1970-04-14

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights and privileges of every member of this House, and I raise this matter at the earliest possible moment. My question of privilege relates to a return tabled in the Commons yesterday for the Conservative member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates).
The information given in the Commons return states that 11 of 13 ministers have offices in federal buildings but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rents an office at $7,360 a year in his Montreal Mount Royal riding, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) rents an office in Montreal Maisonneuve at $1,675 a year. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) pay their one-man staffs in their ridings, Toronto Rosedale and Port Arthur respectively, up to $10,000 annually out of the public treasury. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is the only minister with a two-member staff in his riding, Medicine Hat. Each is paid up to $5,000 annually.
The Prime Minister's and the Secretary of State's constituency staffers each receive $7,500 annually at the maximum. Other ministers with constituency offices and the maximum publicly paid salaries for their staffers are as follows: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), Kingston, $7,500; the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), Niagara Falls, $7,500; the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote), Longueuil, $7,500; the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), Verdun, $7,500; the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), Vancouver Centre, $5,000; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), Drummondville, $5,000; the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), Montreal Duvemay, $7,500; and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), the only Nova Scotian, no publicly paid staff.


An hon. Member:: There is the economy drive.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in view of the economy drive and in view of these facts as tabled in the Commons I therefore move: That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections consider whether members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada holding offices as Ministers of the Crown have violated the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of Parliament by accepting allowances and profits out of public moneys to purposes not authorized by vote of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the notice required under the Standing Order, which has given me the opportunity to give some thought to the point raised by the hon. member. As he and other hon. members know, this is not the first time this kind of situation has been brought to the attention of the House. It has been considered by Speakers before me.
The question that has to be decided at the present time is not whether there is a grievance, whether there should be a debate on this matter or whether it should be considered by the House or by a committee at some time, but whether there is a question of privilege. I had the opportunity yesterday of considering in some detail what was the nature of parliamentary privilege. I indicated what I felt was meant by parliamentary privilege and breach of parliamentary privilege.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I doubt very much that the privileges of any individual member are affected in the circumstances outlined by the hon. member. I have little hesitation in reaching the conclusion there is no question of privilege which should be studied by the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The hon. member suggests in his statement or proposed motion that there has been a contravention of the Senate and House of Commons Act. Whether this is correct or not, to my way of thinking this is a point of law rather than a question of privilege. If the hon. member questions the propriety or impropriety of a minister's action, this again, as I pointed out yesterday, can be brought to the attention of the House or discussed by the
5820	COMMONS DEBATES	April 14, 1970
Committees of the House House or by a committee of the House only as the result of a substantive motion and cannot be done by way of a motion to refer a question of privilege to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. With this in mind the motion of the hon. member will not be put to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Morison.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41 (2), I should like to table in French and in English a report on private and public investment in Canada, outlook for 1970.



POST OFFICE


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) requested the tabling by the government of the documents examined by the special commissioner appointed to look into the trucking contracts for the postal service in Montreal. I have communicated to Mr. Goldenberg the nature of this request and he has forwarded to me all those documents submitted to him which were given to him on other than a confidential basis. I should like to table these.



MAIN ESTIMATES 1970-71 RESCINDING OF PREVIOUS ORDER RESPECTING CERTAIN VOTES AND REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE IN MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presideni of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions both in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and among representatives of the parties with regard to the work of that particular committee. I think it has been found there is general agreement that the estimates which on February 18 were referred to that committee might better be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Therefore, if the House is in agreement, perhaps the following could be made an order of the House:
That the provisions of the Order of the House made February 18, 1970, in relation to the reference of estimates to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be rescinded and that the said estimates namely;
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of Finance;
Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce;
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue;
Vote 10 relating to the Tax Appeal Board;
Vote 25 relating to the Economic Council of Canada;
Vote 25 relating to the Tariff Board; be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
As I say, if that is found to be generally agreeable, perhaps it could be made an order of the House.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: That is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. That is agreed. It was felt by the committee, since there would be so many thousands of valid objections to the white paper on taxation which would take up the time of the committee, that the time could be better served in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the

