provinces knows that the plight of western farmers is serious.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
The first point I would like to make is that the plight of the grain economy in western Canada is not due to any failure on the part of the farmers themselves. In the past 20 years they have trebled the production per farm worker. No other industry in Canada can match this tremendous achievement. The farmer today is the victim of his own ingenuity, hard work and technological innovation. No one should blame the farmers for producing wheat which the government unfortunately is not able to sell; nor should the farmers be penalized because of this.
Last summer the farmers of western Canada were assured by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that we would be able to export an average of 430 million bushels a year for the next three years. In his speech in the city of Winnipeg on June 2, 1968, the Prime Minister told the people of western Canada that it was the plan of his government to sell in the export market 1,300 million bushels of wheat over the next three years. Therefore the farmers have done their part; they have certainly produced an abundance of wheat.
The problem which faces the western economy is one for which the federal government must accept full responsibility. Its failure to meet that responsibility merits the motion of condemnation I am now moving. The first thing which I think the house must become fully aware of is the fact that the western farmer is facing a cash income crisis. During the past two years there has been a steady decline both in wheat sales and wheat prices. Exports for the first eight months of the present crop year are down 19 per cent from the ten-year average. Our carryover of wheat is estimated to be 15 per cent above the 1967-68 crop year. It is estimated that at the end of this crop year we will have some 944 million bushels of wheat on hand. This means that if we have an average crop this year we will have before Christmas in Canada approximately 1,500 million bushels of wheat carryover-an all-time high.
Not only have sales of wheat been declining but the price the farmer receives has been declining. The final realized wheat price for the 1967-68 crop year was down 17.8 cents per bushel; for barley the final received price was down 9.4 cents per bushel, and oats were down 1-| cents per bushel compared with the previous crop year. At the same time, the Wheat Board is selling wheat below the I.G.A. floor price of $1,954 a bushel; therefore this figure has become virtually meaningless in so far as the farmer is concerned.
10250	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Another factor contributing to declining farm cash income has been the substantial reduction in delivery quotas which the farmer is able to dispose of at the country elevator. Wheat marketings to April 23 were 236.7 million bushels compared with 320 million bushels at the same time last year. This represents a decline of 26 per cent. As of June 10 of last year, in the province of Saskatchewan there were no delivery points on a three-bushel quota or less. In the present crop year, 55 per cent of the delivery points are on a three-bushel quota or less. Last year, 38 per cent of all delivery points were on six bushels or more, whereas in the present crop year no delivery points are on a six-bushel quota.
Last Friday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who has the Canadian Wheat Board under his jurisdiction, is reported in Hansard at page 10096 as having said:
There are at present 4 on unit quota, 19 stations on a one-bushel quota, 204 on two bushels, 579 on three bushels, 684 on lour bushels, and 347 on live bushels. I am assured by the chief commissioner that his hopes are still very high that all stations will be on a five-bushel quota by the end of the crop year.
His hopes may be high, but I submit there is very little likelihood of there being a five-bushel quota for all stations in western Canada. The government may announce a five-bushel quota, but will there be space into which the farmer can deliver a five-bushel quota? That is the important question which I hope the government will answer today.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the brief which they presented to the government on May 28, 1969, pointed out that in this year there will be a reduction in grain income for the western farmers of $430 million, of which $140 million will represent a reduction in deliveries of grain. There will be a further decline of $290 million in the Wheat Board's spring payments which this year will amount to less than $70 million compared with $360 million in the last crop year.
I submit that a decline of $430 million in the cash income of the grain growers of western Canada is a staggering blow to the western economy. No other section of our economy is experiencing such a drastic reduction in its income. Furthermore, I wish to point out that the farmers' situation is aggravated by the increased costs of production. Much of their grain from last year was damp and farmers had the additional expense of drying

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
it. Also, they received lower grades for that grain. Much of the grain had to be stored which involved additional carrying charges. Because of the policies and lack of policies of this government the farmers are paying the highest interest rates in the history of this country. They are paying higher prices for their machinery, equipment, lumber, hardware and the other items which they need in order to continue their farming operation.
It is not only the farmers who are feeling the effects of the catastrophic drop in farm cash income. The entire prairie economy is feeling the effects. Retail sales in Saskatchewan for the first four months of 1969 were down 11 per cent compared with 1968, and last year they were down 4.5 per cent compared with 1967. Machinery sales in Saskatchewan are down some 26.2 per cent and in Manitoba they are down 18.4 per cent. Automobile sales are down 8J per cent. The fact is that the western economy is in deep trouble, and it is not in this situation because it has failed to produce. It is in these dire straits because the government has failed to formulate policies to stabilize prices and to market the grain crops which the farmers have produced in such abundance.
I want to make two broad proposals. First, I want to talk about the need for an immediate short-term policy to improve the cash position of the prairie farmers. The Standing Committee on Agriculture recognized this need when it asked the government to alleviate the critical cash position of farmers in the predominantly grain growing areas of western Canada. That committee, after touring the west, recognized the need for a massive infusion of cash into the pockets of the farmers of western Canada if the western economy is to be saved.
There are a number of proposals as to how the government can provide some immediate cash income. For instance, the New Democratic party has proposed that the government might pay a 20 cents per bushel deficiency payment on all grain delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board in the crop year 196768 up to a maximum of 5,000 bushels. The advantages of this proposal are, first, that the records are readily available and the money could be sent out speedily and, second, that it would be pinpointed directly to the farmers who make their main livelihood from growing grain. The Federation of Agriculture in its brief to the government on May 28 last proposed an acreage payment of $2 an acre up to a maximum of 1,000 acres. The government can use either of these techniques, a
June 17, 1969

combination of them, or any other method they prefer, but the immediate need is to get cash into the pockets of the prairie farmers to enable them to finance their summer fallowing and harvesting operations and to provide a stimulant to the prairie economy.
In addition to this proposal the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in their brief made to the government what I think is a very reasonable proposal for a four-year commitment of $160 minion for 1970, declining by $40 mfilion a year thereafter, this money to be used for direct income assistance, partly for acreage reduction and partly for livestock incentive programs or any other useful agricultural policies designed to benefit the western farmer. If the present grain situation calls for a greater diversification of western agriculture, then surely the government must give the lead and supply the necessary finances to enable the farmers to make that transition.
I say to the government that the time for action is long overdue. For six months now the government has stalled and procrastinated. Day after day we have asked questions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as to what they are going to do about the serious situation on the prairies. It is not a new situation; it has been growing worse for over two years now. What sort of replies have we had? We have been told that the matter is under review and that the whole question is being given consideration. We were told that the government was waiting for the report of the committee on agriculture. We were told that they were waiting until they heard from the National Farmers Union and waiting until they could meet the provincial Ministers of Agriculture and the deputy ministers. Now they have run out of excuses and recently they have merely been saying that the matter is under active consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That means it is in the deep freeze.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers a government so completely negative and so insensitive to the needs of a vital area of Canada.
We had all hoped that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought down his budget he would make some provision in it for assistance to western farmers. But nothing was forthcoming. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) present and I hope he intends to take part in this debate. I plead with him not to trot out once again the moth-eaten excuse that the matter is under review. He and his colleagues have had plenty of time in which to reach a decision. As a matter of fact, they are on borrowed time now. Western farmers are patient individuals but their patience is at an end. They will not brook much longer this continued delay, this continued refusal of the government to make up its mind.
It may be the government thinks that by stalling until the house is in recess the problem will go away. It won't. Western farmers and members of this house have a right to be told now what the government intends to do to compensate western farmers for an anticipated loss of $430 million in farm income from grain. It may be that the Minister of Agriculture wants to do something but cannot persuade his colleagues. I say to him that he has a responsibility to speak for the west, as has the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) from Winnipeg and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatoon-Humboldt. They have a responsibility in the cabinet to speak out for western Canada or to resign in protest against the government's refusal to do anything for the people they represent.
Let us not have any more talk such as we heard earlier this afternoon to the effect that if the government decides to spend any money it must introduce legislation to increase taxes. Mr. Speaker, this government did not need to increase taxes when it handed the automobile companies a gift of $80 million, $75 million of which went to the Ford Motor Company of Canada. There is no trou-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How much longer can this government flounder in a morass of indecision and procrastination? It used to be thought that the late William Lyon Mackenzie King was the master of stalling and procrastination. Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister makes the late Mr. King look like a jitterbug with St. Vitus' dance. I have never in my life seen
ble finding money when the government wants to look after its friends. But it had better begin to look after the farmers of this country or there will be serious trouble.
I also want to say something about the need for a long-term policy to provide markets for wheat and other cereal grains at stabilized price levels. In the short time available to me I cannot outline in detail the many points which ought to be included in a long-
10252	COMMON
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers term program. I should like to deal with the need for a transport controller to provide more equitable deliveries for farmers. I should like to deal with the question of extending the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board to enable the board to handle all grains including flax, rye and rapeseed. However, I had better concentrate on three points.
First, we in this party believe the farmer is entitled to at least the floor price under the International Grains Arrangement, which is $1.95J. This should be guaranteed. If there is to be a price war in the world wheat market we have no right to expect the western farmer to bear the entire cost. On June 10 I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), as reported at page 9924 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that the Wheat Board is now selling below the International Grains Arrangement floor price, is the government of Canada paying anything to the Wheat Board by way of compensation, or is the entire cost of this floor price for wheat being borne by the farmers?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, to the first question; yes, to the second.
Well, that is simple enough, Mr. Speaker. With the government embarking on a price war in wheat and the Canadian Wheat Board selling wheat below $1,954 a bushel, the entire cost is being placed on the backs of the farmers, and I submit that the least the government could do would be to acknowledge that those who produce our wheat should at least be getting the floor price. If, because of government policy, we have to sell wheat below the floor price the difference should be made up from the national treasury by all the people of Canada.
The second point I wish to stress is the need for a two-price system. The Canadian wheat producer is the only grower in the world whose domestic price is set by world markets. Other countries provide farmers with a price for their domestic sales which is in keeping with general price levels. This is the least the government could do and, in fact, the Standing Committee on Agriculture has recommended such a step in its report.
When I make these suggestions about a guaranteed price for wheat and a two-price system which would set the domestic price at a figure bearing a fair relationship to the farmers' cost of production I am not suggesting anything to which the liberal party is not committed. I remind the house that in March, 1963, when the Liberal party was in opposition, in the election campaign of that year the 
DEBATES	June 17, 1969
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, speaking in the City of Saskatoon, pledged that if he and his friends were elected to office they would guarantee the farmers of western Canada $2 a bushel for their wheat and would institute a two-price system. This was six years ago. When are hon. members opposite going to keep their promise? When are they going to keep faith with the farmers of western Canada? What are the Liberal representatives in the cabinet doing to see that the Liberal party honours a commitment which its leader at the time made to the people of western Canada?
The third thing I wish to suggest in relation to a long-term program is that we need an aggressive and imaginative sales campaign to sell wheat and other stable grains. There is much talk about a lack of food on the market. As a matter of fact there is no surplus of food in the world. The F.A.O. has made it clear that the per capita production of food in the world is less this year than it was in 1939. There are parts of the world in which food supplies have grown faster than population. But throughout the major part of the world the population has grown faster than the food supply. The lack is not one of demand for food; it is the lack of effective demand for food. The problem is that those who need food both in other lands and in our own land do not have the means to pay for it.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I wonder whether the government is really applying itself to the task of seeing whether or not we can meet some of the demand for food. Even in our own country I am not convinced we are meeting the full demand for food. The economic Council of Canada speaks of some five million people living below the poverty line, of nearly eight million living below the line of deprivation. Does anyone suggest they are getting all the food they need? I notice that the Canada Dairy Commission estimate that in 1969-70 they will have on hand 200 million pounds of powdered milk, five-sixths of which will still belong to the Dairy Commission.
In the United States and other lands hot school lunches are being supplied to school children as well as a pint of milk per day for each child. The United States is using the food stamp plan by which old age pensioners, veterans, widows and their children and other needy people are given books of food stamps at nominal cost with which they can buy food, the stamps being redeemed by the government at current prices. Has the government really investigated whether or not
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
the people of Canada are consuming all the food they are now capable of using.
I am wondering whether the government has looked into the possibility of selling food, particularly wheat and cereal grains, to other parts of the world? For years the government has been coasting on the large wheat orders received from Mainland China and the Soviet Union. If we are going to sell wheat we must develop long-term, bilateral trade agreements.
I am convinced there is a steady market for wheat in countries like the Soviet Union, where it is cheaper to get their Siberian requirements from western Canada than it is to bring them all the way from the Ukraine. There are possibilities for a permanent market in Mainland China; the problem is how the Chinese can pay us. They can only pay if we work out some type of two-way trade. It may be necessary in some instances to accept partial payment in soft currencies, as the United States has been doing, and it may also be necessary to enter into long-term credit arrangements.
Canada is committed to increasing its foreign aid to one per cent of its gross national product. We are only doing about half of what we have committed ourselves to do. It seems to me that a very large part of the increase that we ought to undertake in our foreign aid commitments should be in the form of food to countries that cannot afford to pay for it. I believe we could step up our contributions of foreign aid through the World Food Bank so that much of what we now call our glut of food could be made available to the hungry people of the world.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that it is not his job to sell wheat, but I point out that the Wheat Board Act does place this responsibility squarely on his shoulders and on the shoulders of his ministers, particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). At the present time the western farmer is paying for both the government's and the minister's incompetence. The time has come for the government to demonstrate it has the initiative and imagination to cope with the difficult problem of selling wheat in a world where hungry nations lack Canadian dollars to purchase that wheat.
The fact is that in this regard we have not even held our own. In the period 1948 to 1952 we had 21.3 per cent of the world's grain market. In 1967-68 our share had declined to only 11.6 per cent of the world's market. We are not holding our own, and the reason is
Alleged, Failure to Aid Western Farmers that there has not been an aggressive and imaginative grain selling policy.
The government cannot shrug its shoulders and say that it is not its responsibility to sell wheat. The Prime Minister went to Winnipeg on June 2 and told the people of Canada that the government is going to sell 1,300 million bushels of wheat over the next three years. The farmers have grown that wheat and some of it is in the elevators. A very large part of it unfortunately is still on the farms or at the wheat pool elevators.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member whose motion is being considered at the present time, but his time has expired unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the house for its indulgence and I am just about through, Mr. Speaker. I should like to close by making one other point.
The farmers have been assured by the Prime Minister that there is every prospect of being able to export an average of 430 million bushels of wheat a year for the next three years. The farmers have produced the wheat. A very large part of it is still on the farms. I have talked to farmers on the prairies who have 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 bushels of grain on their farms. The farmers have no money. As a result the merchants are giving them credit. When the merchants cannot give the farmers further credit then both the merchants and the farmers are in trouble. The whole western economy is feeling the pinch of a serious situation.
I say to the government that our patience on this side of the house is exhausted. When the members of the government go across this country, and when the Prime Minister visits western Canada, they will find that the patience of the farmers is even more taxed than ours. Therefore I hope that instead of making the usual excuses and employing the usual stalling devices, the government will give the house some satisfactory reply today.
The members of this house would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture, first, what interim, short-term measures the government proposes to introduce at this time to put money into the pockets of the western farmers and to sustain the western economy. Second, we hope to hear a statement from the Minister of Industry, Trade
10254	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers and Commerce, or failing that from the acting minister, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), on what long-term measures the government proposes in order to sell 1,300 million bushels of wheat over the next three years. If the government can give us satisfaction on those two points, I can assure the government that the farmers of this country will be most grateful. If the government has no answer, then the farmers of this country are going to be very angry indeed, as the government members will find out to their sorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume from the reluctance of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to get to his feet and state the position of the government that he has nothing more to say other than what he has been saying for weeks and months, namely, that matters are under review and to tell the house what the government has done. On the other hand, if he does have something to announce he should announce it. This he owes both to the house and to the country.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, it has been customary for the government minister to wait until one speaker from each party has spoken. If the hon. gentleman is not willing to state his case, then my speech is ready.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is it the one we have heard before?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is no such custom, and I can only assume that the minister has nothing to add to what he has already said. I regret if it is the case that the minister is unable to announce anything substantial or of assistance today along the lines indicated by the leader of the New Democratic party, or of some other kind, to give immediate assistance to the western farmer. Surely the minister can do more than recite past measures and talk about things being under review.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am prepared to make allowances for the difficulties in which the minister finds himself. He ought to be prepared to recognize that the only way to get this government to act is for him to do what the former Minister of Transport did. In all earnestness I say to him that for the sake of the people of western Canada, for the sake of all our people, if he is unable to announce anything concrete today