April 14, 1970
House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the new situation created by the final breakdown of negotiations between the government anid the Montreal postal mail truck drivers and the announcement of the government to hire a new staff tomorrow to replace the present employees, which will bring great hardship to them and may lead to a complete disruption of mail services with its consequent serious effect on the entire population of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members who have heard the proposed motion will agree, I am sure, that this motion is deserving of the most serious and careful consideration. The substantive aspects of the matter which is suggested for discussion later today under Standing Order 26 cannot be overlooked and their importance cannot be minimized.
At the same time, the decision which the Chair has to make in such circumstances is essentially a procedural one, taking into account the limitations prescribed by the Standing Order.
Some weeks ago the hon. member for Peace River proposed the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing the postal situation in Montreal. This motion was granted and a debate ensued. Then on April 6 the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the Montreal postal situation and, to quote the hon. member, "the need for Parliament to consider alternative courses of action". This motion was denied, having regard to subsection (d) of section 16 of Standing Order 26 which reads as follows:
(d) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session pursuant to the provisions of this Standing Order;
Thus, the Standing Order prescribes that there can be only one emergency debate about a given situation during a session of Parliament. On this basis, the proposed motion had to be refused. The ruling of the Chair did indicate that there may be a point in the course of a developing situation where new aspects, new factors or new facts would justify a second debate in the sense that the House would then be dealing with a new situation.
The question to be resolved in this respect is: when does a continuing emergency become a new emergency so that a debate would not
Montreal Postal Dispute in effect revive discussion on a matter which has already been discussed in a previous emergency debate? The answer is not entirely clear to me in the light of the circumstances as they exist today.
Without reaching a conclusion on this aspect of Standing Order 26, I remind hon. members of the other difficulty provided by the Standing Order. The rule enjoins the Speaker to consider whether the matter can be brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means. Since it has been agreed that there will be a continuation of the budget debate tomorrow, I cannot ignore the fact that this will automatically provide an opportunity for debate within 24 hours. I do not see how the Chair can overlook this aspect of the relevant Standing Order. Therefore, taking into account mainly the fact that there is an opportunity for debate as early as tomorrow, I must conclude that the motion should not be put today. At the same time, I can assure hon. members that I will not feel so strictly bound by subsection (d) of section 16 of Standing Order 26 that an emergency debate on the situation might not be possible later.


David Lewis: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope Your Honour will forgive my presumption, but may I ask Your Honour whether you took into account the fact that the situation with respect to the truck drivers in Montreal is that by midnight tonight the present situation will end and new employees will be hired. Therefore a debate tomorrow might not serve the purpose that a debate at eight o'clock this evening might.
[DOT] (2:20p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member has to assume that the Chair has taken into account all circumstances. As he will realize, and as all other hon. members will realize, this was not an easy decision to reach. I felt, all things considered, that perhaps there should not be an emergency debate today. I thought that the procedural difficulties under the terms of Standing Order 26, for today at least, were insuperable and that the Chair should not be placed in the position where these two very serious roadblocks could be ignored in the present circumstances. I realize how touchy the whole situation is and I am hopeful that a decision that there should not be an emergency debate today will not adversely affect the development of the situation in Montreal.
COMMONS DEBATES	April 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on a point ot order, I might correct an assumption made by the hon. member for York South. The deadline of which he speaks does not expire tonight but tomorrow night, Wednesday night.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As it has now become clear that unemployment has become the No. 1 problem facing the economy, and as high interest rates are slowing down the economic activity that provides employment, is the government giving consideration to having the Bank of Canada give the lead in a gradual lowering of interest rates so that economic activity and employment may increase at the fastest possible pace?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as it is well recognized that the lowering of interest rates would stimulate the economy and increase employment, will the government give consideration to this important step so that unemployment may cease to rise at the present alarming rate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we have an undertaking from the hon. member that he believes inflation is licked.


George Harris Hees: That I what?



POST OFFICE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that he has not seen fit to make a statement to the House about the negotiations which he has had with the truck drivers in Montreal, may I ask him whether it is still the government position that the seniority of the men to be hired is to be retained for a period of three months, or whether there has been any 
change in that position? I understood it would be retained for a period of three months in the postal unions in the Public Service and that after that there would be a rearrangement of seniority. Will the minister explain the present situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has suggested, the present proposal is that for a period of three months there will be a special seniority arrangement for the incoming drivers of G. Lapalme, and this has been offered with the consent of the Council of Postal Unions. At the end of the three month period the seniority list of drivers in the Public Service now and up to that date and of the one-time drivers of Lapalme will be integrated into a single list.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. First, does that mean that the Lapalme drivers would be dropped to the bottom of the list as having only three months seniority as against the service of other men?
Second, when the government discussed this with the Council of Postal Unions was it taking upon itself a decision as to the bargaining unit and the representation which these drivers were going to have if they joined the scheme that the government has now proposed, and was it the government's business to decide what union they might later on be members of and what bargaining unit they should belong to?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it was not the government's business to decide what union they might later be members of nor did the government intend to endeavour to force these or any other drivers into a particular union of its choice. The law is quite clear on this point and the choice is a free one made by the employees themselves. The government has not and will not endeavour to exercise any right to affect that choice or to make it for them. I have said that this offer of a special arrangement for three months' seniority was done with the consent of the Postal Workers Union. This would cover the period at least following entry into the Public Service, with the consent of the union to which they would belong.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There was another statement in the news release issued by the minis-
April 14, 1970

ter on April 7, which is the document on which I am basing my questions, that the wage of these employees if they agreed to join the public service would be $3.25. I should like to ask the minister whether that $3.25 was to be a permanent wage or a temporary wage until settlement between the postal unions and the government? Assuming that the Public Service Staff Relations Board integrated these drivers with the appropriate section of the postal unions, was the $3.25 to be a temporary wage which might later be reduced or red-circled or what exactly was it to be?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it was made fairly clear in the document on the question that the rate of $3.25 was to obtain from the time of entry until such time as a new agreement between the Council of Postal Unions and the government was signed. From that date all the members of the Council of Postal Unions and the workers of Lapalme in whatever unit they might be would be governed by that new rate.


David Lewis: If the rate was reduced in negotiations these drivers would have to accept-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: David!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations going on. Don't say, "David", Don. I know as much about it as you do. In view of the fact that negotiations are going on and the matter is before a conciliation board and that the Treasury Board offer was $3.16, not $3.25, does that mean that if the settlement for the rest of the workers should be below $3.25 these men are to look forward to a reduction in their pay?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that perhaps negotiations are going on here as well as elsewhere, but the question is really hypothetical. I say that whatever rate is agreed upon between the Council of Postal Unions and the Treasury Board will be the rate at which, from the date of signature, all the drivers in the Post Office will be paid.



MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE-COST OF NEW DELIVERY SYSTEM

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Considering that much of this trouble started with an ill-starred effort at economy, was the last offer which the minister made to the workers such as to be similar to the total cost of the operation under the contractual system?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understood the question. If the hon. gentleman would rephrase it, I shall try to answer.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if at the stage of the minister's latest offer, which he called a generous one, the total cost to the government and the department for operating the service was less than the contractual system which was being abolished under the Postmaster General's reform?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say without equivocation that the total cost of the terms and conditions offered will provide a better postal service for Montreal than was had at a higher cost in the past.



MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE-LEGALITY OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL TO LAPALME EMPLOYEES

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: In
view of the procedures followed in hiring Public Service employees, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if the offer to the employees of Lapalme has followed Public Service procedures? If not, has he had an opinion from the law officers of the Crown-without telling me what that opinion is-to the effect that he is proceeding properly?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by our legal advisers that we are proceeding entirely legally.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE SALE TO PAKISTAN

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is the minister aware that Pakistan is seeking to purchase 30 to 40 million bushels of wheat and could he tell the House whether he intends to contact the Pakistani government with a view to negotiating a contract for the sale of wheat, if possible?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in such a case it is quite exceptional for the Canadian Wheat Board not to be aware of such important offers. However, I shall
April 14, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry inquire and make sure the Board knows about the situation referred to by the hon. member.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has a decision now been arrived at as to the use which the 115 CF-5 aircraft ordered by the department will be put to in view of the fact that a number of these aircraft have now been delivered to the department?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are now using whatever aircraft have been delivered-perhaps 35 or 36. We have formed a conversion unit at Cold Lake and we are also forming a squadron at Bagotville. At the present time all the airplanes which have been delivered are being used.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that these aircraft are essentially being used for training purposes only and that no decision has been made as to what their actual use will be?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there are two types of aircraft. Some of them are trainers with twin seats; others are single-seaters. The double-seaters, of course, are used for the primary purpose for which they were built, training. The others form part of an active squadron. Fortunately we do not have to use it for the purpose for which it is meant.



AVAILABILITY OF NAVAL LIMITS TO ASSIST ASTRONAUTS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has Canada any naval units at sea in the North Atlantic or available for duty at sea? Also, have such units been offered to the United States government in case an emergency forces a landing of the astronauts in the North Atlantic area on Friday?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If units are available, would the
[Mr. PepinJ
minister offer them to the United States government in the event that they should be needed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe that naturally we should respond to such a request.


An hon. Member:: Put the Bonaventure to sea.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on March 18 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport which he took as notice, as reported at page 5179 of Hansard. My question had to do with the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission had granted to TransAir Limited the right to travel from Winnipeg to Toronto via Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. The question I asked the minister was whether, since no public hearings had been held and in view of the personalities involved, the government would bring pressure to bear on the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission to call public hearings and, if not, whether the government would be prepared to institute an investigation to see whether patronage and favouritism had taken place in the granting of these air routes?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have now received three appeals in connection with this particular granting which have been filed in appropriate order, and I am in the process of considering them now. The answers to the hon. member's questions, those that are relevant to the decision, will be included when that decision comes forward.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Transport of Ontario, Mr. Irwin Haskett, has said publicly that the government of Ontario is asking the government of Canada to reverse the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission pending public hearings, does the government intend to accede to this reasonable request?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, one of the appeals to which I referred is from the government of Ontario and it is to the Minister of Transport. I am in the process of considering it now.
April 14, 1970	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the minister when he expects to make a decision and whether he will announce that decision to the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot indicate with any precision when the decision will be made, other than to say as soon as possible. It has not been the practice to make such announcements in the House but I certainly have no objection to doing it that way, or to tabling the decision in any event.



TRENTON, N.S.-DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE BY EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport why it is, in view of his statement that he will hear appeals from interveners in the Transair application, that in the matter of Eastern Provincial Airways discontinuing service at Trenton Nova Scotia, he would not consider an appeal by an intervener in that case?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it was not a matter of my deciding not to hear the intervener. The hon. member is so persuasive that I would have heard the whole of Nova Scotia, had he asked, but I did not have the legal authority because that case is quite different from the one in question.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps the Acting Minister or the Prime Minister might be interested in answering. Has there been received recently a very stiff note from the United States government to Canada protesting against the attempt by the Canadian government to assert jurisdiction for a distance of 100 miles from the mainland and the Arctic islands in the north? Does such a note contain the indication that very stern sanctions will be exercised, economically and otherwise, by the United States in this respect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as it is not the minister's day to be in the House may I be permitted to
DEBATES	5825
Inquiries of the Ministry answer. I know our ambassador in Washington has been asked, I believe in the past hour, to meet with an official of the Secretary of State's Department in that city. Of course, I have no knowledge of what the note will contain. I take it that the hon. member opposite has?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: We do have our sources of information, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the debate on this bill is scheduled for Thursday, will the Prime Minister undertake to make known before that date the contents of this particular note if he receives it so that in the debate which takes place proper regard will be paid to the note?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about international procedures; I am not sure if a note of this kind is intended to be made public. I am sure that if the American government wants the opposition to have a copy of it they will ascertain that that is done.