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
he ought to tender his resignation to the government. Then he will at least have the satisfaction of watching the Prime Minister jump around and produce aid as rapidly as when the question of housing was dealt with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Boycott the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely the minister recognizes the need to help our farmers. Considering the number of times the minister has been embarrassed by having to stand up in the house and say that certain programs are under review and that others are being considered, he must surely have reached the point where he is prepared to do something effective for the farmers of his constituency and of the rest of Canada. He knows as well as anyone else how to bring about action.
At this stage of the session it is ridiculous for us to be pressing the government to help western farmers who face difficult cash positions and a serious crisis. The government's failure to show even the slightest interest in this situation makes the situation all the worse. Short-run prospects are gloomy and long-run prospects unnecessarily gloomy. Farmers are only human. If the Canadian government intends to drive them off the farm its present attitude of indifference will bring that about. Nothing could be better calculated to do that than the government's present attitude.
There is no indication, Mr. Speaker, that the government realizes or recognizes that Canadian wheat is one of this country's greatest material assets. There is no indication that the government intends to capitalize on modern Canadian wheat farms which are among the world's most efficient food producing units. The government, apparently is prepared to throw away one of the greatest advantages this country has in international trade. Other grains are important but the grains of major importance, of course, are wheat, oats and barley. And here, as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture so aptly put it, are the great issues of 1969. Here is where the government has shown nothing but failure.
Although the size of the world market in past years has increased, Canada has not shared in that expansion. Since 1963 our sales patterns have remained steady. The government has made no new efforts or incentives. On the international scene we face heavy competition, often from subsidized grains grown in other countries. On the domestic
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
scene we have a fantastic hold-over from the previous year which lies on the farms. The leader of the New Democratic party spoke most eloquently about this matter. Millions of bushels of grain remain stored on farms, many farmers not having delivered a bushel of wheat for months. This has meant for them months of waiting without a penny coming in and all the time our farmers' dollars going out to meet the ever-increasing cost brought about by high interest rates which the minister introduced a few months ago in this area.
Personal tragedy stalks many farmers on the western prairies today. Having been encouraged by this government, they invested heavily in capital equipment last year. They borrowed money and now the banks, equipment dealers and others are pressing for their money. Foreclosures of mortgages are threatened and equipment seizures are being discussed. Obviously the money supply is drying up in many small towns where continuing wheat deliveries to the elevators are essential to normal life. That essential ingredient has been denied to the western farmer because of the government's inaction. Because of the lack of cash and because of the credit squeeze, businesses which normally carry the western farmer over the thin spots are themselves pressed for cash. As a result they are pressing the farmers. Fuel dealers, food stores, utility companies and consumer credit firms are all now being forced to demand payment from farmers who lack cash and as a result are in desperate straits.
Not only has the federal government done nothing about getting some cash circulating again in the west but it has refused even to acknowledge that there is a problem. Are we to equate the just society with the callous society? It certainly looks that way. This government has gone beyond ignoring the problem; it has made it worse. Inflation, rising credit costs and continuing high taxes multiply the problem.
Surely I need not take up the time of the house in demonstrating the serious plight of the western farmer. Our long-term economic indicators show that our farmers must sell more wheat and undergo certain adjustments. We were reminded during the federal election campaign that the Prime Minister is good at selling wheat. On television I saw him saying not so long ago that in recent years we have not done too well in selling wheat and that we must improve our performance. He undertook to sell an average of 430 million bushels per year. Now he is apparently saying that it
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers is not the government's job to sell wheat. I suggest that we ought to establish a new selling agency with a long-term policy regarding sales of wheat. I do not think the Canadian Wheat Board would be suitable. I understand that private marketing organizations in the United States have successfully marketed a good deal of wheat abroad. I believe the government ought to confront the government of the United States with facts. Our two countries ought to reach an understanding. After all, we have a common interest in marketing wheat and maintaining markets. In the long run nothing is to be gained by cutting prices because the demand for wheat is inelastic. We do not enlarge the market by reducing prices. Hence I say that the government has failed abysmally. It has failed to maintain our share of the market and to reach an understanding with the United States. Both countries must make certain that we have steady and orderly markets for our wheat.
While we talk about the size of the wheat hold-over and what that may mean to our future, I think we ought to see just how big the hold-over is in relation to our markets. I understand that in 1960 the world market for wheat was about one billion bushels. At that time there was a world surplus of about 2.5 billion bushels, of which about .7 billion bushels was in Canada. In other words, the world carryover in 1960 equalled two and a half times the annual world wheat market. At the end of the 1968 crop year I understand that the world wheat market had risen to about two billion bushels, and the carryover was about 1.5 billion bushels. Clearly, in 1968 wheat reserves were less than one year's annual sales. The wheat surplus will be bigger at the end of this crop year and a substantial percentage of that surplus will be held in Canada. Nevertheless I doubt that the carryover will exceed the requirements of world markets as a whole for one year.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Of course I understand there has been a difference in the mix since then, and that a substantial part of the market is now in the form of lower quality grains. I do not believe our farmers have been encouraged to enter into the production of those grains. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is important to relate carryovers to world demand and, if my information is correct, even with the large surplus that we have on hand in Canada it is only the equivalent of one year's world demand for wheat, compared with two and a half years'
10256	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers world demand for wheat in 1960. This puts the matter in clear perspective.
We must remember that the production of wheat goes up and down. There is a succession of good years and a succession of dry years. Therefore I do not think we have any particular reason to be too pessimistic about the long-term view. At least I think we should relate our reserves to demand.
Of course if we regard wheat as a valuable resource which we pay elevator companies for storing, then possibly we should review the charges made by elevator companies for storage. Maybe we are paying relatively too much for storing and not enough for handling grain. Looking ahead, sir, if we regard wheat as a valuable asset, although we cannot sell it this year it may be that consideration should be given to some form of storage payment on the farms with a quota as to size, and of course payments would cease once the wheat was called for by the Wheat Board. This could certainly encourage the preservation of wheat which otherwise under present conditions may be allowed to go to rot.
If this asset is valuable there is no particular reason that the farmer on the farm should have to bear the whole cost of carrying it, whereas the elevator companies are paid for carrying it in their elevators. In addition, of course, over a period of time such a program would help the farmer with his cash position. However, it would not meet the contingency, the crisis, point out in the motion put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic party, which is the farmer's need for some substantial cash at the present time.
Reference was also made to the two-price system for wheat promised by the former Liberal prime minister. I am not making objections to this proposal, but I cannot help but recognize that it would add something to the load of the Canadian consumer at a time when he is being hard-pressed by higher prices and additional taxes imposed by the government, especially the vicious, regressive 2 per cent social development tax which bears particularly heavily on those who can least afford to pay it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would your party support a two-price system?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am speaking about a solution to the present emergency facing farmers.
I am not objecting to the program. I am pointing out some of the limitations of it. If it were not made retroactive it would not provide the immediate cash that the farmer

DEBATES	June 17. 1969
needs now. Certainlj I am not opposing the program but I am pointing out that the two-price system would not meet the emergency described in the motion now before the house, although higher domestic prices might be acceptable to the Canadian consumer if he felt they were really part of an over-all solution to the farmer's problems.
I hope the minister will produce some long-range plans even if he is not able to produce any immediate assistance, which seems to be the case. It seems to me the government has worked itself into a position where it has left itself with only two options. Either it can stand by and let large numbers of farmers go down the drain, with economic difficulties piling up for western communities, for the economy of western Canada and indeed for Canada as a whole, or it can do something in the form of acreage payments. If the government had acted earlier it could have adopted a variety of programs to meet this emergency. If it believed it necessary for some of the wheat lands to be put into grass we could have adopted such a program earlier, but now such a program would be too late to help the farmers with their immediate problems. The government has boxed itself in to such an extent that an acreage payment is about the only way it can act now to provide the immediate assistance needed by the farmers. However, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues are prepared to support any reasonable plan which the government is prepared to put forward to meet this emergency.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister undertook not only to produce exports of 430 million bushels a year but also to give income assistance to farmers. Under the plan they would contribute to a fund in good years and draw income from it in bad years. I have not been in this house every minute since the session opened but I do not think I have heard the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture make any pronouncement about when they will bring any such program into effect. I think that was about the greatest piece of hypocrisy I have heard for some time in election campaigns, and that is saying a good deal.
If the minister has the self-respect that I believe he has, or had, he would take rather drastic action to bring this matter forcefully to the government's attention. Certainly there is no legislation before the house for any program of income maintenance or assistance to farmers. As I say, in the circumstances the government will probably be driven to some form of acreage payment. Some such measure
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
is needed to try to tide the farmers over their immediate problems, to avoid the collapse of the farm industry and farm communities.
This afternoon we may hear a lot of talk about the fight against inflation. We are all engaged in the fight against inflation. It may be necessary to balance the budget. I appreciate the importance of a balanced budget in these conditions. I recognize the necessity of maintaining defences of some sort. But surely when one considers the dire difficulties of an important sector of the Canadian economy one is not necessarily going to try to preserve a balance in the budget, to maintain a state of surplus when that surplus is largely the result of inflation.
I am not suggesting that acreage payments are enough in themselves. A new crop is coming on. The elevators are plugged now. There may be some dispute about how much there will be to carry over, but it will be a great deal. The other day I heard the minister speak about the possibility of a drought. He said "drouth"; down east we say drought. We understand it means the same thing-no rain.
I got the impression the minister was rather hoping for that sort of thing. It may not have been intended and may have come from his subconscious.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The idea came from the other side.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there is a great drought in any performance that is coming from the government side of the house.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to bring to the attention of the house that his time has expired. Is there agreement of the house that he continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I shall not abuse the hospitality of the house by taking much more time. I should like to emphasize that this is not just a western problem. We cannot divide this country into sectors and say it is all right because it only affects one part of the country and so on. We are all Canadians and it affects the whole Canadian economy. We can argue if we like that this is not an emergency situation, but there remains a crisis and the very least the government can do is give a very clear indication in this debate that it intends to act. I have very little
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers hope this will take place, but I am an optimistic person by nature. The wheat farmers are in serious danger of losing their farms. Many of them are our best farmers who have experienced difficulty partly because they followed the course recommended by the government.
The second reason this matter is quite important, aside from all economic difficulties, is the refusal of the government to come to the aid of the farmers of western Canada in this time of crisis. This is contributing directly to the dangerous and growing sense of grievance in western Canada. Let us speak frankly. There is a growing feeling in western Canada that this is an eastern government which does not know and does not care about the problems of western Canada. This is the time to argue about the accuracy of this belief. I believe that the government time after time has been inexcusably insensitive in its approach to these problems. I believe it has shown more understanding of the Algerian problem-and the minister knows my concern about that. There could be serious consequences from this grievance. One is the hostility toward the languages bill which has become a symbol, to some extent, of the western grievances.
I have had some sympathy for the Minister of Agriculture. There are two attitudes he can take toward his job. One is to try to protect and help the Canadian farmer get action in respect of his agricultural problems. The other way, which he seems to have chosen to date, is to try to protect the government which he serves. That is what he has been doing. He has spent a year making excuses to western farmers and telling them all the reasons that the grain could not be dried, moved or sold. Seldom have we had a government of Canada that has directed more effort to explaining problems and less effort to resolving them.
I shall close as I started by saying to my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, that if he does not have some definite word today, let him follow the course of the former Minister of Transport and then we will see a lot of action on the part of the government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we undertake again today a discussion which is strangely similar to many others which we have held on various aspects of the economic activity of our country.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as well as
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers to the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) who said that to solve the wheat problem in western Canada, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) should resign. The resignation of the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who was responsible for housing in Canada, is given as an example on the ground that he did what was called for in the circumstances. But that did not solve the housing problem because it got even worse.
If the Minister of Agriculture were replaced by another in the same conditions, what would that change?
If the portfolio of the Minister of Agriculture were given to the Leader of the Opposition, what would happen? We would be stuck with the same old system. Indeed, the decision-making people are blamed rather than the system itself.
As for myself, I do not suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should resign, but rather that he put into practice what he preached during the many years when he was a Creditiste member.


An hon. Member:: He knows what to do.


David Réal Caouette: He certainly does.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the days when the Hon. Alvin Hamilton was minister of agriculture in the Conservative government, and the then member for Medicine Hat, the present Minister of Agriculture, told the minister of agriculture exactly the same things we are telling him today. That means the situation has not changed. Here, in the house, we sure look smart.
One day, we blame the government as this motion does, and I quote:
That this house condemns the government for its failure to take steps to relieve the critical cash position of farmers in Western Canada.
A "critical cash position", what does that mean? There may be some who do not understand that, but it means that western farmers are "broke", that they have no money. Yesterday, we had the bad "cash situation" of housing, the day before, that of the Ontario corn producers. We also have the bad "cash" situation of the Maritime provinces where the producers are stuck with a potato crop they cannot sell. Today, we have that of the western wheat producer. 
June 17, 1969
The leader of the New Democratic party said: That the economy of the western provinces is terribly depressed and it is true. But when we look at the whole of Canada, there is recession almost everywhere.
The province of Quebec is having problems with its dairy production, because the subsidies paid the milk producers have been lowered.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The province of Quebec is the greatest producer of milk while Ontario is the greatest producer of corn. The situation is difficult for everyone and the farmers' income is going down. What is offered as a solution? Let us look at the inconsistency, at the folly of the government. And) as I said, we live in a world of crazy people and we are governed by the most remarkable among them.
For weeks relentless efforts are made tc come to an agreement in order to grant $50,000 loans so as to enable the farmers to survive, to buy machinery, to pay less interest.
There is no money left to help the farmers. They are allowed to get in debt and they are told to improve their means of production. Today there is an overproduction of wheat. No one knows what to do with it.
The Minister of Agriculture is quite right to walk along behind the curtains. He has no solution to offer and he is better there than sitting in his seat. He is unable to make a decision, to suggest an appropriate solution. What is the purpose of granting loans to farmers if our production cannot be disposed of? What is the use of loans to western farmers who are faced at this time with a wheat production for which they do not receive a red cent? To get them in debt? Farmers will not even be able to meet their obligations or pay off their loans. They are faced with a wheat surplus.
Part of last year's crop spent the winter under the snow in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. Grain was threshed this spring and last year's grain has not been sold. This year, the farmers must borrow money from banks, credit unions and caisses populaires for seeding. There is even talk of paying the western farmers so much per acre not to produce wheat.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells us there is but one way of improving our standard of living, it is to increase productivity. How clever! Get into debt, borrow, and then increase your productivity, and after that, do

June 17, 1969	COMMONS
what you can with your products, we cannot help you to sell them.
Do you think the Minister of Agriculture spoke like that when he was sitting here with us?
It seems that when he left our side, he also left his intelligence behind. As for him, he lost everything and went to the other side of the House, with the Liberals. He speaks no longer the same language. Now that he is a Minister of Agriculture, it is as if he had lost all sense of values.
When the minister was Creditiste and used to go to the constituency of Medicine Hat, he did not talk as he does today; he used to say to the western farmers, to the farmers of Medicine Hat: "Believe me, I am familiar with agriculture and, being with the Liberals,
I will be in a position to do more for you than when I was a Creditiste." Look at him today; he is betraying the farmers of his constituency, of his province and of his country because he no longer dares to criticize the financial system. He used to know where the problem lay. Today, he no longer does. But he knows, for instance, that the problem is not a production problem. And that applies to all farm products, whether it be wheat in the West, potatoes in the Maritimes, milk in Quebec, or corn in Ontario and so on.
The minister suggests no answer. Compelling him to resign would be of no avail. What is the purpose of putting another cipher in his place if the same system remains unchanged?
Committees are set up. Recently, the members of the committee on Agriculture-I see the parliamentary secretary to the minister (Mr. Cote)-travelled across Canada to meet farmers at home. They realized there were wheat problems in the west, as the leader of the New Democratic party brilliantly explained earlier. They went to Ontario. They came to Quebec. They met farmers at the Chateau Frontenac, because that is where, apparently, the best land is to be found.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture attended the meeting and said that Quebec farmers were quite satisfied with the arrangements made with the federal Minister of Agriculture. But the farmers apparently told him in no uncertain terms that they wre not satisfied any more than the western farmers. It was realized how depressed the farming industry is in Canada.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers Today the world situation must be considered. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said the other day, we were at one time the greatest wheat producers, especially in post-war years, when some countries were devasted and their people were unable to produce wheat, and they had to buy it from us.
But today things have changed. Those countries have recovered, thanks to Canadian aid, no doubt, and are now wheat producing countries.
I have been to India where they buy a great deal of wheat. Today, India buys its wheat from Mexico because it seems six or seven times more profitable than purchasing Canadian or American wheat.
Although conditions have changed, it does not mean that we should stop all wheat production at home. As a matter of fact, I think that if we had an overall agricultural policy which would enable farmers to know they will be able to sell their wheat, the situation would be entirely different. It is important for the government and the minister to take their responsibilities.
We must provide for the storage of the production that we believe to be a surplus production, but first of all, we must provide for the distribution of this production to the Canadian consumers. This comes first.
Afterwards, we may talk about surpluses. We have them. Well, let us build granaries. Warehouses were built during the war to store bombs and other weapons; thousands of dollars were found.
Let us do the same in peacetime, for food, for wheat, etc. Let us guarantee sales to western producers, not at a loss, but sales that will bring them a profit and will enable them to live decently. Let us do the same in all fields.
After that, let us send our surpluses to the under-developed countries which need them. What could prevent Canadians from providing assistance to those countries? To feed the hungry is a Christian endeavour, it seems to me.
Today because the financial system is rotten, we are at the mercy of big business.
Like the Minister of Agriculture, we are bound hand and foot. We feel we cannot do better.
The government introduces regressive budgets which are not at all meant to revive the Canadian economy. Let us not forget that our country has from 450,000 to 500,000 unem-
10260	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged. Failure to Aid Western Farmers
June 17, 1969
ployed people, who lack the bare necessaries. However, the government would rather pay them unemployment insurance benefits rather than put new life into the economy by giving them jobs which would enable them to draw a salary and pay income tax, thus increasing the revenues and reducing expenditures. The government has not yet seen the light.
The Creditistes are consistent as to the solution. There is no problem of production of wheat, but rather a problem of distribution, of marketing. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has toured the globe, looking for clients. But during that time other wheat producing countries have not remained idle.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There is therefore what is called international competition, and since we are unable to produce at the same costs as the countries more populated than ours, we have to sell our wheat on the foreign markets at prices lower than costs.
The administration of the Department of Agriculture will cost $255,798,755 this year. Now, considering the overall results obtained,
I feel that it is too much. Instead of paying salaries to bureaucrats who achieve nothing, instead of maintaining an almost useless department, in the circumstances we should distribute the $255 million in question to the wheat producers in western Canada and to the dairy producers in eastern Canada.
Thus we could avoid debates as futile as the current one, because we know that the government is not willing to solve anything. In fact, it is not ready to take its responsibilities. It is still waiting for reports from the task forces before taking a decision. And meanwhile, as the N.D.P. leader said earlier, the western farmers are hard pressed. They have to contend with terrible problems and they are facing bankruptcy.
There is a strange parallel between this situation and the economic crisis of 1929. If the government does not take a stand soon, if the cost of living keeps going up, within two years we will be in the midst of an economic depression such as the one we had from 1929 to 1939.
The minister and the government must take their responsibilities. Instead of asking the wheat producers or other Canadians to tighten their belts, to suffer even more, let us tackle the real problem, that of the financial system.
It is strange that western wheat growers are literally dying of hunger when financiers are living on the fat of the land, because they 
have all the wheat and milk they want, and they raise the interest rates. The minister does not object to this situation.
Yet, as I said, when he sat among the members of the Ralliement creditiste, how brilliant he was! How well he understood the situation, how opposed he was against any increase in the interest rate, the control of finance over wheat growers and dairy producers!
I heard the Leader of the Opposition declare earlier that the Department of Agriculture is said to be favouring Eastern Canada. I must say that our Eastern regions, as far as farming is concerned, are in the same unholy mess as the West.
You can find people on the brink of bankruptcy in Eastern Canada, to such a degree that I am convinced that the department responsible for eradicating regional disparities is getting organized. As a matter of fact, there will not be regional disparities any longer, since everybody will be poor, and Canadians will be headed by a government that will be powerless, impotent, paralyzed and shamefully subdued by Canada's high finance.
That is what we object to, and that is why we ask the government, as the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the opposition did, to recognize its responsibilities and to come forward with solutions. No poultices on wooden legs. What good would it do to squeeze money out of the eastern milk producer to give it to the western wheat producer. That would not settle the situation, but would make both poorer.
Yet the Minister of Agriculture, with his knowledge of political economics, is in a position to find a solution. He only has to recall those good old years when he was a staunch Creditiste, when he had the genuine solution to the present problems, and to act like a responsible minister, in a sovereign government, in a country in full economic development.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the most important suggestion made in the debate so far this afternoon was that by the mover of the motion, the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas), and by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that I resign. People in various positions have from time to time resigned for a wide variety of reasons, health and many others. But I suggest to you, sir, that in the context in which
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
the recommendation was made today, what was proposed was that I abdicate my responsibility with respect to agriculture in general and the grain farmers of western Canada in particular.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are not taking the suggestion seriously.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think that resigning under those conditions and in that context would be nothing less than running away from responsibility-in fact, abdicating responsibility. While the Leader of the Opposition may have some knowledge of western Canada, I would remind him that I was born and raised there, and we were not brought up to do that kind of thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I say, Mr. Speaker, that this request to resign came from the two greatest authorities in Canada on abdication of responsibility.
As has been stated a number of times in the house-several members of the government have said this-the government has great concern for the problem of the cash flow in the grain economy of western Canada at the present time. I have said many times inside and outside the house that the problems facing cereal producers in western Canada at the present time are under intensive study with a view to arriving at solutions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not again?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Those problems are not being neglected nor glossed over.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell it to the farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: However, as has been pointed out, they are complex problems and we have to come to grips with the root of them. As the leader of the New Democratic party and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, there are many possible roads we could take in order to arrive at real solutions. It is our considered opinion that after the number of things we have done that may be termed first-aid measures, we need to find a solution that is part and parcel of a long-term answer to this problem and which will not in the long run further aggravate the situation.
Pressure by the opposition for immediate action regardless of the consequences is not a new thing. It is not a new thing even in respect of the 1968 grain crop. I recall that last June and part of July voices were raised
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers from across the way asking: What is the government going to do about the drought? The record in Hansard is clear. Questions were raised day after day asking what the government was going to do because it had not rained in certain parts of western Canada. Later in the summer it started to rain. Then the opposition began to cry and scream about what the government intended to do to shut off the rain so that harvesting could be carried out. That is exactly what they said.
I do not take any great satisfaction from the fact that farmers have to go through a number of difficult periods. But the fact is that last fall when the problems of harvesting and damp grain were being bandied about in the house day after day, and cries were going up that not only millions but hundreds of millions of bushels of grain would rot, having come from western Canada and having been directly involved more than once in that kind of situation I had more confidence in the capability of the western farmer than was expressed by the opposition.
What are the facts? The facts are that not hundreds of millions of bushels, or even millions of bushels, of grain were spoiled. In fact, the amount of grain spoiled was about the same as in an ordinary year. This was not because of anything the government did; it was because of the competence, knowledge and perseverance of the farmers of the western plains.
One does not have to think very far back to realize what happened last fall. On November 27, 1968, and January 22, 1969, motions were made under Standing Order 26 for the adjournment of the house in order to debate the problems facing the western farmer because of the damp grain situation. At that time nothing was heard except predictions of gloom that the policies the government had announced and instituted were inadequate to meet the situation. It was said that hundreds of millions of bushels of grain would rot on the prairies unless we did something more than institute the policies announced.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What happened is now evident. Our policies, such as they were, were not complete solutions. No one ever suggested that the policies we enacted in this house would result in the drying of grain in western Canada. The farmers were going to do that and they did it. These programs were coupled with programs that were undertaken by the provinces and, most important of all, the efforts of the
10262	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers Canadian farmers resulted in the solving of the tough and damp grain situation. Certainly there were problems, and I am not minimizing them, but all the reports I have been able to obtain indicate that any loss due to damp grain was not abnormal and was in line with normal years.
I should like to return now to the matter of income which is part and parcel of the motion before us. Of course the charge is not accurate and I intend to show how absolutely inaccurate the contents of the motion are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just tell us what you are going to do.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To solve a problem of this nature, as I suggested at the outset, one must get to the base, and the base problem is one of marketing. At least, that is what the farmers in western Canada tell me and I prefer to accept their advice than some of the suggestions that have come from across the way from time to time. This in itself suggests that a solution will be found in marketing and that perhaps no satisfactory solution will be found any other way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You knew how to market a year ago.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This does not suggest a shotgun approach as was used by the opposition once or twice when they were faced with similar situations. At that time inadequate payments were made to those who needed help and what was almost tantamount to a raid was made on the public treasury to assist even those who did not need help because assistance was given regardless of need and of whether or not farmers were able to deliver grain.
The duration of the problem must be determined and some kind of solution must be set up. I suggest that first and foremost any solution must be such as not to further aggravate the problem. It must help those who need help most and, perhaps most important, it must fit into the long-term agricultural policy.
In keeping these criteria in mind one cannot help but question the appropriateness of reaching a decision regarding the nature and extent of assistance to western producers at this time. You may well ask why. As with all complex problems, there are many answers; indeed, there are many combinations of programs that may lead to a solution. Perhaps the most important consideration is that since we are dealing with a marketing problem and since we are looking for a marketing solution