Gerald William Baldwin: Read your press releases.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the government taken a decision to establish a military headquarters and/or base in the Arctic? Also, when will he be in a position to outline the details as to time, place and purpose?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as to the decision, it has been taken. The purpose of the trip I made last week was to ascertain some details and obtain new facts. As a matter of fact, these additional facts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -are being distilled now, and I hope to make an announcement some time this week.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is that a fact?


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the contemplated establishment require a supplementary estimate in the present fiscal year or are the costs included in the estimates for the fiscal year that have already been established?
5826	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member can trust me. It will be within the ceiling that has been allocated for national defence.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Transport let the minister in on his plans for sharing between the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence the responsibility of properly guarding the Arctic?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, it has been my contention all along even more now than ever, that there must be some co-ordination between all the efforts in the north, not only by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport but also by other departments of government. I believe that there is an acceptance of that fact among all the ministers.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As the minister failed to answer this question on another occasion, has he now made up his mind since the Minister of Transport has also taken over defence?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Having in mind the announcement by the United States Department of Transport to the effect that the Goodrich Tire Company has agreed to withdraw 43,000 passenger car tires as failing to meet standards in the United States, can the minister say what the situation is here? Do we have tire standards dealing with safety?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With regard to the latter part of the question, as the hon. member knows the standards for Canadian tires, automobiles and accessories are now being drawn up and will be published under the authority of the act recently passed. I am grateful to the hon. member for having sent this particular news item to me. I will check to see if it has any application as far as Canada is concerned.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
DEBATES	April 14. 1970
Since the construction of an international airport at Drummondville is one of the priorities of the Parti Quebecois, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government would agree with Rene Levesque in this matter? Since expropriation has begun at Ste. Scholastique, could he also tell us whether this would mean that the government could resell its land?


Mr. Speaker:: In my view this question is hypothetical, at least as far as the first part of it is concerned.



POLLUTION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: As usual, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a non-provocative question. It is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having regard to the wonderful attitude on the part of university students across Canada-I refer to the Universities of Victoria, Saskatchewan, Toronto and others-in convening organizations for the purpose of joining in the fight against anti-pollution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Angus MacLean: The fight against pollution.


John George Diefenbaker: The fight against pollution. Because of the tremendous energy, enthusiasm and initiative of these young people in facing a problem which is even more important to them than to the present generation, will the minister give consideration to having a week set aside as Environmental Problems Week or Anti-pollution Week? Also, will the government give assistance to recognized groups across Canada who are doing their part to join in every way possible in the greatest fight that we have in our country?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to give a non-controversial answer to that non-controversial question. Certainly, it should be a source of inspiration for those of us who are concerned with the problems of pollution that so many young people in particular and so many citizens in general are anxious to join the war against pollution. Certainly within my department we are striving very hard to find a federal vehicle whereby concerned citizens can play a part in the
[Mr. MacLean.)
April 14, 1970

federal fight against pollution. I will take the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman into consideration in that regard.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he borrowed these guidelines from the very successful war on poverty?



DISCHARGE OF MERCURY INTO ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the minister would investigate those firms that have now admitted they are pouring mercury into the St. Lawrence River? These firms have made this admission. If this is correct, will the minister discuss this problem with them in the war against pollution as it is a very important subject with regard to that part of Canada?


John James Greene: I will be very pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker. I think probably the most effective tool with respect to mercury pollution, until the passage of the Canada Water Bill, is under the existing Fisheries Act. I will be pleased to draw this to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and to consider with him effective action with regard to this situation.



LOCATION OF SOURCES OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to questions already directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask the minister whether his department and the Department of Fisheries are undertaking a crash program to locate and to remedy mercury pollution sources which are now appearing all across Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is inspection being carried out by the Department of Fisheries, by our people and by provincial departments. I do not know that I can undertake that every plant will be checked immediately. Considerable research is being done by the Department of Fisheries in their research establishment in Winnipeg in regard

Inquiries of the Ministry to mercury pollution, and I believe the situation is extremely well in hand at the present time.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister investigate reports that work schedules of employees of his department at Fort Erie crossing are being changed, in clear contravention of the agreement under which they are working, in order that their day off will fall on the holiday that comes later in May?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: I will check on that, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the House if user charges are being assessed against the owners of the Manhattan for the services of the icebreaker St. Laurent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the precise meaning of the term as I understand the hon. member to mean it. To that extent it is a co-operative venture. However, in terms of fuel and some other supplies en route, these are being provided from on board the Manhattan. There is no per diem charge or anything of that nature.



SHARING OF INFORMATION FOLLOWING VOYAGE OF &quot;MANHATTAN&quot;

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Have arrangements been made between the government and Humble Oil Company Limited for the sharing of information after the current voyage of the Manhattan, or is this subject to future negotiations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is an understanding
between those who are representing the Humble Oil Company and the government of Canada that there will be an exchange of
5828	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry information. In addition to that we have our own authorities on board both the Manhattan and the St. Laurent who are accumulating a good deal of information on their own during the trip.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary. Will the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I will allow the hon. member's supplementary, but we have reached the point in the question period when I have to warn hon. members that we are running short of time and should cut down on the supplementaries.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will be very brief, Your Honour. Will the minister table the information when it is received from the Humble Oil Company after the voyage is completed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that will depend entirely on the nature of the information. If it is a matter of beneficial public information as opposed to something that might perhaps be advantageous to competitors or the like, it will be tabled to the extent that it is possible.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of his absence, I have checked the roster and I find that the Acting Minister is Mr. Martin. I ask the Prime Minister how questions are to be addressed to Mr. Martin?



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In
view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has referred the matter of allegations against the Auditor General to its steering committee for consideration, does the government intend to delay its proposed legislation until this consideration has been completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to abolish the position of the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In no way, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	April 14, 1970



ASSURANCE OF CONTINUANCE OF ROLE

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister in regard to the proposed legislation in connection wi h the Auditor General. Will the Prime Minister give every assurance to the House that there will not be any change in the role of Auditor General, that the role of the Auditor General will not be altered, thus affecting the nonpartisan nature of that position and destroying the Public Accounts Committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed no intention on
the part of the government to introduce any legislation which might affect the non-partisan character of the Auditor General.


Thomas Miller Bell: A further supplementary question. Can we have every assurance that the Auditor General as such will not be removed to make way for some political hack, as has been-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REDUCTION OF POWERS BY LEGISLATION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question that is also supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka of the Prime Minister. Is it the intention to introduce legislation to alter, reduce or change in any way the powers of the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, but we would hope that there will be a clarification of his role, as understood by all parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to
those asked about the Auditor General. Has there been any decision by the government to bring his salary in line with other increases in salary, or is he to be starved out?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Broadview.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think I asked a question that was perfectly legitimate within the scheme of
April 14, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	5829
Inquiries of the Ministry
things within Canada today. I asked whether tions are promulgated and announced. It is, of the Auditor General's salary was going to be course, up to each individual corporation to adjusted in view of circumstances. I think determine for itself whether it fits those rules that is a perfectly proper question. I have and comes within the definition of a Canadian asked it-	corporation in the uranium industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -and I am hoping for a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no suggestion on the part of the Chair that the question is not proper. It was just not answered, and that is why the Chair went on to the next questioner.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If Your Honour would excuse me, may I ask for an elaboration of your ruling. I have understood that when questions like this are asked, if they are in reasonable order-and I think mine was- the ministry should at least decide whether they should be answered or not. Your Honour seems to have taken the position that that sort of question should not be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has misunderstood the Chair. I indicated that the question was perfectly valid but since it was not answered I recognized the hon. member for Broadview, who has the floor.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am glad my question was in order.