DEBATES	June 17. 1969
we must consider our international marketing obligations. I do not think anyone will dispute that. As is well known to every member of the house who is interested and, indeed, to all grain farmers in western Canada, at the present time the International Grains Arrangement is unsettled and we must avoid taking action which would place further strain on this important agreement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It never was any good, and I will tell you why.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member will get a chance in a few minutes, I assume. There are some farmers, indeed there are a number of farm leaders across this country, who think that Canada should try to salvage as much of the agreement as possible, and intend to restore the agreement to what Canada thought it was, if that is possible. This is not for Canada to do alone, and hon. members who are realistic and reasonable know that as well as I.
Another consideration is that at the present time the crop is in the ground and the expenditures for it have been made. The farmers next series of obligations, their next major expenditures, fall into two categories: Those that are associated with the harvest, which is some time away yet, and those that are associated with alternative sources of income. The second major enterprise in the prairie provinces is raising livestock, particularly cattle and hogs. Returns from livestock on the average-by the way, this excludes returns from dairying-represent about one-third of the cash receipts from farming operations in the three prairie provinces. Notwithstanding what has been said from time to time in the house and in other places, this year the returns from livestock are somewhat better than they have been. I realize as well as anyone here that there are farmers in the prairie provinces whose operations are highly specialized and who do not have returns other than from cereal grains, but I also realize that there are many who do have other income.
I have stated that it is not a new phenomenon that we are experiencing in western Canada, and that the pile-up of grain and the impaired marketing are not the first that have been experienced in western Canada. I have indicated the forward steps that the government has taken to meet the income problem, and I will document those a little later in case some hon. members have forgotten the many steps that have been taken in the last 10 or 11
June 17. 1969	COMMONS
months. Further, I have indicated our desire to measure and solve the problem logically and effectively.
The situation at present is a changing one,
I suggest. The actions that have been taken will not all bear fruit immediately. For example, grain is now starting to move a little better in some areas. In recent weeks the sale of feed grains in eastern Canada has been about two million bushels per month higher than it was last year at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us about the price compared with last year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I have indicated, there are no instant solutions to these problems and time is a valuable asset, not to delay decisions but to provide time for evaluation and for working out the administrative machinery required to ensure that only those programs that will be helpful will be put into effect.
A number of questions were raised by the Leader of the New Democratic party and also a number of suggestions were made by him. There was nothing new in those suggestions. He suggested that what we have done so far is not satisfactory to the New Democratic party and that unless we meet all the demands that he made in his three recommendations the party will not be satisfied. All I can say to him is that even if we complied with all three of the recommendations, and even doubled our efforts, the Leader of the New Democratic party would not express any satisfaction in the program. So I am not very impressed with that kind of argument.
The Leader of the Opposition admitted that there were production and marketing problems and, indeed, that the level of production and of marketing varies quite widely from time to time. I was pleased to hear him say that because it indicates at least that he knows that this is part of the problem and that he acknowledges it. He agreed with me also in his remarks when he said that we must direct our attention and use what resources we have and all our energy for the purpose of expanding markets. We have taken some measures in this respect, not all of which have been made manifest yet. Indeed, when you make changes of these kinds they are not felt immediately.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to complete this thought first. The Leader of the Opposition also knows that it is not wise for the minister
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers who speaks in the house for the Canadian Wheat Board to spell out in detail what it is doing by way of sales promotion because to do so would assist our competition in the international market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the minister how he and the government could give the Canadian people the assurance a year ago that Canada would sell an average of 430 million bushels a year for three years, and what has happened in the meantime to all these efforts and to the selling techniques that must have stood behind that assurance?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will be dealing with that aspect later today. If the Leader of the Opposition cannot wait I should be glad to go over some of the statistics. In the 196768 crop year, taking grain movements from August to June 4-that is the first year he talked about-355.8 million bushels of wheat were moved. To date, in the same time 278.9 bushels have been moved-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A little short.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There will be some additions to that amount. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there are other movements of grain within Canada which do not show up in that record.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to conclude these
remarks by referring in detail to what has been done during the past few months to help in this situation. I do so in order that hon. gentlemen opposite who moved this motion, and others who support it, may know exactly what the facts are. I have to repeat this over and over again for the sake of emphasis. We do not claim that all of these measures or any part of them offer a complete solution to the problem. Nevertheless, the motion says the government should be condemned for its failure to take steps to relieve the situation.
This suggestion is manifestly untrue, and I am now about to read a list of all the things we have done. First, there was the program of cash advances on farm stored grain. This was put into operation last year and to date $151 million worth of cash advances has been taken up. Remember, no interest is charged. The federal treasury pays the interest on the money made available for these cash advances. I wish to make it clear, of course, that many of the helpful programs in which
10264	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers the government is now involved were not instituted this year or last year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question? He tells us that $151 million was advanced under the cash advance legislation. Can he inform the house as to the amount expected to be repaid by the end of the crop year on July 31 under this legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is difficult to give that information at the moment. As the hon. member knows, 50 per cent of the payment on grain actually delivered to the elevator is used to pay the cash advance. Some estimates have been made. It is probable that between $90 million and $100 million of the total amount is still outstanding. I cannot give a precise figure because the amount is changing every day. Furthermore, I may say there are indications that these advances will not all be collected by the end of the present crop year. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that a substantial amount will still be on the books on July 31, 1969.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That shows how serious the position is in the west.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let me continue. First, there was the cash advance program. Second, under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, during the crop year 1968-69 $55 million will be transferred from the Canadian treasury to the Wheat Board. In the course of that fiscal year the amount was $48.7 million.
Third, last fall the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) introduced a program of accelerated depreciation as a measure of assistance to farmers in their present situation.
Fourth, a sum amounting to $7.1 million has been paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Fifth, a special quota was introduced last fall in connection with damp grain, intended to help out in the situation we have in mind.
Sixth, cash advances were made available to those who were unable to obtain credit for drying, to the extent of 10 cents a bushel. We estimate that $2 million went out for this purpose.
Seventh, the Farm Credit Corporation has announced its readiness to consider applications for deferment of payments. I understand about 7,000 of these applications are now under consideration and that some deferments have been granted.

DEBATES	June 17. 1969


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question on that point? Is he saying that payment of interest on loans will also be excused, that permission will be given for interest payments too to be deferred while this crisis continues in western Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, we have not declared a moratorium on interest payments. We have said that if applications come in for deferment of payments under the contract for this year, such applications will be granted, and they have been granted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What help will that be to the farmers if no moratorium on the interest payments is declared?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you owe a bill and go to a creditor and ask him for permission to defer payment and the creditor agrees, knowing that although you do not have cash you have something to sell, surely that is of some assistance.
Eighth, parliament has amended the Farm Improvement Loans Act in such a way as to make it operative, and as a result the provisions of the act are increasingly being used. The legislation provides a government guarantee for the security of loans advanced to purchase farm machinery and many other things. I want to say that notwithstanding all the complaints which came from across the way the rate of interest is substantially lower than farmers were paying for credit on the same terms from the banks before we amended this act last fall.
Ninth, a substantially increased sales promotion program has been put in operation by the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board has already announced this increase in its activity. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has said many times, it is not in our interests to make public the details of what has been done.
Tenth, there are the provisions made for crop insurance. In the three prairie provinces $9.95 million was put out in benefits. For the information of those who do not know, the federal government pays 25 per cent of the premiums and bears 50 per cent of the administration costs.
Eleventh, about $8 million was distributed during the past year in line with the I.G.A. support price prior to the agreement being ratified and made operative by all the signatory countries. This was done during the present crop year.
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
Twelfth, there is the program of food aid. Under our external affairs program the amount involved has constantly increased. This is not something which has happened suddenly, of course. But if we go back to 1962-63 we find that $4.5 million was alloted to this purpose-a very austere program. Hon. members opposite do not like to talk about that. Today the level is $70 million and most of it is represented by -wheat and flour.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How much is the wheat and
flour content?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As 1 say, when members opposite were in office that figure was $4.5 million. Today it is more than 15 times as much.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How much is wheat and flour?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Most of it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: "Most of it" is not good enough.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What would you like to have? Not very much of it? Most of it is surely better than not having a majority. I have listed 12 items. I do not claim that any one of them by itself is all that great, and I have repeated that statement a number of times. But when you put all these things together they add up, I suggest, to a fairly significant package of what you might call first aid or transitional help.
I am also suggesting, as I have said a number of times in this house, that we ought to work toward finding better long term solutions that will be of assistance over a period, steps that will not further aggravate the situation. Any time there is a contraction of the market for a particular commodity there are problems. The hon. gentlemen of this house as well as the farmers of Canada know that agriculture has problems. There is no completely satisfactory solution to those problems. All we can do is try to increase the market, and following that to work out a better system-if that is possible-to equate production to marketing.
No one denies that we are going through a difficult period. However, all these measures that we have taken to date, and the attempts that we are now making to work out longer term solutions, fit into a policy that will be of assistance over a time. I think that the government can point with some pride to what it has been doing during the past 10 or 11 months.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


[Stage Direction]
The Acting Speaking (Mr. Bechard): It is
my duty, pursuant to standing order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Fisheries-sea lamprey-utilization of chemicals to protect lake trout; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Air Transport-Newfoundland-eastern provincial airways service to Deer Lake; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Agriculture-dairy industry-loss of quota by western provinces.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has spoken about giving first aid, but I suggest what he has itemized amounts to giving a bandaid to a man who has lost his leg through amputation when it comes to assessing the value of the proposals that he has outlined. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the leader of the Creditiste Party, made some comment about the fact that the minister had travelled a little during his political career. I, for one, was very pleased when it appeared the hon. gentleman had seen his way clear to change his political allegiance and to move to the government side to become the Minister of Agriculture.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I said to myself that here was a westerner, a man who should know the problems of the west. I thought that after the experience of the past we could hopefully look forward at least to something being done by a man who was understanding, knowledgeable and sympathetic. Now, I think we have to be frank. I still have great admiration for the minister as an individual. I make no complaint about the corner of the house from which he came, but I must say that I have been terribly disappointed by the
10268	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers results of the minister's performance since he occupied this portfolio.
Many people have crossed the floor of this house and many will, but having listened to the minister today I must say that none has left so tortuous and twisted a trail in his political transformation, a trail that would break a snake's back to follow. Obviously, in his earlier political life, when the minister was a member of a party the political latitude and longitude of which is somewhere off to my left, he spent his time letting down empty buckets into empty wells. He is now frittering away his time trying to draw them up again.
As for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he has made one or two incursions into agricultural matters, including his appearance at Winnipeg where he told the farmers that it was not his responsibility to sell wheat. I would only say in his case that his occasional flashes of rhetoric in regard to agricultural matters make his silences even more delightful.
We see today the result of six years of neglect. No, I will amend that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Do you call the years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, four years, years of neglect?


Gerald William Baldwin: There was a time when an hon. gentleman from Calgary, who now occupies a position in the other place, held the minister's office. There were one or two occasions when he did some things of value to the agricultural industry. But this government and this minister have been absolutely irresponsible in their approach to the agricultural problems facing this country.
Their own words condemn them. I should like to refer to a speech made by the hon. gentleman at the O.E.C.D. agricultural ministers' meeting in Paris in November, 1968. During the course of the election campaign many of us had become aware of the problems and difficulties facing the agriculture community of this country unless some specific and concrete steps were taken. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the minister went to the O.E.C.D. ministerial conference at a time when, conscious of his responsibilities to the farming community of this country, he should have laid down the law in no uncertain terms. He must have realized at the time what was happening with regard to the international sale of wheat throughout the world. But all the minister said, as far as I can see having gone through his speech, was this. Having outlined some of
LMr. Baldwin.]
DEBATES	June 17, 1969
the proposals which were being advanced, he said:
These, then, are some of our newer policies. They are helping to bring about increased efficiency, improved farm structure and higher incomes. They also are aimed towards market requirements. There is still some distance to go before our farmers get returns similar to those in other sectors with similar skills and investments.
The minister was playing "pat-a-cake" with the agricultural ministers of other countries that must, to the knowledge of the minister, have then been engaged in practices that were having a deleterious effect on our agricultural economy. When this government became involved in other international problems such as, for example, an educational conference held in Gabon-I am not going to go into the merits of these examples, even if I were allowed to-all hell broke loose because of the government's attempts to achieve the sort of international posture the government deemed desirable. As I say, I am not going to comment on that matter; but when it comes to the subject of agriculture, and the minister had both the opportunity and the audience to whom he should have been making representations, the quotation I put on record is the kind of clap-trap that was advanced.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he like to be fair and point out that he did not read the whole speech? Nor, in fact, has he a copy of the other negotiations that were conducted. All my hon. friend has is the opening statement made at the meeting in Paris.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have the whole speech, Mr. Speaker. I combed through it thoroughly, and this was the strongest part of it that I could find.
The minister also spoke to the Canadian Agricultural Congress at the Chateau Laurier Hotel on March 24 when the Magna Carta of the farmers was introduced. The Congress had set up a task force and new, brilliant, constructive and thoughtful policies were to emerge at that time. What did the minister say? On page 1 of the communique we find the following:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In the midst of this, individuals and their organizations have turned to government for leadership and assistance in reaching solutions to the problems they face.
Some leadership, Mr. Speaker! Some assistance! I continue:
I feel that I can say with certainty that they have received a sympathetic hearing from the governments to which they have appealed.
June 17, 1969

Of course, they received a sympathetic hearing. This government always listens sympathetically. It listens, reviews, sets up task forces but does nothing. This is a government of inaction and ineptitude. The statement on page 5 is a dead give away. There, the minister said:
Finally, I would suggest that the long-term good of the industry is the target of our deliberations. We ought not to spend an undue amount of time on current, short term problems. We recognize that such problems exist and are serious.
That is a great concession on the part of the minister. He recognizes the existence of problems. We are making progress. He went on to say:
Instead, we are searching for long-term solutions rather than stop-gap measures.
In other words, by the time the patient is dead and the farmer has been forced off the farm, the government may come up with long term solutions, devised no doubt by the minister of regional economic disparity. The government is following the policies of Hon. Walter Gordon who proposed that we take the people out of Atlantic Canada and resettle them. I suggest to the minister and hon. members of the house that this in fact is the government's policy. It is saying, "Let nature take its course and let the farmers be driven off the land. They will resettle in the cities where they will lie the last to be hired and the first to be fired." That is the direction in which government policies are heading.
A bill of complaint has been introduced by the leader of the New Democratic Party. My leader elaborated on it and in the limited time available to me I hope to make one or two comments about it. I submit that there is no communication between this government and our farmers. There is absolutely none.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: We ought to have in this country machinery through which farmers can communicate with the government in order that they may learn what ought to be done in solving farm problems. We do not have such machinery. In fact, we get absolutely nothing save silly speeches in which the minister talks about long term solutions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member has hit a new low.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why have we failed to sell wheat to other countries? The other day I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and 29180-649f
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers Commerce (Mr. Pepin) a question about wheat sales made by France. As a result of benefits accruing to that country from the variable import levies on agricultural products in the common market, France was able to enter into agreements with China and other countries and sell them wheat. And what did our minister say to that? He said, "I made a speech in Paris and I hope the French government heard about it." That answer means absolutely nothing. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a very amiable fellow, but I do not think he knows the front end of a wheat kernel from the back end of a cod fish. That is his trouble, and that is one problem our farmers are stuck with,


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All the same, he is a very nice fellow.


Gerald William Baldwin: We must consider other bills of complaint against this government. May I, Mr. Speaker, read a telegram that comes from my area in the northern part of Alberta, an area extending over some 100,000 square miles in which there are, if one includes those lands east of the Rocky Mountains in British Columbia, approximately 90,000 people who live from agriculture. I received this wire today and I wish to read it into the record. It is addressed to me and reads:
Re grain situation at Falher Alberta present grain stocks estimated at 1,750,000 bushels from 1968 harvest plus fifty thousand left over from previous harvests totalling 1,800,000 bushels. Since August first 1968 to May thirty first 1969 450 cars shipped representing one million thirty thousand bushels from this point. Number of cars required to fill the three bushel quota estimated at 200. To meet the financial needs of this immediate area a six bushel quota is a minimum requirement 300 CA cars are needed to move this grain similar requirements are needed for other shipping points in this region. During May we lost 230 shipping orders due to the inavailability of cars which represents 25 per cent of grain on hand. Damp and wet grain has not been a problem in this area due to favourable harvesting weather and a high percentage of grain dryers to number of farmers. Due to the inability to sell grain farmers financial obligations have reached the point where they are compelled to refinance at interest rates up to 28 per cent. Furthermore they have to meet their current expenses and taxes. Economy of this area has deteriorated to such a stage that some businesses have already been forced to close. Farmers were consequently forced to seek their own grain market. A feed grain market was found in British Columbia, where a good supply of grain cars is available. Example one elevator at Fouce Coupe B.C. loaded forty six cars in January as compared to thirteen at Falher amongst five elevators (the weather was just as cold then at that point, as at Falher) we fail to understand why these cars could not have been better distributed for which local elevators had ample

June 17, 1969
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers shipping orders. Farmers are forced to barter grain for machinery and other goods which are not always needed, in order to establish contact and eventually sell grain for some cash. Furthermore the price is rapidly decreasing. Example feed barley now being sold at fifty cents per bushel as compared to seventy seven cents approximately a month ago. Hauling cost no less than twenty cents per bushels for this 300 to 400 mile round trip.
That is from Falher to Dawson City.
When honest people are forced to use illegal means to dispose of their products for their livelihood, it is time for authorities to take action. You have already been informed of our demand for a meeting next week of federal and provincial ministers and other officials. This meeting must take place. Area cash payments may provide temporary relief but will not solve the major problem. Grain cars required must be provided. There is an acute shortage of farm storage facilities for the coming crop. Permission must be sought to fill feed grain requirements in all of Canada. The situation is so critical that physical violence is being contemplated.
It is signed, "R. E. Charbonneau, Falher Chamber of Commerce, President."
The community of Fahler is comprised of many who came to the Peace River area from Quebec. They are good farmers who recognized in early days problems associated with the growing and marketing of wheat. Some of them have gone into seed production, others into honey production and still others cultivate oil seeds. They have done all they can, and in so many words they now say the ball lies in the court of the government. They want to know what the government is going to do about it. I extend this invitation to the minister and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to come with me to this meeting when it is held, and there answer the very legitimate and reasonable questions which the farmers of that community feel they must raise with the government.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is not good enough for the minister to say that the government seeks only long-term solutions. Other governments went beyond that. The government which was under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), during an equally critical situation, was able to find ways and means of dealing with such a problem. We had a problem with regard to the raising of rapeseed. A number of private members on this side of the house banded together and sought a hearing before the Board of Transport Commissioners. They brought legitimate pressure to bear upon the

government, upon the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. The result was that the government was persuaded to change the Railway Act to permit rapeseed to be classified as a grain. Rapeseed has now reached the stage where it is considered to be a fairly major product in the agricultural industry of western Canada. It is getting increasing attention overseas and in the domestic market.
When I asked the minister what the government was going to do about the debt load that farmers are bearing, in a situation so desperate that action is being taken by machinery companies and other creditors to force farmers to unload and get out of farming, and with action being taken to foreclose mortgages on land, he replied, "Well, we told the Farm Credit Board to look sympathetically on requests for deferment." I challenge that statement. A previous Conservative government back in 1934 was able to find a solution for this problem. I am not suggesting that the government revive the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act but I am pointing out that a government with ingenuity, knowledge and determination found a way of grappling with this problem. If the present government had the intestinal fortitude it could do the same thing.
The trouble is that the government does not care. It has washed the people of western Canada out of its mind. It has no real interest in them. There is no question about that at all. This applies particularly to the agricultural community in western Canada. This is a shocking and shameful thing for a government that has been in power for so long to do.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, nothing could better demonstrate the merit of the suggestion made by my leader, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) should resign than the speech we have just heard from him. That speech was one of procrastination, indecision and confusion. It was a speech of procrastination because once again the minister adopted an attitude of wait and see. That is exactly what he said last fall. Now, he tries to state that because the farmers somehow managed to deal with a big part of the problem last fall, with a great deal more effort on the part of the individual farmer and the agricultural economy in total than was necessary, there is now no need for action. It was a speech of
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
indecision because the minister outlined all of the things that should go into determining a solution, but he was not able to come up with any solutions or recommendations for action.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it was a speech of confusion. First of all he misinterpreted some of the remarks and suggestions made by my leader. For instance, he said that to resign, as was suggested by my leader, would be to abdicate his responsibilities. I suggest that my leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), suggested that the minister should resign because he has abdicated his responsibilities. It is time we had some action, otherwise there is no other course open to the minister.
Then, the minister took it upon himself to recite a list of items that he said the government had carried out in order to assist the agricultural industry. He described these as transitional help, as first aid to the agricultural industry. In my view the list that the minister presented to the house was more in the nature of a recitation of a litany associated with last rites. If he suggests that this in any way is dealing with the problem, I am afraid he is badly mistaken.
I do not intend to go over all the points he mentioned, but I do wish to refer to a few of them in order to illustrate the barrenness of the approach by the minister. He suggested that the P.F.R.A. and crop insurance payments made this year were part of the first aid program. But, Mr. Speaker, those are programs that are in existence, and for the most part, they merely give out money paid in by the farmers themselves. They are programs that are necessary, but these are not programs designed to deal with the problems we have at the present time.
The minister suggested that the authorities were entertaining applications for deferment of repayment of Farm Credit Corporation loans. This is certainly necessary in view of the inaction of the government. The minister may think he can fool some of the members of this house but I assure him he cannot fool the farmers. They are certainly not going to believe that sort of proposition.
Finally, he suggested that the three bushel over delivery quota introduced last fall was part of the program of assistance to agriculture. This is the final straw, Mr. Speaker. This statement is in direct contradiction to statements made in this house by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he admitted that an error was made in the way in which that program was introduced. This
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers error, in great measure, accounted for the problems experienced by western agriculture over the last few months. Now, we have the minister, thrashing about in the dark, presenting this particular item as one of the things done by the government to solve the serious agricultural situation in the west.
The Liberal government's handling of agricultural problems over the last year can be summed up in two points. The first is that there has been the greatest combination of bungling and mismanagement ever witnessed in the conduct of agricultural affairs. The second is that the government's refusal to take action up to this time to relieve the economic crisis facing western farmers represents a striking example of callous indifference on the part of government. Federal Liberal failure to take action on the western farm crisis has brought the prairie agricultural economy to the verge of bankruptcy. Lack of price supports, ineffective marketing policies, and bungling of the damp grain situation represent the greatest combination of errors ever committed by a Canadian government in so short a time on a major problem.
There is no need to review in detail at this time the story of the handling of the damp grain situation. Suffice it to say that from the start of the session last September the government adopted a wait and see attitude. Then, when it became clear that something had to be done, the government panicked and steps were taken to introduce a three bushel over delivery quota for damp grain. It is now commonly acknowledged that this was a bad error. No assistance was provided by the government in meeting this emergency. Now the government claims that the problem is gone. It reminds me of the phrase used in discussing some problems, "In the long run the problem will be solved." In the same way, Mr. Speaker, in the long run we are all dead.
Similarly, the government closed its eyes to the transportation problem as it developed. Despite repeated warnings in this house and from farm organizations the government twiddled its thumbs and said that everything was going all right. As long ago as last December 12, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool directors pointed out:
There is a danger that the system carrying grain from the prairies to the terminal elevators will be clogged up very badly with out of condition grain, thus Canada may not be able to meet some of its export commitments requiring shipment of dry grain.
10270	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17. 1969
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The transportation story is now known. It is difficult to say how many bushels of export sales were lost through the government's mishandling of this situation. The government has continued to dawdle in developing more aggressive marketing policies. The situation was noted by the agriculture committee of the House of Commons after its western tour when it recommended that more aggressive sales policies be adopted by both the Canadian Wheat Board and the government of Canada. It is important to note the reference to the government of Canada. For some time the federal Liberal government has attempted to wash its hands of responsibilities for grain marketing. This is impossible in the present world trading situation. Now, it is apparent that export sales during the current crop year will be no higher and will possibly be lower than during the last crop year. This is certainly a far cry from the 1.3 billion bushels of export sales that the Prime Minister, indicated last year would be made during the next three years. This represents 430 million bushels per year of export sales in addition to the approximately 150 million bushels per year for domestic consumption.
These factors, together with some factors which are beyond the control of government, have combined to produce a serious financial and economic crisis for farmers in western Canada. It should be noted that this crisis affects all farmers concerned with the raising of grain. Regardless of whether a farmer is engaged in a mixed grain-livestock operation or whether he engages in grain production solely, he finds himself in a crisis situation which requires urgent, national attention. It is now estimated that farm cash receipts in the current crop year could be as much as 33 per cent below the last crop year. Farm income from wheat sales will probably be about $660 million this year, compared with $984 million last year. On the other hand, farm costs have continued to rise. In January 1969 the index of farm production costs for western Canada stood at 375.8 basis 1935-39 equals 100. This is almost 19 points or 5.3 per cent higher than the index in January 1968. Judging from the government's inept policies in developing its Prices and Incomes Commission, there is little likelihood that this trend will be stopped in the near future.
In the face of these facts, I consider the government's failure to provide any assistance to agriculture in the budget is a national disaster. The government provided for a

$250 million surplus in government accounts -$575 million in terms of the true effect of the budget on the economy. None of this money was made available to relieve the critical situation facing agriculture, western agriculture in particular. The government's budgetary policy in this regard is economic nonsense. If it were just nonsense, it would not be so bad. The trouble is that it is disastrous and will contribute to the economic ruin of thousands of farmers. The government correctly decided that it should be selective in making changes in capital cost allowances. These changes will apply to those sections of the country where inflationary pressures are the greatest. Why did it not take steps to assist the situation on the prairie provinces, where inflationary pressures are for the most part non-existent. In fact the opposite situation prevails. The economic slack resulting from the agricultural situation has become a matter of national concern. Low quotas, reduced prices and special costs arising from the damp grain situation have reduced the purchasing power of agriculture to a low level not seen since the days of the senile Liberal government of the mid 1950's.
It is for these reasons that I particularly wish to congratulate the leader of my party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas J for introducing this motion in order to point up the urgency of government action to deal with the critical cash position facing western farmers. This motion has the full support of all members of the New Democratic party, coming as they do from various regions of Canada. My colleagues in the New Democratic party support this motion because they realize that an urgent problem exists on the prairies, and they can see the effects of the problem on other regions of Canada.
Numerous proposals have been placed before the government to deal with the situation. My colleague the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) made a proposal that a deficiency payment of 20 cents per bushel should be paid on wheat deliveries during the last crop year. He also proposed a maximum level and noted that supplementary steps could be taken to assist producers of coarse grains. Similarly, steps could be taken to ensure all full time farmers a minimum level of return from such a payment. Other proposals have been made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. While there have been differences in the method of payment suggested all
June 17. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	10271
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
of these proposals have one thing in common will be on a 5 bushel quota by the end of the
that is a recognition of the urgent need to get cash into the hands of farmers in western Canada. This is the point that is stressed in the motion now before the house.
Members of the house should be aware of just how serious the situation is. I have just returned from three days in my constituency where I had the opportunity of talking to many farmers. I was told of several cases where farmers were unable to finish their summerfallow work because they could not purchase the necessary gas for the tractor. I was in the village of Leslie last week where the board of directors of the local co-operative association had just decided to place all purchases in a cash basis. They had no choice. They had to have cash to pay their accounts because otherwise they would be placed on a c.o.d. basis. They knew farmers were not holding out in paying their accounts. Credit unions in many communities find that their cash reserve position is not good even after drawing on a line of credit. Banks and credit unions find that many of their borrowers have borrowed to the limit in order to keep farm operations going. Last week news broadcasts reported a case where a farmer had $20,000 worth of grain stored on his farm but his electric power was cut off because he did not have the cash to pay the bills.
The quota situation on grain deliveries continues to drag badly. Not long ago, indications were that a 6 bushel quota might be in sight. A few weeks ago this prospect was reduced to a 5 bushel quota. Now, I understand that the Minister of Agriculture recognizes that a full 5 bushel quota will not be delivered by the end of the crop year. Farmers recognized this fact some weeks ago and I am glad the minister has now recognized it. On Friday last, I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) about continuing inequities in grain delivery quotas. Had it not been that I had recent contact with the communities still on a low delivery quota, I would have been shocked by the minister's reply. He reported that 4 delivery points on that date were still on a unit quota. There were 19 stations on a one bushel quota and 204 delivery points on a 2 bushel quota. The minister also reported that there were 579 points on a 3 bushel quota, 664 on a 4 bushel quota and 347 points on a 5 bushel delivery quota. The minister went on to state that he was assured by the chief commissioner that his hopes are still very high that all stations
crop year.
I suggest that even if all points are on a 5 bushel quota this will be quite meaningless as it is abundantly clear farmers will be unable to deliver a 5 bushel quota. I urge the minister at the very least to make sure that delivery quotas are equitable. Emphasis needs to be placed on those points with the lowest delivery quotas. Even when quotas are increased to 1, 2 or 3 bushels, it means very little in many cases in terms of more grain deliveries. This is because the grain delivered last fall and winter on the damp grain quota counts on the new delivery quotas. Regardless of the exact outcome of grain deliveries, there is no question that a 5 or 6 bushel delivery quota is inadequate to meet farm operating expenses. There are many farm management studies available to support this statement.
Furthermore, the situation is going to get worse. There is no prospect yet of an improvement in the grain marketing situation. When the new crop year commences on August 1 many farmers will find that grain deliveries have been insufficient to repay the cash advance for 1968-69 and consequently they will qualify for a greatly reduced cash advance for 1969-70. A continuation of slow grain deliveries, together with a further drop in the final payment on the 1968-69 crop to an insignificant level, will place many farmers in an impossible position. At this moment, many farmers do not know how they are going to finance harvest operations.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Like a creeping paralysis, the effects of this situation are gradually spreading to other sectors of the economy. Towns and villages servicing the immediate needs of agriculture were the first to feel the pinch. Many small businessmen are in a desperate position. Employment in these centers is now very slack. The situation has extended to larger urban centres. In the city of Regina, a serious employment problem is emerging. Retail sales in Saskatchewan, I understand, are now running about 15 per cent below last year's already slack level. I suggest the effects of this crisis are now being felt in other parts of Canada as well.
The critical, urgent need at this time is for a massive injection of cash into the western farm economy. Both the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers'
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers Union have made this clear. Considered estimates of the immediate need range in the area of $150 million to $200 million. Various proposals have been put forward as to how payment might be made. I have already mentioned the proposal made by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), for a supplementary payment of 20 cents per bushel based on 1967-68 deliveries.
Failure on the part of the government to act now and to develop an adequate program for dealing with the situation will result in disaster for many thousands of farmers and will set back the prairie economy, together with the economy of Canada, in a way that it will take years to recover. Tinkering with gimmicks or small programs will be of no help. A major program is essential. The agriculture committee of the House of Commons recognized the problem after its western tour. Among its recommendations is the following:
Your committee further recommends to the government the advisability of measures for alleviating the critical cash position of farmers in the predominantly grain growing areas of western Canada.
I don't know what further recommendations are needed to get the government to move. As a result of representations made to the government by farm organizations, by members of this house and by others, I gather the government is now looking at some possibilities. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has let it be known that he is considering a number of proposals. It was suggested to me that he has become the minister of "might be". Possibly he might find a role in a production of "Alice in Wonderland."
The minister said there might be a two price system. There might be some hope for this proposal because it will not cost the government anything. He said there might be some sort of price guarantee. It appears that there is little prospect for this proposal.


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


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I just need a minute or two to finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: I wish to thank the house for its courtesy.

June 17, 1969
The minister said there might be some help for farmers who could not deliver a five bushel quota-big deal! This will only allow a farmer to go broke at a little slower rate. One thing is clear; the government is delaying any announcements until it considers they will be too late to give any assistance on 1967-68 crop deliveries. If this is the type of tinkering and fiddling the minister and the government are going to engage in, I suggest the Minister of Agriculture should resign and he can pick his reasons. If he is only going to recommend to his colleagues tinkering, fiddling proposals, then he has no understanding of the situation. If he has in fact recommended substantial programs to his colleagues and had them rejected, then I would suggest that any Minister of Agriculture with any self respect would resign from a government that takes such a callous attitude.
If the Liberal government continues with its present callous and stubborn attitude, it will go down in history as the government responsible for the final destruction of a viable agricultural industry which is vital to the welfare of the Canadian economy, and which is capable of making a significant contribution to the social and economic life of Canada.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the agriculture committee of the House of Commons who has had the opportunity in the last couple of months of travelling from the west right through to the east coast, I feel it is my obligation to say something here this afternoon about the agricultural situation as I see it in Canada and, more particularly, in the western part. The motion deals with the so-called plight of the agricultural industry in the Western provinces.
Let me say I feel somewhat guilty in that it seems we have discussed the wheat and grain problem here much more often than we have discussed the problems connected with some of the agriculture products grown in my own province of Ontario and in the eastern provinces. Before I carry on, I should like to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that all is not right with other products in the agricultural world here in Canada. Much could be done and must be done if we are going to keep this great agricultural industry of ours viable in order that the farmers across the country can attain at least the standard of living that people in other parts of the economy enjoy.
As an example, in the past few months certain things have happened in respect of other parts of our agricultural industry.