URANIUM


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I ask the minister whether the intended meeting was held yesterday between himself and representatives of Gulf Mineral Resources of Denver with regard to the foreign ownership rule? Also, has the minister assured Gulf Mineral Resources that they may proceed with their development of the uranium mine in the Wollaston Lake area?


John James Greene: I had the meeting to which the hon. member refers. I explained to them the rules as indicated by the government's statement in the House with regard to Canadian ownership of uranium resources. Certainly I have no authority to give assurances. The rules are there and they will be enunciated in greater detail when the regula-


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is an area of uncertainty here, even though a few days ago the minister himself indicated in the House that since this company had been involved in exploration beforehand the rule would not apply, is the minister now denying the statement that he made in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is debate. I suggest to the hon. member that his supplementary question is not in order, and we might perhaps give an opportunity to another hon. member.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will try to return to the hon. member, but we are running short of time.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Salisman (Waierloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the answer he gave me the other day that he was meeting with the presidents of some rubber companies, may I ask the minister whether he is giving the same tariff concessions to established Canadian tire companies as he has offered to the Michelin Company?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the offer to Michelin would be a matter for the Minister of Finance. What I said the other day was that my department was consulting tire companies with a view to rationalizing the industry in Canada. These conversations are continuing and I will report to the House in due course.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question. Is the minister saying that he is seeking to include automobile tires in the Canada-United States auto agreement, and are negotiations to this effect being conducted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this would be my view, but discussions are going on and we still have to deal with the United States posi-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion, which is to progressively eliminate the safeguards presently in the pact. Conversations are going on with the United States on this subject.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicloria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Would the minister say whether a timetable has been established for the launching of the satellite portion of Tele-sat Canada and for the implementation of the Canadian domestic satellite communications system?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there are some dates that are tentative and subject to negotiation and the progress that is made in the matter of research and development for Canada's particular needs. I am not in a position at the moment to give an up to date timetable other than to say the latest date is still the end of 1972.



JAPAN-PROSPECT OF INCREASED MARKET FOR RAPESEED

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On April 9, in reply to a question asked him in the House, the minister stated that the first step had been taken by Japan in the liberalization of trade in rapeseed. Would the minister inform the House what particular action he was referring to and at what time it was taken?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a one-third reduction in tariff unbound, for one year.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the report in today's Globe and Mail that there is a 42 per cent decline in housing starts in Ontario, is it the intention of the minister to call together 
April 14, 1970
the appropriate representatives of the provincial government to work out plans to increase the number of starts?
As a supplementary I should also like to ask, with regard to the drop in the interest rates, whether it is the intention of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to drop their interest rates so as to set an example for other companies to follow?


Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, both matters are under constant consideration.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SCHEMES TO INCREASE MORTGAGE MONEY AND REDUCE INTEREST RATES

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question; In view of the concern expressed by the minister, wherein he indicated he was looking at all schemes whereby more money would be placed in the market, is the minister in a position to advise which scheme to increase mortgage flow and reduce interest rates he finds most attractive?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This kind of information ought normally to be given by way of a general statement. The hon. member might invite the minister to make such a statement in due course.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then perhaps I could rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Keeping in mind the preamble to the question asked, would the minister at the earliest opportunity make a statement in this regard.


Robert Knight Andras: I will give that consideration, Mr. Speaker.
tTranslation]



AGRICULTURE


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell us whether representations have been made to him by consumers or leaders of farm organizations concerning the introduction of special legislation on co-operatives? Could he also tell us whether his department or the government intends to introduce such legislation during this session?

April 14, 1970


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and at the meeting yesterday with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who will be bringing in this legislation, made some comments about it to the effect that it would be brought into the House reasonably soon.