June 17, 1969	COMMONS
There has been a reduction in milk subsidies and a reduction in the premium paid to hog producers in Canada. This has an effect on the economy, and it affects my own area as well as the province of Quebec more particularly than western provinces.
Let me go on record here in the House of Commons, as I have in other places, by saying that I am absolutely against such policies by this government. It is inconceivable to me that these things should be cut when other sectors of our economy are getting more and more all the time and when the farmer is paying his share in order that these other people in our economy get what is rightfully theirs. It is not fair that the agricultural industry has to take the brunt of this situation by continually paying more and, in many instances, receiving less and less.
This afternoon we are dealing with a motion put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party regarding the grain situation or, as he put it, the critical cash position of the farmers in western Canada. Along with other members of the agriculture committee,
I was in the west a few weeks ago. At that time 1 had the opportunity as an easterner, for the first time, to see exactly how the farmers of western Canada carry on their everyday business.
While we saw conditions in Alberta and Manitoba, and we were in each of the provinces for at least two days, it was in the province of Saskatchewan that we really saw the situation of the ordinary farmer, and the problems he is up against. The committee was divided into a number of groups. I was paired with a Conservative member. The members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool took us from farm to farm. We saw many farms each day. These farmers opened their books to us and we saw their financial circumstances. The financial circumstances I saw were not at all good.
The first farm we went to had about 40,000 bushels of wheat left on hand. The farmer had wheat left which was 2J years old. He had not sold his crop from two years ago, nor had he sold last year's crop. He told us, and I believe truthfully, that he was absolutely up against it because he had used up all his credit and did not have any money left. He said he had enough money for seed grain and gasoline to put in this year's crop but did not know what he was going to do with it when he harvested it this fall. He had no idea what was to happen.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
Similar situations were revealed to us by other farmers. Is this the farmer's fault? Can we expect the wheat farmers in western Canada to act the same as other farmers in Canada who have other products such as milk, beef, tobacco and so forth? The answer is no, we cannot expect them to handle their crops in the same way, because much of our wheat crop in Canada must be exported. It is inconceivable to me, or anyone else for that matter, that the little farmer in Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Manitoba can sell his wheat to China, Cuba, Hungary, England or wherever it may be. Obviously, he must have somebody to dispose of the wheat for him. I understand that for this reason the Canadian Wheat Board came into being many years ago. Because of what I have learned from the farmers of western Canada, the politicians of western Canada who represent them, and the Wheat Board officials who appeared before us on at least two occasions, I regard the members of the Wheat Board as very sincere men who are doing their best for the wheat and grain farmers of western Canada. I think that within reason they have been very successful.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There are on the Wheat Board some very fine men. Mr. McNamara, the chairman of the board, answers questions in a very intelligent way. I do not agree with some of the answers he gives, but nevertheless he has in a most co-operative way tried to describe to us the policy of the Wheat Board and the government of Canada and what we are doing to help the western Canadian farmer.
I mention the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker, because if it is not the fault of the little farmer in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba that he cannot dispose of his grain to a foreign agent, and obviously he cannot by himself, whose fault is it? I say with all due respect to the powers that be in this country that it is either the fault of the Canadian Wheat Board, which represents the farmers, or of the government which appointed the Wheat Board in the first place.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would inform the house that I read in the financial pages of one of today's newspapers that there had been a new appointment to the Wheat Board, namely, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I understand that this gentleman is a farmer with undoubted ability. I hope he will be able to instil new ideas and life into that board so we may dispose of the surplus we have on hand at the present time.
10274	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
I have on numerous occasions heard officials of the Wheat Board, the government and other people bemoaning the fact that the world market for wheat is in bad shape and this is the reason Canadian exports are now less than they were some years ago. I ask you, sir, to consider the figures contained in the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for 1967-68. It is true that the exporting nations of the world sold less wheat in 196768 than they did in 1966-67; they sold 1,748 million last year, and the year before they sold 1,891 million bushels.
Let us look at some of the main countries which export wheat and see just where we stand percentagewise with the rest of the world. These are the facts: in 1966-67 the United States exported 742 million bushels of wheat; last year they increased their sales to 753 million bushels. Australia in 1966-67 sold 257 million bushels of wheat, and last year they dropped to 255 million bushels. This is a difference of only two million bushels. In 1966-67 France sold 113 million bushels, and last year they increased their sales to 153 million bushels. The U.S.S.R. sold 152 million bushels in 1966-67, and last year they sold 201 million bushels.
These figures are taken from the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board, and no official can get around them. The fact is that the only country which failed to dispose of its wheat last year was Canada. Canada last year sold 336 million bushels of wheat, and the year before we sold 515 million bushels. When I talked to the officials of the Wheat Board they pointed out that the United States is in a give-away situation; they give food away and make deals with the rest of the world for the disposal of their wheat. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Is there not the word "deal" in the French and English languages? Cannot we in Canada make deals so that we may also dispose of our wheat?
I say these things, Mr. Speaker, although it is not the nicest thing for me to stand up as a member of the government party and make the comments I have been making. But when I was in Saskatchewan I visited farm after farm, just as I did when I was in eastern Canada, and talked about the disposal of milk, hogs, or whatever it may be. At that time I gave the farmers my word that when I came back to Ottawa I would place these facts before the government. I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror tomorrow morning when I am shaving and say that I kept
[Mr Whicher.]
DEBATES	June 17, 1969
my promise to these people, regardless of where the chips fall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I have tried to be fair to the Canadian Wheat Board. I have placed before the house the opinions I gained from the farmers of western Canada. I impress upon the government that in order to sell commodities in the world market today, no matter whether it be newsprint, wool, nickel, wheat or milk, there is only one way in which it can be done-you have to get out and meet your customers, not only those to whom you have sold in the past but those to whom you hope to sell in the future.
With all due respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and the government of the day, all one has to do is read the figures contained in the annual report of the Wheat Board to realize that the year before last Canada sold wheat to 118 countries, and last year we sold it to only 36 countries. In other words, we did not go back and see 82 countries and try to sell them our wheat. We did not go back and say to them, for example: Were our transportation facilities adequate? Was the quality of our grain high enough? Was the price okay? Is there anything we can do for you? How about coming out with us for dinner? This is the way business is done today. It is the only way you will sell milk, wheat, nickel, newsprint or anything else. You must have the ability to say "Hello"; you must have the ability to make a deal.
We visited the province of Quebec and what I believe to be one of the largest powdered milk producing plants in Canada. When talking with the chief salesman of that large organization he pointed out that he travelled all over the world selling powdered milk. He also pointed out that when a person wanted to make a substantial sale he sometimes had to bestow favours upon the prospective buyer. This happens in private life all the time. It happens every day of the week as far as salesmen south of the border are concerned. They are professionals at it. Those professionals last year increased the sale of wheat in the United States by 11 million bushels. Their sales were not reduced as ours were. Therefore I suggest that in some respects we should copy our friends to the south.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The alarming situation as far as the United States is concerned is that this country is our chief opposition in the selling of wheat in the
June 17. 1969
markets of the world. The fact is that the communist countries of the world would rather starve to death than buy wheat from the United States. Can you imagine Communist China buying wheat from the United States?
I tell you that they did not buy it anyway. Can you imagine Cuba buying wheat from the U.S.? I tell you they did not buy any, and neither did the U.S.S.R. The unfortunate fact, as I see it, taken right out of the report of the Canadian Wheat Board, is that last year, with the exclusion of the communist nations to whom we sold a substantial amount of wheat, we sold only 27 per cent as much wheat to the free world as did our friends to the south. There are many things which make us want to take off our hats to our American friends. I want to tell you that I am one of their great admirers, but I am not willing to sit in my place in the House of Commons or in the business world and accept the fact that they are better salesmen than we are. The only solution is to go out and sell. We can adopt all the solutions that have been proposed here this afternoon, and all the suggestions about what should be done in order to help our western friends, but when you get right down to the brass tacks you realize that the only thing that must be done is to go out and sell this wheat.
It was suggested to me by some members of the Wheat Board that in order to sell substantial amounts of wheat to some of the countries of the world certain deals have to be made by the government. Perhaps long term credit arrangements have to be made. Perhaps we have to accept foreign currency, as I believe was the case when our Chinese friends bought wheat from us and paid us in pounds sterling. Perhaps in order to sell to Japan we should take Japanese money and in order to sell to Indian we should take Indian money. I am a complete amateur so far as these things are concerned, but the government has all kinds of professionals who know about these matters. I humbly suggest that the leaders of our government sit down with members of the Wheat Board and ask them exactly what they need in the form of credit or monetary assistance, or whatever it may be, in order to dispose of this huge amount of grain.
The Leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) was quite correct this afternoon when he pointed out that the amount of food per capita in the world today is smaller than it was in 1939. I am not one who is willing to sit down and not make every effort possible, 29180-650|
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers and when I say every effort I mean all that I have. I feel sure that the criticisms that have been levelled at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) today will not insult him. He is obviously used to criticisms and, like a real professional, he knows how to take them. Some of the things that have been said about him will not hurt him. I honestly believe that the Minister of Agriculture is doing his very best for the western farmers, and I suspect that some of the members across the way who are in the high priced seats have not accepted the story he has attempted to tell them.
This afternoon he told us of the many things that have been done for western farmers. Cash advances have been doubled to $151 million; the temporary Wheat Reserve Act has been implemented amounting to another $55 million; there has been an accelerated depreciation, and cash advances have been made by the P.F.F.A. as well as assistance from the Farm Credit Corporation; amendments have also been made to the Farm Improvement Loans Act; there has been a substantial promotion in sales by the Wheat Board. I am certainly glad to hear that because it had not come to my attention previously. As a matter of fact, I cannot see anything about it in the supplementary report of the Wheat Board and I would be very pleased to have it pointed out to me that there were substantial promotional sales made by the Wheat Board. The other things the government has done are crop insurance support, food aid, etc. I say most humbly through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture that he is to be commended for all this. However, I have been told by farmers in western Canada, members of chambers of commerce, managers of banks and witnesses before the committee of the house that the credit of these farmers has been used up to the nth degree and they simply have no more.
Therefore, I say to the Minister of Agriculture most respectfully that these good things that he has done are simply not enough. If agriculture in western Canada is to be saved, something must be done now. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong, with a two price system for wheat in Canada? If the government does not know anything about the two price system, let them ask about the price of milk in Canada. There is a two price system. Let the Minister of Agriculture ask about the price of cars in Canada. In Oakville cars are manufactured and sold for more than the same cars are sold in Detroit. That is a two

10276	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers price system. The country is full of two price systems. The only exception in force applies to the wheat and grain farmers of western Canada. Having listened to the minister, and from my own knowledge of him, I am sure he has brought this matter to the attention of his colleagues in the cabinet. I ask him to keep on screaming as loud as he can because these people need assistance.
In conclusion I wish to emphasize that so far as the long term situation of grain farming or of dairying is concerned, the first thing we have to do is to go out and sell. It is simply not good enough for us to sell only 27 per cent as much as the United States. We have to be more militant and we have to go out and sell. But for the immediate future I ask the minister to bring forth something for these people. As I hope is well known in this house, personally I am against subsidies from A to Z right down the line. However, so long as we subsidize gold mines and the automobile industry in Canada, it is only right and just that the agricultural industry get its full share.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat eager to take part in this debate, partly because it concerns a subject dear to my heart. The motion before the house reads:
That this house condemns the government for its failure to take steps to relieve the critical cash position of farmers in western Canada.
I was greatly disappointed in the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) this afternoon. The hon. gentleman spelled out a number of things which, he said, the government was presently doing, but he really did not tell us what, if anything, the government was proposing to do; he did not indicate that the government was even thinking of doing anything. He simply listed 12 things the government had done.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Things which were helpful.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He said the government had done 12 things which were helpful. I do not

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
wish to misinterpret the minister and if he wishes to make any observations he is welcome to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I appreciate that. I listed 12 things which were, being done in accordance with government policy, programs which are helpful to farmers. But I did not say the government had initiated all of them in the past year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fine. The minister spelled out 12 programs which were being carried out but he did not say they were all initiated by this government. My point is that he did not state what the government intends to do, if anything, and this is what concerns western farmers, taking account of the cash position in which they find themselves today. He did mention a number of criteria into which solutions must fit. He said they must not aggravate the problem. Second, they must help those who needed help the most. Third, they must fit into a long term program for agriculture. He also told us that the basic difficulty was in marketing and that in the marketing of our products we must consider the effects of the international situation. He ended his summary by saying: "At this time the problem is in the ground." Well, that is a nice place to put it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not say that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have heard of ostriches burying their heads in the sand but I never heard a minister of agriculture say the problem was in the ground.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You did not hear it today, either.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to deal with the minister's speech and refer to some of the things which should be done by the government if it is really interested in helping farmers. In listing the 12 programs which are already in effect, the minister told us that under the cash advance legislation $151 million had been made available. Mr. Speaker, this is money which has to be paid back by the farmers and it will be paid back by them as they deliver their grain. We should remember, though, that in this connection the minister also said that some $90 million of this $151 million would still be outstanding at the end of July, 1969; a little more than a month from now, and it will be carried over to next year. What could better substantiate the argument advanced by members of the N.D.P. that the government has failed to take
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
steps to relieve the critical cash position of western farmers? What better to substantiate my argument than to draw attention to the fact that of $151 million advanced to the farmers by the end of the 1968-69 crop year, $90 million is still outstanding and not repaid?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did not say that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the minister has a comment to make perhaps he will rise in his place and make it. He suggests that I am misinterpreting his remarks. Hansard will prove whether or not this is so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will be pleased to correct the hon. gentleman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister said in his speech that there is reasonable ground for believing that $90 million is outstanding.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Outstanding now; I did not say at the end of July. What the hon. gentleman asked me was how much is outstanding now, and I replied I could not say with precision but that I would guess about $90 million at this date.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, at this date is exactly what I said.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No; you said as at the end of the crop year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said at the end of the crop year there would be $90 million outstanding. If there is $90 million outstanding today there will be $90 million, or approximately $90 million, outstanding at the end of July, 1969. I would ask the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is also new to this debate, to stand up and say whether $90 million is outstanding today, and how much less will be outstanding at the end of July, 1969.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture could give an estimate of how much will be outstanding.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to hear how much is going to be paid off. I ask that question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and I will sit down because I want to hear his answer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One-half of the gross value of the grain delivered between now and then.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have heard a lot of waffling, but that takes the cake. The minister says
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers one-half of what might be delivered. Who better knows what might be delivered than the two ministers who are supposed to be interested in western agriculture? There is a critical cash shortage in western Canada, as the motion states. The government has admitted $90 million is outstanding to date. I say there will be very nearly $90 million outstanding on July 31, 1969. No minister has denied that remark.
Let me take a look at what can and should be done to benefit western farmers through the means of a long range program if only the government had the initiative to deal with the problems confronting western Canada. There has been talk of a 20 cents a bushel payment on grain delivered last year. Under the three criteria set down by the Minister of Agriculture such a payment would well qualify. However, it would not alleviate the problems that exist today, though it would help those who need help the most. Such a payment might well fit into a long term program for the general welfare of Canadian farmers, particularly the wheat farmers.
Let me also take a look at the two price system on which the minister has been waffling. What does the Canadian Wheat Board think of a two price system? I should like to quote from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, report No. 41, for Wednesday, May 28, at page 1625, and in particular the remarks of Mr. McNamara, the Chairman of the Wheat Board, with regard to a two price system. I asked Mr. McNamara:
I wonder, Mr. McNamara, if you could give us some idea of the difficulty you might rim into if Canada did adopt a two-price system. In a sense, France is operating today on a two-price system, perhaps not clearly visible to most people, but I think the principle is established there. What difficulties would you run into in the international field if we were to adopt the two-price system?
That is putting it pretty bluntly but clearly to the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board. In reply he said:
I do not think there would be any difficulties at all.
I underline the words "at all".
I have seen some discussion on this and there might be some technical regulations of GATT but if they were difficulties, they have long since been voided by practically every other country in the world.
Again, I underline those words.
If the Canadian government, the Canadian Parliament, decided to effect the two-price system, it would not affect our operations at all as long as they take our advice how to do it.
10278	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
I think that is spelling it out very clearly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It might affect other people's operations, though.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear some comment from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is a pleasure to see him in the house tonight. He was not here all afternoon but I will be pleased to hear his comments this evening.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will explain in a moment my reasons for being absent, which are as good as yours.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform you that these interruptions are very noteworthy. I was on the agriculture committee that toured St. John's, Newfoundland, the bogs of inner Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, spent four days in the province of Quebec, and conducted extensive research into the problems faced by agriculture. I do not know where the Minister of Agriculture was but that is where I was.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not on the committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Excuse me; I mean the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I went to an advisory council meeting this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I point out to the members that it is not in order to interrupt an hon. member who has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker, because my time is very limited. I was quoting the remarks of the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, who continued:
I mean that it should be a tax on the flour rather than try to police what wheat goes into a mill for this use or that use. Everything that goes into domestic use should be taxed and the mill should get the wheat at the same price and then the government collects whatever the tax is going to be.
So let me clear up once and for all, Mr. Speaker, that there is no problem about instituting a two price system for Canadian wheat. The international market used to question such a system, but today it does not. The Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board has said that the system could be implemented, that there would be no problem. The onus lies on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture to sell the idea to their cabinet colleagues.

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) outlined some of the difficulties he foresaw for western agriculture. I wish both him and the two ministers every success in selling the cabnet on a two price system. I did want to quote a statement to be found in the agriculture committee report to the effect that a two price system would not involve a substantial increase in the price of bread, but I cannot put my finger on the precise page. The Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board suggested that the price of wheat would increase by $1.20 a bushel, which in turn would mean an increase in the cost of bread of 2 cents a loaf. That should set aside any fear that may be in the mind of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford); and evidence to this effect from the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board is to be found in report No. 41 of the committee proceedngs.
Let me turn to what the government can do for agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture stated that no plan will be proceeded with until we are sure it fits into a long term program. Then, he went on boastfully to claim that everything was fine with regard to the livestock position generally, including cattle and hogs. The minister has told us that half the net farm cash proceeds in western Canada came from the sale of cattle and hogs. I ask, did the minister initiate any programs for western farmers before seeding time this spring? Did he make sure that programs would be introduced under which land might lie fallow or might be planted with grass in order to produce livestock? No. The government waited until after seeding time before contemplating action, and it was too late then. We had a brilliant task force that recommended a reduction of 10 million acres in wheat producing acreage. That was a 30 per cent reduction. What happened, Mr. Speaker? Farmers came to me and said, "All right, so this agricultural task force from Ottawa says we should reduce our wheat acreage by 10 million acres. What are we supposed to seed our land with?'' The farmers were asking for assistance and advice but did not get any from the government. The Minister of Agriculture failed them, just as he failed to initiate programs of assistance. This is a government that sits on its hands. The government's attitude is, "Let's sit on our hands for another month. By that time it will be too late, and we will not need to assist farmers." In addition to our other problems we now have a problem with a government that sits on its hands and does not help farmers.
June 17. 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It is interesting to note that the N.D.P. has become concerned all of a sudden about western farmers. That party has long been associated with the C.C.F. party, and as I say these words I am looking directly at the leader of the old C.C.F. party. That party was founded when we had the agrarian revolution of the 1930's. The N.D.P. party has completely changed in its aims. The aims of that party are not what the aims of the C.C.F. party *were.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The N.D.P. party has completely changed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the letters N.D.P. mean New Democratic Party, I wonder if the hon. member would confine himself to saying N.D.P. instead of N.D.P. party.


Mr. Asselin:: Those letters stand for "no down payment".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is very touchy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
touchy, just tired of listening to nonsense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Instead of being the party of the public conscience the N.D.P. is a poorly disguised trade union lobby in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The disguise is poor because the political marriage between the farmer and organized labour unions which these marrying Sams performed-and that remark may apply to the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago-is the biggest sham on the Canadian scene. Since when have farmers shared a common interest with organized labour unions? How many times have organized labour unions held up the marketing of our farmers' wheat? The Minister of Agricul-tue has told us that the chief problem confronting our farmers lies in the marketing of wheat or in the marketing of farm products. These marrying Sams prevent the marketing of our farm products.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Bunk, pure bunk.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is it bunk now? Did not 400 trade union members in Vancouver hold up the marketing of wheat two years ago? Did the unions on the east coast not hold up the marketing of grain for a number of years? Does the hon. member want me to quote from the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps the hon. member will find the right page this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think I can find it. The Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board has suggested that unions have held up no less than 14 different commitments for the sale of grain. That happened two years ago. Members of the N.D.P., in my opinion, are nothing other than lobbyists in this house for the trade union movement. They are controlled by the trade unions. If hon. members do not believe me I ask them to consult the former member for Assiniboia, who at one time was N.D.P. house leader here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You consult him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I now wish to deal a little more explicitly with problems Canada faces in international markets. The Minister of Agriculture suggested that we had a good thing in the International Grains Agreement and that the best thing Canada could do was get back on the tracks and abide by the terms of that agreement. Is that a correct assessment, I wonder? May I read from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I must interrupt the hon. member and bring to the attention of the house that the hon. member's time is exhausted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
are we, but carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to thank hon. members of the house for their courtesy, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief. At page 1663 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture Mr. McNamara is reported as having said:
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, under the IWA only No. 1 Northern was a named
10280	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17, 19G9
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
grade, but there was an understanding that all equivalents in other grades should fit in with this. But in the IGA for the first time, as indicated in Table 5, there are a number ol named grades, with the minimum and maximum for each particular grade.
It will be remembered that Canada had difficulty in selling some of its other grades of wheat. There was particular difficulty with No. 3. We could not reduce our price for No. 3 because it had been set under the International Grains Agreement although not, I think, under the International Wheat Agreement. It is in this area that France and Australia managed to get the jump on Canada, so to speak, and sell to Japan. I wish to continue reading from page 1664 of the committee report:


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You also suggested yesterday, Mr. McNamara, that you felt that the old wheat agreement was perhaps better in that it included most of the major exporters, and that under this grains agreement you have a smattering of everybody. Am I right in the sense that more people are involved in the grain agreement than there were in the past?


Mr. McNamara:: No; I believe the membership of the IGA is somewhat below the membership of the IWA. The point I was trying to make yesterday, Mr. Horner, was that to me it was unfortunate that the grains agreement was, first of all, negotiated under the auspices of GATT.
That was the first disappointment. I continue quoting:


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes; I agree.


William Craig McNamara: I excluded Russia and some of the other countries that were members of the IWA. It would have been much better, in my opinion, had it been negotiated under the auspices of the old IWA, which would have allowed Russia to be in.
That puts it simply and clearly, Mr. Speaker, and I think all hon. members remember the counsel of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to the International Grains Agreement.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As recorded at page 1664 I asked Mr. McNamara this question:
Why was it negotiated under GATT? Why was it not negotiated under an International Wheat Agreement?
Mr. McNamara replied:
Because the nations of the world, excluding Russia and a few others who were members of the I.W.A., figured that it could best be negotiated in this new form, particularly the Americans.
The Americans were not interested in quality, yet every report that the Canadian Wheat Board has submitted to Ottawa shows that Canada has always sold its wheat principally

on the ground's of quality. We agreed to set up a new International Grains Agreement under GATT. That was Canada's mistake.
I wish to put forward nine programs that the government could launch and which would put cash into the farmers' pockets. The first is the establishment of a two-price system for wheat. Mr. McNamara of the Canadian Wheat Board has said we are fully capable of launching such a system.
My second suggestion, and on this I agree with my hon. friends to the left, is a 20 cent payment on wheat sold last year. This would help those who help the most.
If the government really wanted to help farmers- it should have launched another program before seeding time, but even now it may not be too late considering the heavy frost that struck most of Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan just as the new crops were sprouting. Thus my third suggestion is that the government make payments to promote summer fallow and the production of grassland, which might encourage farmers to go into other lines of production.
My fourth suggestion is that a new International Grains Agreement, encompassing all the major importing countries and major exporting countries of wheat, including Russia, be drawn up as soon as possible.
I wish I had time to quote, from the committee proceedings, what Mr. McNamara and Mr. Vogel had to say about barter sales. We still have something like 135 million bushels of outstanding wheat sales to make to Russia under the last three year agreement. Why don't we get to work and offer to take some of their farm machinery or heavy industrial equipment, such as caterpillars, under a barter arrangement in exchange for that wheat, or for a portion of the wheat?
My sixth point is that in the past ten years we have moved substantially into the field of credit sales, and I believe the government could encourage more of these sales.
My seventh point is that Canada has to be realistic with regard to Japanese trade. Recently, we sent a delegation of about five ministers to Japan. They came back with their tails between their legs. That trip cost the Canadian farmers $160,000 for damages to a wheat shipment, damages that really did not occur according to our inspectors. But because the ministers were in such a genial mood they agreed to pay the Japanese this money out of the farmer's' pockets. Bearing in mind that we do make substantial sales to communist countries we should make greater
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
trade concessions to Japan in order to sell more wheat to that country. I presume there have been no further wheat sales to Japan this crop year, and I expect none. Instead of paying the Japanese $160,000 we should have sent them more wheat.
Although the minister suggests that repayment of farm credit loans be deferred, I say this is no real concession or recognition of the problem facing western farmers. Why doesn't he place a moratorium on the interest payable on these loans? By just postponing repayment and allowing the interest to run, the farmers' debts build up. A moratorium on interest payments would1 help alleviate the cash difficulty of the farmers.
My ninth point, Mr. Speaker, concerns the minister's statement that there has been a substantial increase in sales promotion. Has it not come a little late? We have had difficulty for something like two years in making wheat sales1, in fact for something like four years. But the greatest difficulty has been experienced during the past year. Why announce a substantial increase in sales promotion now? I hope that six months from now the minister will not come back into this house and say once more that there has been another substantial increase in sales promotion. That story is not sufficient, considering the severe cash position in which western farmers find themselves today.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I am concerned about the problem described in the motion. I am concerned for three main reasons. First, as a Canadian I am concerned about the effect on the Canadian economy of the depressed income of western Canadian grain farmers, especially if this situation is allowed to continue. Most economic depressions in this country have followed closely on the heels of hard times for the farmers, caused by low prices or poor crops, or both. I think the government should consider this aspect of the matter very carefully when deciding what is to be done to relieve the situation.
Secondly, I am concerned because most of the farmers in my constituency are grain producers. Not only that but the urban communities in my area are also mainly dependent on a healthy, thriving agriculture. I was elected at least partly because I am a farmer myself, and my constituents believed I would speak for them. Therefore I welcome this opportunity to again try to impress upon the
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers government the urgent necessity of prompt remedial action.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
My third reason is probably a selfish one. Several members of my family are personally experiencing this critical cash shortage referred to in the motion we are debating. This cash shortage is particularly hard on young farmers who are trying to get established. Many young people, relying on optimistic forecasts from politicians, Canadian and international food experts and others, went deeply into debt for land and machinery in recent years. Now, they are unable to meet their commitments. On that score alone, because government officials were among those who said that there was an unlimited market for our grain, I say that the government has a responsibility to give some meaningful support to the grain industry. The time will come, and it may not be far away, when our grain will again be in demand. We should see to it that these producers, especially the younger ones, are retained in agriculture because we will need them in the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as has been stated by others, the main requirement and the best remedy is to sell the wheat. This may require a fresh approach. I note that the government has recently appointed Mr. Charles Gibbings to the Wheat Board. Farmers and farm organizations have been asking for representation on the Wheat Board. This government has complied with that request. Charles Gibbings is not only a practical Saskatchewan farmer, but has served for many years as president of one of the most successful and influential farm organizations in Canada and, indeed, in the world, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. I am sure that if any improvement is needed in the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, Charlie Gibbings will see that it is made. I want to publicly congratulate Mr. Gibbings on his appointment and also congratulate the government on taking the step of acquiring his services. I am sure the overwhelming majority of western farmers will join in the applause.
Speaking in the debate this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) outlined some of the things that the government has done for the western grain farmers. Some opposition speakers made light of some of these programs. It may be that these programs have not been sufficient to take care of all the problems which stem largely from reduced markets. I am sure, however, that most reasonable people would admit that
10282	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17, 1969
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers many of these items have been of substantial assistance; in other words, without them grain farmers would be in a worse position than they are.
The Emergency Wheat Reserves Act was deliberately designed to provide more assistance in times of grain surplus. Because of that provision alone, the final payment on 1967-68 wheat which was received this spring, was almost 11 cents more than it would have been without this storage payment.
Another program which has definitely helped is the doubling of interest free cash advances on farm stored grain. This is a program specifically established because of the grain marketing situation in which we find ourselves as a result of three successive bumper world wheat crops which exceeded previous records by 25 per cent. The federal government pays the interest on the money that is advanced to farmers under this legislation, I estimate that it will cost the government several million dollars to pay this interest bill this year.
The Wheat Board, with the consent of the government I am sure, is selling wheat below the minimums set out in the International Wheat Arrangement. I say, as I have on several previous occasions, that the government can do no less than support the price of wheat at International Grain Arrangement minimums. This was an international agreement arrived at by governments. It has been broken by government action, with foreign governments admittedly leading the way.
It is completely unjustifiable in my opinion for our government to allow the burden of this international price war to fall on our wheat farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Albert B. Douglas: The precedent has been established. In the 11 month period from August 1, 1967, to June 30, 1968, the federal government did support the price of wheat at those levels, even before the International Grains Arrangement became effective. It was justifiable then, but it is even more justifiable and necessary now when the agreement has been signed and ratified, but has been broken by government action. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that guarantee in the 11 month period added about $8 million to last spring's final wheat payment, and to that extent has been of material assistance to wheat producers. I might add that without a similar guarantee, made retroactive for the whole of this crop year, there will be little or

no final wheat payment next spring. Without this support I fear that initial payments for the new crop year, which is just approaching, will have to be reduced.
It is suggested to me that it would be folly to support the price of wheat without at the same time doing something about controlling or reducing acreages. I submit that the quota system we have is a very effective control. Because of the low 6 bushel quota last year and the obvious outlook for an even smaller quota this year, farmers have voluntarily reduced wheat acreage by an estimated 12 per cent this year. The task force on agriculture recommended a reduction of 30 per cent in the next 10 or 12 years. At the rate of 12 per cent we would reach that target easily in three years. Or to put it another way, if farmers continued that pace there would be no wheat at all grown by 1980. If any further incentive to cut acreage is desired, I suggest a revival of the wheat acreage reduction bonus that was used during the second world war. I made this proposal some months ago. It is too late now to have any effect on this year's wheat acreage, but it could still accomplish two things. If the bonus were set at a level high enough to constitute a reasonable incentive, perhaps as much as $10 per acre, it would inject up to $40 million into the western economy right away and would reward those farmers who have voluntarily attempted to reduce the wheat surplus. It would also encourage more farmers to plan on cutting their acreage next year.
Some compare this proposal with the land bank program that has been in use in the United States. They suggest that farmers will tend to farm their reduced acreage more intensively and produce just as much grain on fewer acres. The situations are not comparable because Canadian farmers have one of the most stringent supply management systems ever devised, our quota system. Because of its restrictions last year and this year, farmers are not only reducing wheat acreage but have drastically curtailed their use of fertilizer and weed chemicals. I believe that compensation for wheat acreage reduction would be effective, beneficial and acceptable.
I want to again re-affirm my support for the two price system. I believe that farmers are entitled to set a price for their grain that goes into domestic human consumption, a price that bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of production and to prices most other Canadians get for the goods and services they contribute to our national economy.
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
But even if it were implemented right away it would not have any effect on farm incomes for at least many months. So I repeat my earlier suggestion that the government should make a cash payment now in lieu of the two price system. I am not too concerned whether it is made on a per bushel basis or on an acreage basis, so long as it would put at least $60 million into the hands of the farmers.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I assure the government that any such funds paid to the farmers at this time would circulate so fast through paying debts and meeting operating expenses it would make your head spin. I must return to what I think is the main requirement. I will not mention many of the other things I think might be beneficial, such as reduced tariffs and trade barriers about which the government is doing something and making progress.
However, I think we must sell wheat. That is the main requirement. Let the government support the price of wheat at $1.95J and turn the wheat board loose to really compete for wheat sales. It could do a good job on that basis. Let us get rid of our burdensome wheat surplus. This would cut down on storage costs and put the farmers back on their feet. It would help keep our promise to export 1.3 billion bushels during this year and the next two years. Such a program would require average sales of 500 million bushels in the next two years. By accomplishing this we will insure that the only truly national party we have, the Liberal party, will continue to be a party for all Canadians. This is a necessary ingredient to national unity. The action I have outlined will keep faith with the people of western Canada who, like people in all other parts of Canada, confidently expect a fair deal from this government.
The dimensions of this problem are now becoming unmistakably apparent as wheat sales continue to lag. I know the government is giving much consideration to this situation, but I urge them to come up with some meaningful announcement soon. I am confident that they will do so.
I cannot support the motion which states that the government has failed to take steps to relieve the critical cash position of farmers in western Canada. The motion is obviously in error because the government has taken some very positive steps, such as those I have already outlined. The steps which have been taken may not be sufficient, but I trust that the government has under consideration some further measures, and I look forward to some announcement in the very near future.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of this motion this evening because of the situation in which the farmers in my constituency find themselves. They are sitting on farms in many cases with three or four bushel quotas-some have two and some have as low as a one bushel quota. I wonder whether the members in this house have an understanding of what this means to those farmers who live on the prairies.
I have a neighbour who farms a section of land. He is a good farmer. He probably has received a gross income from wheat since August 1 of last year-six weeks off the full year-of probably $2,500. He has to support a family and rim a farm on that income. I have another neighbour who farms a thousand acres from which he probably grosses $3,500. He also has to support a family and pay the necessary cost of farming. This is the situation about which I am concerned.
If the government really wants to correct the situation which exists on the prairies it will have to start at the beginning where it made its first mistake. It will have to start from the negotiations for the International Grains Arrangement in 1966-67. The evidence before us which was gathered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture would indicate that we negotiated a minimum of $ 1.95J for Manitoba No. 1, and a price for Australian fair average quality of $1.68. The price negotiated for Australian fair average quality, was 27J cents lower than Manitoba No. 1. That was the differential. We were informed that this has since been narrowed some 5 cents a bushel. We were also told at about the same time that Australians improved the quality of their wheat. Did we not know that they were improving the quality of that wheat? Were we so ill informed of circumstances as Canadians-one of the great wheat growing areas of the world-that we were caught napping to that extent?
Does anyone imagine that we could sell to the markets of the world in competition with other countries by offering wheat for about 22J cents a bushel more than a competitor who was offering wheat of a comparable quality? This house has not been told by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) what is to be done to correct this situation in respect of the negotiated differential of 12J cents per bushel for Dark Northern Spring, United States wheat. Will someone tell me why the 49th parallel has anything to do with hard red spring wheat being worth 12J
10284	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17, 1969
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers cents less on the south side of that border than on the north side? It is this agreement, negotiated by this government and its predecessor, under which the Canadian Wheat Board has to operate.
I agree with those who say that the appointment of Mr. Gibbings to the Canadian Wheat Board was a good appointment. However, I do not care who the government appoints to this board, unless it changes the policy it followed during the last few years the grain grower in western Canada is going to be in trouble. Let us get down to the facts as they are and deal with them. We are not looking for charity for the western farmer. We are looking for economic circumstances under which he can operate. If we do not create these economic circumstances all the charity in the world will not help him to remain a farmer. Charity will only destroy the farmer as he is now being destroyed economically.
This situation did not sneak up on us. It was evident a year ago to keen observers on the prairies. They knew what was happening. Surely, it was evident a year ago to those people in government and those who are advising the government. Did they not know? During the last 18 months to two years, since the agreement was signed, we have been trying to fight and come from behind while the Australians, France and the United States have been undercutting us on the market. Our wheat has been piling up on the farms.
I found some figures this afternoon which I should like to give to the house. At Biggar there is in storage 189,000 bushels of wheat with 99,000 bushels of available space. The farmers in the area are on a three bushel quota, of which 50,000 bushels have yet to be delivered. Not one car has gone into the town of Biggar since May 30. The town of Biggar is on the main line of the C.N.R. from Winnipeg to Edmonton. The C.P.R. Rail line, where one elevator exists is one mile away. Biggar has access to the main line of the C.N.R. and a secondary line of the C.P.R., but there has not been one car in since May 30.
During the time we have been talking about this problem the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has informed us that this aspect of the grain industry is under control. When we have asked for a transport controller the minister has told us this is not necessary, but that is the situation which exists at least at one point, and I suppose it is duplicated at many others.
[Mr. Gleave.l
We must have access to some up to date and up to the minute research as to what is happening in the grain economy of the world. This is not the case now. We should know whether Australia, for example, is introducing new varieties of wheat, or whether Mexico has greater yields. We should know the production of the U.S.S.R. The last time I checked we did not have an agricultural attache in Moscow. We probably have a military attache there to find out how many bombs they are manufacturing. Don't we need to know about grain production, or is the information we receive so good that we have no ambition to enlarge upon it?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
As late as 1966, and indeed into 1967, we were told we could sell all the wheat we could grow. How could any government be so wrong? The situation would not have been interpreted so wrongly had we listened to independent observers who were saying that sales were declining. They were either hiding their heads in the sand or they were not paying enough attention to find out the facts. I do not know which was the case.
One of the first things we must do is renegotiate the I.G.A. We must go to our partners in this agreement and ask that this be done. These partners are our competitors, but if they are reasonable people they will not let the agreement stand in the way of providing a better deal for this country. We should go to the countries which are partners to the agreement and say that we cannot live with it as it is presently drawn. We should ask whether they are willing to renegotiate the agreement and arrive at a basis upon which we can live with it. Otherwise, we should scrap the agreement. Let us make up our minds about this. The minister should tell the house that he has made up his mind on this question and what the future will be for this country.
Let us not live in the limbo of uncertainty in which we do not know what tomorrow will bring. Let us ascertain what the future holds for the farmers of Rosetown, Biggar and similar areas of Canada. What plans does the government have in mind for assisting these people? They have been getting no direction from the government. They have not been told what steps will be taken to help them with their problems. Why have they not been told? They have not a crystal ball into which they can gaze and see the future; they cannot second-guess.
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
Let us get down to cases. The government has set up the Canada Grains Council to give farmers a forecast two years hence after its committees have studied these matters. We have a Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners, the Agricultural Research Council, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Amongst all these people are there not those who can reliably advise the government? If there are not, why do we have these agencies? If these people are capable, they should be called upon to give us the answers to the problems. Surely if they are paid salaries of $25,000 or $30,000 a year they should be able to advise the government in these matters.
Representatives of grain companies have been appointed to the Grains Council. Are these the people to advise us on grain problems, since these companies live on a guaranteed income in respect of the handling of grain. The government should reconsider this matter immediately and come to the conclusion that the situation is urgent. The government should realize that there is not time for long, drawn out sittings of committees that will make reports, half of which will be revealed to the country and the other half kept secret so that we do not know what the situation is.
I do not think there is any point giving the house the last grain quota figures. The government knows what they are. The situation has been stated many times in the house. What are we to do with excess land on which we shall not be able to produce wheat? Are we to go into livestock, cattle, or oilseed? Some direction should be given in this respect. The government should develop a policy which will solve the problem.
As well as being a grain farmer I feed some cattle. I was not amused the other day to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) say he was prepared to join with a lackey of the chain stores and boycott the product I want to sell. I give the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) credit for standing on his feet and saying what he did. He said it because he knows the circumstances of the livestock farmer.
I have here the report of a speech which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) made in Vancouver. He made a trip to Asia. I am glad he did. Perhaps he improved our grain sales in that area of the world. He is a very able man and was, I am sure, well received. While in Australia
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers he persuaded the officials of that country to lower the tariff on rapeseed, which had recently been increased. He also went to New Zealand. In his speech in Vancouver the minister said:
I was also able to point out-
That is, in New Zealand.
-the growing Canadian market for other agricultural products from New Zealand, mainly lamb and beef. The prospects are that there will be a very substantial increase in the Canadian market for these products in 1969, probably resulting in an expansion of New Zealand's total exports to Canada by as much as one-half.
They were $19 million in 1968. I wonder whether before this agreement was negotiated the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture had consultations on the matter. I put it to the house that before Canada negotiates in respect of the importation of agricultural products from another temperate zone country which will compete with the products produced in this country, the needs of our own producers should be considered. We may have to make substantial transfers of resources in respect of production in the prairie region. We recognize this possibility.
I have lived on the prairies all my life and have no illusions in this respect. I know what is in store for us. I do not think we are heading for disaster, but we must make some adjustments in this area before encouraging the importation of meat products from New Zealand. I suggest to the government, that the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should hold a conference and arrive at a conclusion as to where farming is going in this country, because we are past the point where we can fool around. I have great respect for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce; he has on many occasions been quite frank with us in the house.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I repeat what I have already said, namely, that the last thing we should be doing at this juncture is increasing imports which compete with Canadian industry already in a surplus position. We need an agricultural policy, and I am afraid that we have not got it. Where are we going? How many acreas can we have in wheat? How much livestock can we usefully produce and market within the North American market? How much milk powder do we need, how much butter, how many cows? The Canadian Dairy Commission has
10286	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers been pinching off the small butter producer in western Canada. I hear the same story in the maritimes, so apparently they are not setting their sights especially on us. I wonder if they know that the man who produces that can of cream is the same man who produces the calf which ends up in the feed lot where it is fed grain. They do not act as if they knew it. So, instead they pinch off the small producer, and we end up with a milk powder surplus in the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which is just as big a problem as the butter surplus once was.
What is our policy? This is what we should know. What about the recommendation of the task force that subsidies on feed grain moving east should not be continued? Is that what we should be doing at this juncture? When we are producing a surplus of grain in eastern Canada, do we want to re-equip the farmers in the maritimes and in the Atlantic provinces so they can produce grain also? Do we want them to go and buy combines and swathers and all the equipment that is needed to produce grain so that they can duplicate what we have now in the prairies, or does it make more sense, at least in the foreseeable future, to keep moving grain from where we are producing it and let farmers in the Atlantic provinces go ahead with poultry and livestock production? Essentially what they are doing is producing what they need in the area. Let us use some common sense and make our decisions on that basis. Some people say to me: "You are a westerner so you should not want feed grain to move east. You should want to feed it all in our own feed lot". This is utter nonsense. They will get the feed grain they want one way or another. If we cut it off, they will get it some place else. We will have a surplus but we will still produce hogs and cattle in competition with them. Do we want the market, or do we want to choke it off and leave it to corn producers in some other place? Do we want to duplicate the capital investment at a time when interest rates are at an all time high? If we are going to switch to some other production in western Canada, should we not make capital grants available to farmers who are willing and able to make the shift in terms of grazing land, in terms of feed lots and in terms of other developments, and should this not be done at reduced interest rates? Does the government think that the farmers in western Canada, with their present state of income and finances, will be able to raise the millions of dollars worth of capital to make the necessary adjustments?
EMr. Gleave.l
DEBATES	June 17, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that if we are going to have to make some adjustments and if we are going to have to go back to growing, say, 20 million or 24 million acres of wheat, and if those lands are going to remain productive, a program will have to be devised. We are not at the end of the road. I am not pessimistic about western Canada, if we do the logical things that can be done. Perhaps I am an optimist because I have lived in that country all my life. It is productive and wealthy. It has been misused, abused and short changed, but it does not have to be broken.
Let us take a look at the alternatives, such as a good selling program for feed grains, oil seeds and livestock. Let the government dig out some money now, enough to meet the situation that exists there, and then work out a program with which we can live and move forward confidently into the future.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: It is very gratifying for me to be able to rise tonight to take part in a debate on a matter of such import and urgency as is the cash position of the western farmer. When I am out west I always try to paint a picture of a government composed of responsible and dedicated people, but when the house spends weeks on matters such as the omnibus bill and the language bill at a time of crisis in the west when farmers are going bankrupt every day, I have difficulty explaining it away. Westerners are asking me: "What is this government dedicated to and to whom is it responsible?"
I will not take the time to go over some of the aspects that the speakers before me have covered in relation to marketing problems and low quotas. I think these have been adequately covered. However, now in the west, on top of the other problems, we have a new situation which will affect the beef and the coarse grain growers. I refer to the widespread frost that occurred last week and that extended from the Peace River country to as far east as Brandon, Manitoba. Unless aid comes in in the next few weeks, these frozen crops, which in many areas are black and which have blackened the ground, will die, and trouble will be heaped on trouble. With no sales, debts will be heaped on debts. Credit sources are drying up, and money, when available,
June 17. 1969	COMMONS
has become too expensive for farmers to use. The return of the average farm is not as great as the interest rate on the money that farmers borrow, and unless this government gives immediate cash relief to the western farmers by next spring I predict that 25 per cent of them will be bankrupt and will be gone from the land. I think that anybody who is familiar with the situation can do little else but agree with me. In short, any picture I could paint pertaining to the situation of the western grain farmers, no matter how black, could hardly portray the full seriousness of the situation.
We have heard the suggestions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and we have also heard in the house about the fight against inflation. I think this subject was also mentioned in the budget address. But the farmers of western Canada have been fighting inflation for the last 20 years. They have been selling at 1940 prices in 1950 and 1960 markets. In 1939 farmers paid $1,200 for a three or four plough tractor. Today, they pay about $5,000 for the same machine. At that time we sold a bushel of wheat for 50 cents. Today, a great many farmers are getting about $1 for it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) spoke about the problems but he did no more than that; he did not offer any solutions. I was really quite ashamed when I realized he was representing a province of the west, although I do commend him for having done, probably, all he could in the circumstances in which he finds himself, likely in a somewhat hostile cabinet. I was happy about some of the things he has done-some of the programs he has made possible. But I was deeply ashamed when a Minister of the Crown came out last week with an appeal to consumers to boycott beef. Beef is one of the few things they have in the west that is keeping the economy going at all. God knows, the extra which a beef producer is receiving is nowhere near the amount of price increase which is being demanded of consumers.
The Minister of Agriculture needs to speak to his colleagues about this crisis. I notice that when he was addressing the house only six of his hon. friends were sitting in the house listening to him. To me this indicates the extent of the interest on the government side in this critical agricultural situation. Six members out of 153 listening to the Minister of Agriculture talk on the western crisis!
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers
The minister listed some of the accomplishments which had been achieved in the agriculture field-some of the new credit provisions and measures for extension of credit. But there are other accomplishments, too. There was the accomplishment of transferring dairy produce totalling eight million pounds from the western provinces to Quebec. There was the accomplishment, if one can call it that, of organizing the pile-up at Vancouver this winter when ships waiting to load grain cargoes were unable to do so because we were not in a position to supply the types of grain needed.
Long term planning is required, certainly, but what these farmers need is cash right now, today, tomorrow, or next week. Long term planning has no value at this stage for a large number of these farmers because they will not be here to take advantage of it. When we ask for subsidies, when we ask for immediate cash help, the question is asked: where is the money coming from; taxes are as high today as they can go. But let us take a look at the situation. As the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) stated last week-and it was repeated this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-there was apparently no difficulty about remitting $80 million of duty to the automobile manufacturers, $75 million- of this going to one company. I looked at the financial statement of that company and found that its net profit last year was well over $50 million. So, we can hardly consider it to be a charity case. Funds are certainly as well funnelled into agriculture in a time of crisis as back into the automobile industry.
We find that taxpayers are subsidizing every seat in the new Arts Centre. Assuming a sell-out crowd for 100 nights of the year, and taking everything into consideration, the subsidy on every ticket sold amounts to something like $35. I am not saying I do not approve of the Arts Centre. This sort of thing is possibly necessary and desirable; you cannot put a price on some of these things. But I am saying that when there are bread and butter issues to deal with, surely they come first. Take the situation of the CJ3.C. which presents "Things As They Really Are"-the title of one of its programs. This organization costs the taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $150 million a year and it is not too discriminating in choosing the topics it brings before the public, either; we often run into criticism here. There are economies which could be made in the civil service. In many of
10288	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers these offices people are falling over themselves.
The other day I telephoned to see how things were in connection with my income tax position. I got in touch with the department to find out something about my return.
I noticed that the size of the staff had been increased. They have put in computers. I was told it would be necessary to feed in a card and that it would not be possible to tell me how my account stood for the next two weeks. This is a measure of the efficiency we are getting, all at increased cost. Savings could be made in many of these directions and we would then be able to help the people who need help without increasing the tax load any further.
Subsidies, as one hon. member has pointed out-I believe it was the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)-can hardly be termed a dirty word these days. I have no great desire to be part of an industry which is subsidized, and I believe the grain growing industry is one of the few that is standing on its own feet, but it should be remembered that we are subsidizing industry, mining, broadcasting-you name it, and we are subsidizing it. Why must subsidization be looked upon as a dirty word when it comes to western agriculture?
In conclusion, I reiterate that long term planning, while essential, is of no value at this time to a great many of these producers. If we are to hold the grain growing business together, emergency measures are required, and our farmers need cash right now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker I should like first to apologize for my absence this afternoon. I have, I think, an excellent excuse, since I met in Ottawa the Advisory Council of the department of Industry and Trade and Commerce and it seems to me that one of the basic requirements to assure the Council's efficient work is the attendance of the minister which is supposed to advise.
However, I have been informed abut a number of arguments presented this afternoon in support of the motion proposed by the opposition. I do not pretend to answer adequately to the argument of the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) to the effect that the western farmer's income is inadequate, but since arguments concerning the marketing of Canadian wheat have been put forward, I think that I should make a few comments on that subject.

DEBATES	June 17, 1969
To start with I will say that being rather well informed about the situation in the wheat industry and about the equally rather difficult situation faced by a number of western farmers, I would be the last one to make an attempt at minimizing the seriousness of the problem which confronts us at the moment.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said this afternoon that the government was considering all aspects of this problem.
The farmers and the members of the house may be justified in feeling a little anxious about what the government will say on this subject, but I ask the house to believe that there are good reasons for giving proper consideration to all aspects.
It is easy for the opposition to shout "Give them cash, cash, cash". It is easy for the opposition to claim that we should have a two-price system. It is easy for the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to say that we should make barter sales. It is easy to bring up in this debate all kinds of considerations having to do with the new Arts centre or the remission of tariffs for the automobile companies.
However, on the basis of the opposition's record I think the government should be rather cautious about the recommendations made by the opposition today. The least that can be said of them is that they should be properly assessed.
If one looks at the record, one is not edified by the suggestions made by the opposition in recent months. At the time the high moisture difficulties arose, I remember members of the opposition saying that the government was responsible or almost for the bad weather; that it had done nothing to cope with the tragedy of damp and tough grain. Their cries, still ring in my ears that "millions of bushels would be lost". As hon. members should know, this problem has been properly resolved.


Mr. Mazankowski:: How would you know that millions of bushels have not been lost?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Just state the contrary facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The remarks I made before apply to all members of the house.
June 17, 1969	COMMONS


Jean-Luc Pepin: The problem has been resolved. The farmers did a magnificent job, and so did the Canadian government. The measures that we took should be in every member's mind because they were mentioned this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. Credit was made available. On an emergency basis cash grants were made for drying purposes. Advance quotas for high moisture grain were given by the Canadian Wheat Board. I well remember the members of the opposition crying "Too late, too late". Then, when difficulties developed they cried "Too early, too early". One would wish they would consult among themselves. C. D. Howe apparently said that there was no such thing as a wheat expert. I think that statement is proved every day in this house. I do not pretend to be an expert myself but how members of the opposition can claim to be experts is beyond my understanding.
Co-ordination of drying facilities in terminals was made by the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners, terminal operators and the railways. The government gave remission of duty on imported commercial dryers. It also gave accelerated depreciation for farm drying units acquired in the current crop year. That was enough to solve the problem. Still ringing in my ears are the cries of "Resign, resign". If I resigned each time the members of the opposition thought I should this would be a full-time job.
Again it is easy for the opposition to come up with "solutions". Some members of the opposition remind me very much of jugglers who are throwing 20 plates in the air hoping to catch one. When they do, they never speak about the 19 others.
With regard to the difficulties experienced in Vancouver, I remember how I was laughed at when I tried to explain that these difficulties were in great part due to the weather. Again the opposition shouted "tragedy". They charged that my department should have been given to a westerner. This hurt a little. The railways were damned as well as the Transportation Committee. It was said that the co-ordinator should take over. Even the Wheat Board was slightly chastized. God himself had to come in for some chastizement.


Cliff Downey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under the new rules is there no protection given members of this house from this sort of inconsequential chatter while we are discussing such an important problem?
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, of all the people I can think of, especially having heard the hon. member's speech in which he referred to just about everything under the sun, he is the last who should complain.
Let me return to the Vancouver difficulties. I remember hon. members saying that our sales to the Pacific would be lost, that this would be a terrible year. They were almost counting the number of sales that would be lost. Hon. members may be glad to know that our exports of wheat from the west coast as of June 4 this year amounted to 122.5 million bushels as compared to 112 million last year. That is not a bad record for a government that is supposedly responsible for losing sales from the west coast.
I am not trying to claim this is a wonderful record, an extraordinary one; I am just trying to put the case in its proper perspective, because I think that is greatly needed after the speeches we heard.
A few days ago the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) was crying out loud, almost making himself sick, because the port of Churchill would have no work at all. I cannot tell the house exactly what the sales program is for Churchill this year, but I am advised by the Canadian Wheat Board that despite well known difficulties it is anticipated that a good level of exports will pass through that important port. At least one member of the opposition should speak for the Canadian Wheat Board and the government tonight, but again I understand this is asking for too much. Tomorrow, the hon. member for Churchill will be asking me how much more he can expect, but I will have to admit to him that the record will not be beaten this year.
This afternoon it was again suggested that the government is not doing everything it can do to help the Wheat Board market wheat properly. I should like to know what it is that we have failed to do in the last year to help the Canadian Wheat Board market wheat. Have we suspended the food aid program? I ask hon. members to note the following interesting statistic. The government has increased food aid shipments, principally of wheat and flour, from the austerity level of $4.5 million in 1962-63, when a certain government was in office, to the current level of $70 million. I ask hon. members to note that increase from $4.5 million to $70 million. Members of the opposition may say that the level of exports was higher at that time than now, but that is not true. In 1962-63 the level
10290	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17. 1969
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers of exports was at 331 million bushels, which is almost the same level as last year.
With regard to credit facilities, the government has come forward and amended the credit facilities that are available to improve the competitive position of Canadian wheat. Provision has been made in the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the amount of $6 million for the sale of wheat to selected countries on extended terms at concessional interest rates. Again every effort is being made to interest developing countries in Canadian wheat on these terms. The Wheat Board does not lack government support. Members of the Wheat Board and of my department have been working with great intelligence in order to secure sales and I regularly receive letters and telephone calls of congratulation. The callers are not complimenting me of course; they are complimenting those people who are developing our sales so excellently.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I do not claim to be an expert on wheat but I wish that other hon. members who do not know much more about the subject than I do would stop pretending to be experts. I am referring here to the kind of thing the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said. Suddenly, he does not think the I.G.A. is such a good idea.


An hon. Member:: The minister does not know much, either.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just said that. It is all very easy to rewrite history, or to be wise by hindsight. It is all very well to say, "This is what we should have done." I tell the hon. member that he and his colleagues should not try to advise the government and then turn around and blame us for accepting the advice. The International Grains Agreement was negotiated-


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the minister permit a question. Is that agreement not an agreement negotiated by governments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is precisely what I am about to say. It was negotiated, and the Canadian government in those negotiations accepted the advice among others, of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board which is made up of representatives of producers of the Canadian wheat industry. At that time all believed that they were proceeding in

the proper manner. It was believed that negotiations within the Kennedy round would bring greater benefits than negotiations outside the Kennedy round. The increase of 20 per cent in prices which was agreed to was in part brought about by the mood, the Kennedy round discussions created. The hon. member was saying that there are fewer members in the I.G.A. than there were in the old International Wheat Agreement. That is a lot of baloney. The I.G.A. and the International Wheat Agreement affect the same number of members. I do not pretend to be an expert but I wish others who are not experts would stop pretending they are.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is another expert.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister saying that the Soviet Union, which was a member of the International Wheat Agreement is also a member of the International Grains Arrangement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think there are at present the same number of countries in the International Grains Arrangement as there were in the International Wheat Agreement. That is what I am saying.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the number of exporters the same?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The number of countries is the same. One of the countries that does not belong to the I.G.A. is the Soviet Union. Arrangements have been made for the Soviet Union to be admitted to the I.G.A. Negotiations are going on now. I do not see how any new round of neogtiations could change the existing situation. Whenever the Soviet Union feels like coming into the I.G.A., it will do so. It is all very easy for the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to attempt to rewrite history.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister is rewriting it again.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not saying that there is anything eternal about the International Grains Arrangement or about any international agreement for that matter. One of these days we shall negotiate some new agreement. There is nothing eternal about international agreements of any kind.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit another question.
June 17. 1969	COMMONS


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not right now, please. This afternoon an hon. member during the question period asked what the government plans were in the light of the fact that the five bushel quota would not be reached. I do not know why such questions are asked and repeated. Mr. McNamara, the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board, has told the Standing Committee on Agriculture-and I have repeated his remarks in this house-that he is very hopeful that the five bushel quota will be reached. What better opinion do hon. members want? Why do they therefore anticipate that the quota will not be reached? Why create tragedies that do not exist?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker. Is he sure the five bushel quota will be reached? Will he undertake to keep the delivery season open until every delivery point has accepted the full five bushel quota?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There we go again. The hon. member evidently does not believe the quota will be reached. Why do we not wait until we see what is to happen before crying wolf?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We have been doing that all year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about foreseeing events?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a question of philosophy. You cannot have it all ways. One day some hon. member in this house says that the price of beef is too low for the farmer to benefit from his work. The next day an opposition member says it is too high for the housewife. One day we hear that the price of lumber is too high and is hurting Canadian construction. The next day we hear that reducing prices for lumber will be bad for our exports. You cannot have it both ways. I know it is difficult for hon. members to be in opposition to the government. I have never had that advantage of disadvantage of sitting on the opposite side. I know that hon. members must ask questions. Need I remind the opposition that they cannot have it all ways; that they cannot advise something one day and the contrary another.
Look at the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. A few months ago he and his colleagues were saying, "Respect the I.G.A." Now he is saying, "Scrap it." You cannot do both things at the same time. One day hon. members of that group protest that we are not underselling someone else. The next day they talk about abiding by agreements.
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers Today, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar compliments us on the appointment of Mr. Gibbings. Tomorrow he will condemn us for taking his advice. You just cannot make those kinds of statements and get away with it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind the minister quoting me so long as he does it correctly. I said that the appointment of Mr. Gibbings was a good appointment, but the effectiveness of the Wheat Board will depend on the policies of the government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And the policy of the government in turn will depend' on the good counsel it receives from its advisers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And will the minister blame the experts and advisers when they are wrong?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. We shall assume the blame ourselves. Not assuming responsibilities is one of three traditions of the C.C.F. that we have not adopted.
How serious is the marketing situation, Mr. Speaker. It might be worth looking at the facts. World trade has dropped by 11 per cent within the last year. Last year's trade, in turn, was 17 per cent below the level of the 1966-67 trading year. These are facts. Further figures show that in the 1966-67 crop year there was a potential for trading 2,300 million bushels. In 1967-68 that potential existed for 1.9 billion bushels. The potential for the 196869 crop is for 1.7 billion bushels. We see here a reduction at the world level of 600 million bushels over a period of three years in trade possibilities.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
That is quite a normal situation. However undesirable this normality may be, it is a fact of life and Canada among other countries will suffer as a result of the existing world situation in the wheat trade. It would be unbelieveable that Canada alone should escape from the consequences of that situation. I could go on giving many other facts of life dealing with this subject. United States exports in the current crop year are estimated to be 535 million bushels. This is over 200 million bushels below earlier predictions, and 250 million bushels less than the previous five years average.
I am not trying to say that our Canadian situation is not a difficult one. I am just trying to say this is not solely a Canadian difficulty. It is a difficult world situation. I
10292	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Western Farmers am trying to say the Canadian government should not be condemned for not being able to prevent something which exists on a worldwide level.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I regret to interrupt the minister but I must remind him that his time has expired. Unless the house gives unanimous consent the minister will not be able to continue his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will not be too long. I know
that some hon. members on the other side are sleepy. They have been working very hard. This is my fourth speech today and I am in great shape.
Let us have a look now at Canadian exports. They will be in excess of 300 million bushels in the current crop year. Last year they were 335 million bushels, only slightly above the 1958 to 1962 five year average of 323 million bushels. Again, Mr. Speaker, when one judges a situation one must judge it against something which is rather normal, and not something which is exceptional. I dare say that from 1963 to 1967 Canada enjoyed extraordinarily good wheat sales but there is nothing in Adam's will-and I have read it-which says that the Soviet Union is obliged to have crop difficulties every year to assist the Canadian farmers. So, we must judge the present on an average basis, and the average sales for the five year period 1958 to 1963 were 323 million bushels, which is about what we are reaching now.
Had the Soviet Union come forward and taken the 135 million bushels outstanding under its present agreement with us, or had it taken only half of that, say 75 million bushels, this year would have been a very good year. Again, I do not see why the leader of the N.D.P. should condemn the government for its bad performance in wheat marketing. I think that the record has to be put in proper perspective.
I would have had many other remarks to make tonight, Mr. Speaker. In my concluding series I was going to show again that this is not an exclusive Canadian problem. It is a worldwide situation. The market is not what it used to be two, three or five years ago. Competition in the market has become ferocious. There have been bumper crops all over

DEBATES	June 17. 1969
the world. It is a buyer's market. A number of countries that used to be importers have become self-sufficient; a number of countries that used to be self-sufficient have now become small exporters. I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) who said that now we must govern our conduct in the light of more normal sales, and not in the light of exceptional ones.
In concluding, I also would have loved to talk about the I.G.A., and to answer some of the points made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in particular. When I listen to him I always think that if wind and words could do it he would be really tops. I would have liked to speak about the history of the I.G.A. and of the great efforts made in recent times by Canada to protect the international arrangement despite difficult and changing circumstances.
I would have liked to have talked about our officials going to Canberra, to Washington and to London to defend the I.G.A.; about the minister meeting with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, as did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) also. I would have liked to have spoken about my meeting with the Minister of Commerce of Australia (Mr. McEwan), and with the Ministers of Trade and Agriculture of Japan. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) met with President Nixon and Prime Minister Gorton, and representations were made to France and the E.E.C. We have tried everything possible to maintain this great international agreement which is in Canada's best interests.
If the I.G.A. fails it will not be because Canadians have not stood behind it. It will not be because Canadians have not paid the price of maintaining it. It is easy to say on this 17th day of June that this is not the way the agreement should have been written, that it should have been negotiated differently. That is a lot of hindsight, which is about the cheapest commodity on the Canadian market at present.
I would have ended by enumerating the different recommendations that the government has received. Tonight, the hon. member for Crowfoot came up with a list of nine. I would have tried to show the difficulty attached to each of them. I would have shown that most of these coins have two sides. I would have tried to bring to the attention of the house and of the Canadian population that there are some disadvantages in most of these recommendations. But as the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon, the government is considering all these aspects and
June 17, 1969	COMMONS
will make up its mind at the proper time. There is nothing wrong in that. It is easy for the opposition to shout at us, "Do this, do that," without any consideration for the consequences of those actions.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes left and I thought the minister was going to keep the floor until ten o'clock.
I would simply like to say that we are in favour of the motion introduced by the New Democratic party. We regret only one thing and that is that the motion does not apply to the farm industry as a whole. I suspect the New Democratic party of being just a little bit separatist for there are needs all across Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The President of the Privy Council.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, before we move to the adjournment proceedings I think it might be useful if I put on the record a resume of the expected business for the next few days. The business for tomorrow afternoon-and I would recall to hon. members the special order made last week

will be item No. 4 on the Order Paper, the report stage of Bill C-120 respecting the Official Languages Act, and as a result of the special order the house will sit tomorrow evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
On Thursday morning, the house will sit again at ten o'clock and will commence with government business. The first item to be called will be item No. 90, completion of second reading of Bill C-207, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Assistance Act, the committee of the whole stage of that bill and, I hope by leave, third reading. That is to be followed by the completion of item No. 4, Bill C-120 the Official Languages Act.
When government orders are called after 2 o'clock, the business that day will be an allot-ed day, as it will also be on Friday after eleven o'clock until four o'clock. From four o'clock until 6 p.m. on Friday evening it will be government orders, commencing with Bill C-120 if it has not previously been passed, and then tentatively Bill C-197, Bill C-194 and Bill C-202.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The house, pursuant to Standing Orders, will not be sitting next week on June 24 in honour of the feast of St. John Baptiste. On the Monday and the Wednesday of next week there will be the two remaining allotted days in the current period.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the house that pursuant to Standing Order 58 the proceedings on the motion are considered to have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) why the program on lamprey control was being cut back in 1969, the second time in eight years. This program has been eminently successful. It has been 90 per cent effective in Lake Superior. It is interesting to note that the sea lamprey readjusted from salt water to fresh water. It came up to Lake Ontario via the St. Lawrence River. Then, via the Welland Canal, it came up to Lake Erie. The higher water temperatures there were unsuitable. So after a period of years it made its way up into Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. Here, the lamprey found ideal breeding conditions.
Here also the lamprey found the trout and because of the thin scales on the trout was able to attach itself to these fish by means of its sucker-like mouth. Then, with its raspy tongue it produced a raw area into which it injected an anti-coagulant to keep the blood from clotting. When it had done this, it drank its fill. The lamprey prospered under those conditions but the trout gradually disappeared. The trout could give only so many transfusions. Finally, they ceased to spawn and died. Commercial fishing disappeared from Lake Huron. The trout was the usual victim, but white fish and chub were also attacked.
It was at this point that the United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Fisheries Research Board of Canada initiated a
10294	COMMONS DEBATES	June 17. 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
control program against this destructive parasite. Thousands of dollars were spent in developing methods to destroy the adult lamprey and its larvae. The controls were directed at the area of greatest concentration. This happened to be in the spring when they go up to the sandy, gravelly creeks to spawn.
Two methods of control were used. There was the electric barrier method which was aimed at the eel itself. Then there was the use of a chemical from the same chain, I believe, that aspirin comes from which was very effective in killing the young larvae. This is not harmful to any other fish, plant life or animals that might drink it. This method has been 90 per cent effective in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, and the trout are returning. There is a problem in Lake Michigan, however, because the fish are becoming overloaded beyond safe limits with insecticides. Lake Superior is too cold and unproductive. This leaves Lake Huron as the home of productive fishing.
The money set aside by the United States and Canada for the attack on the lamprey amounts to $1.5 million. This is a pretty small amount when one considers that the annual take in trout before the lamprey invasion was over 15 million pounds. If my mathematics are correct, this figures out to 10 cents a pound for control. Surely, this program should be stepped up in order to complete the eradication of the lamprey in Lake Huron.
I bring this point to the attention of the minister, who has a lot of common sense, for two reasons. First, Lake Huron should be restored to its rightful place as the greatest fishing lake in the chain of great lakes. Secondly, trout fishing is the backbone of commercial fishing. Then, of course, we have the hybrids that have been developed and introduced to some extent at some expense. They are faring well in Lake Huron and they are increasingly attracting anglers and tourists from all over the world. If there ever was, in my opinion, a pennywise and pound foolish move it was the principle of cutting back when success is well within your grasp.
The second reason is that the Trent canal has never had a lock at Big Chute. This bottleneck still remains at Big Chute where a quaint marine railway is unable to carry the larger and heavier boats using this waterway. This forms an effective barrier to large boats. The importance of the inland waterway has been recognized by the appointment of a pro-
vincial government representative and a federal government representative to a committee to study how the inland waterways can be improved and made more effective in serving the tourist population both local and otherwise.
The government completed the lock at Swift at an expense of well over $2 million. It is a very fine lock, in fact one of the finest you might see anywhere. Restoration plans for the Trent canal to the tune of $20 million were started by the Tory government. These plans were assessed when the Liberal government went into power and it carried on with them. As a result this lock was built at Swift. It is interesting to note that in 1955 over 27,000 boats used this waterway, but in 1964, just nine years later, over 112,000 boats used it and the number is increasing. How can the government justify spending that $2 million on the lock at Swift and still leave the old bottleneck to this ever increasing traffic at the Big Chute? The fear is that sea lamprey may gain entrance to the inland waterway after the construction of the other lock. I suggest to the minister that it is up to us to eradicate the sea lamprey and then complete the Trent canal water system.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for his submission. We certainly have to take a look at these situations from time to time, but he has left the impression that the sea lamprey control program has been cut back.
It has been cut back in dollar terms this year by approximately one per cent. In 196667 Canada spent $425,000 on this program. In 1967-68 we spent $452,000, and last year we spent $498,000. This year's budget is for $493,000 which is down $5,000, or approximately one per cent. The main reason it is down is that the United States fish and wildlife administration is unable to budget for additional funds.
The arrangement between the Canadian and the United States administration, under the Great Lakes fishery commission, calls for a 69 per cent United States contribution and a 39 per cent Canadian contribution. Our contribution is determined automatically by the United States contribution.
As the hon. member says, the use of lam-pricide, which began in 1958, was remarkably successful in reducing the sea lamprey population in the upper lakes by 80 per cent by 1962, and 90 per cent by 1964. The program
June 17, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	10295
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
has been very effective in Lake Superior and was in existence before the jet service was Lake Michigan and we are working back started. I asked a related question, which was
down through Lake Huron, a (10:10 p.m.)
As the hon. member has said, the prospects for a revived commercial fishery are much better in Lake Huron than they are in Lake Superior. They are greater in Lake Huron because it should be more productive; we have the indication that new species should be more successful there. We have the D.D.T. problem, but this is under control in Canada; in fact, the province of Ontario is no longer using D.D.T. to any extent and other chemicals have replaced it.
We shall urge the United States to invest more money in this project. I shall personally look at the Trent Canal suggestion with a view to helping to revive the fishery and indeed expand our industry which has been very productive in the past.



AIR TRANSPORT-NEWFOUNDLAND-EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS SERVICE TO DEER LAKE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for taking the time of the house to attempt at this late hour to obtain answers to questions which should be answered when they are asked during the orders of the day; but for some reason or another we seem determined to waste time due to the exigencies of parliamentary procedure. It is very frustrating to have questions refused because of a minor technicality and to find other questions accepted on such supposedly national issues which are in fact trite, such as the weight of popsicles and other trivial matters which concern nobody.
On June 10 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) whether he could advise us of the reason for the discontinuance of the E.P.A. jet service to Deer Lake, western Newfoundland, only 24 hours after it was instituted. I was advised by the Chair that the question might be considered at the time of adjournment. I asked the question because representations were made to me by several organizations, including the community of Deer Lake, representing thousands of citizens who are concerned about the economy of their district. Therefore it was my duty and responsibility to seek the reason for the decision having been made.
On June 11, after further developments with regard to the discontinuance of the service, I received further representations respecting the removal of the feeder service that
considered by the Chair as a submission and was therefore not allowed. This is June 17, Mr. Speaker, and I still have not received an answer to my question. However, I did read a statement which appeared in the local paper of my constituency, dated June 16, to the effect that the minister said an answer had been given on June 13 to the provincial minister responsible for transportation.
The answer given was that the minister was most anxious to ensure good service to west coast areas, but that the necessary safety equipment was not regularly available on short notice. The E.P.A. service was temporarily disrupted at Deer Lake because the airport's fire fighting equipment did not meet the regulations of the transport department for added flights. What is difficult to comprehend is why the Department of Transport, which should be a responsible agency, did not ensure that these conditions were met before the initial flight was inaugurated with great fanfare on June 1. Indeed, one authorized flight landed that day. The result was that the service became a one-day wonder.
To add insult to injury, the previous Dart Herald service which was in existence has deteriorated, and rather than an improved service they now have a poorer service than before. Apart from the justification of the reasoning behind the discontinuance of the service which would have been a boost to the economy of the area in the distribution of goods and services, the manner in which this matter was handled is embarrassing to the community. In the words of the president of the Chamber of Commerce, the anjustified action of the aeronautical experts not only cancelled the jet service but resulted in the feeder service being removed from Deer Lake airport; the test and inaugural flight of the jet service indicated that the Department of Transport had given tentative blessing to the project. He also said that extraneous pressure had been brought to bear in order to have the service removed.
I respectfully request the minister to clarify the situation by explaining the reasons for the on-again-ofi-again action which resulted in this embarrassing situation so that those concerned will be aware of the future of this airport, and also to satisfy my reasonable request with the courtesy which I feel I should have received as a member of this house over a week ago.
10296	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) asked me to take a few notes from him and reply on his behalf. He is unavoidably absent, representing the government at a function here in the city.
1 understand from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) that the E.P.A. service was a one day wonder. There was a test flight on June 1 into Deer Lake, and subsequently the Department of Transport disallowed further flights, or at least indicated that further flights could not be carried out.
I am told by the minister that one reason for the difficulty is the short notice which was given to the Department of Transport by Eastern Provincial Airways in respect of the commencement of this new service. The Minister of Transport went on in his note to me to say that he is sure that the hon. member shares the minister's view that public safety must be the primary consideration, and that no authorization could possibly be given for the use of Deer Lake by the type of aircraft contemplated until such time as adequate equipment is in place to meet all safety
DEBATES	June 17. 1969
standards of the Department of Transport. An investigation is now under way to determine just how quickly the required equipment can be obtained, and the hon. member can rest assured that the Minister of Transport will keep in close personal touch with developments to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay.
The minister said further that in the meantime he understands that the Canadian Transport Commission has authorized E.P.A. to use Stephenville as an alternative airport and that E.P.A.'s regular operations of non-jet flights in and out of Deer Lake will continue without interruption. In other words, the Deer Lake stop for jet aircraft is likely to be approved but the appropriate equipment must be installed, and safety is the main consideration which has resulted in the delay of the commencement of this new service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to
adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.



END OF VOLUME IX