HARBOURS

[Stage Direction]
MONTREAI____MEASURES TO DEAL WITH RE-

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Considering that the activity in the Montreal harbour has declined by about 30 per cent since 1964, what measures does the minister intend to take in order to deal with the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I venture to point out to the hon. member that he seems to invite the minister to make a rather general statement. The hon. member might wish to make his question more explicit so that the minister can answer immediately.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has understood my question and I will be quite happy if he is willing to answer.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the import of the question concerned the bringing forward of some important revisions of general policy regarding ports, which would include Montreal, I can say I hope to do that before the summer recess.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
I should like to ask him whether he has decided to establish a cabinet committee to keep an eye on the postal dispute and to keep up to date with developments which could occur or whether the decision rests with him alone?
Canada Grain Act


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that the decisions are subject to cabinet approval.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to clarify the following points for me. Is there a cabinet committee appointed especially to gather information on the developments in the Montreal postal dispute and to take the necessary decisions? Was this decision taken by the cabinet as a whole or was a special committee appointed to that effect? This is clear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the need arises, I consult with my colleagues, collectively or personally. There is no definite rule.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-196, respecting grain, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, last night I inadvertently became involved in this debate because of the lack of farmers in the House. As a result, I have had a look at this bill and I now want to say only a few things about it.
In the last few years there has been considerable agitation for changes in the handling of grain, not the least of which has been the operation LIFT program which, in effect, will take wheat out of production this year and put the land into summerfallow. This would establish in Canada the basis for an opportunity to start handling sales in a different manner. If this program is totally satisfactory then the new Canada Grain Act will have provided a new basis for the grain trade.
Presumably this is good legislation because it has a number of potentials. However, it also has some weaknesses. These weaknesses, in many cases, stem from the fact this is open ended legislation. This piece of legislation, along with other legislative measures necessary for western Canada will obviously

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
change the whole structure for marketing grain. This measure will undoubtedly be considered in the light of our ability to subsidize agricultural production. As an industrial nation, we have for 20 years paid-up service to the concept of developing cheap food, but we have not supplied food at cost as have other countries. Certainly France, the United States and Great Britain have done this for years, as have other agricultural countries. They have subsidized agricultural production. We have done things a little differenily. We have not even asked the people receiving the benefits of low cost production to pay the subsidy out of the general treasury; we have asked the farmer to pay this subsidy out of his pocket. We have not done much, nor will we do much in this bill, to assist the farmer in getting a better price for his produce.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The legislation we are now considering, and the marketing legislation which is next on the Order Paper, should be geared to the development of a new marketing structure. If these measures are successful, they should provide the producer with a better return on his production. It has been pointed out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I will not quote their figures because hon. members have had an opportunity of considering their brief recently submitted to cabinet, that most farmers in Canada receive less than $2,500 annual cash income. The federation points out that less than 50 per cent of Canadian farmers receive more than $5,000 in annual cash income. The agriculture industry certainly is not in good shape and there must be some reason for this.
On a number of occasions I have had the opportunity of accompanying the agriculture committee to the offices of the Board of Grain Commissioners in Winnipeg. We have had numerous discussions and discovered the complexity of the grading system which has grown up over the years. Under this system, we find there are 400 grades of grain. Obviously, these 400 grades do not fit into either domestic or international price categories. They are grades established in respect of specific conditions. They have become so complex they are of no real value to the producer in assessing the grade he may expect, and of no value to the government in establishing a grade that is generally understood in the export market.
I remember a former Minister of Agriculture saying in this House that everyone knew Canada had the best wheat in the world and 
wheat of the highest protein content. These people have not beaten a pathway to our door to buy wheat. They have not really been convinced of the superiority of Canadian wheat. If they have been convinced, they have not been interested because the price was not right or because the commodity did not meet their needs. There is a chart on the wall of the grain commissioners offices which allows them to ascertain the exact protein content of wheat from a given area. They know the area protein content of this year's crop, and as soon as the new crop is ready for harvest they can make a decision and a projection for the following crop year.
We have been playing around with protein content and yet a decision has not been made in respect of whether we are to establish protein content as the major factor in our selling machinery or whether we are to establish another grading system. I am concerned, as I am sure many other farmers are, about what the international grading system is. For instance, what grading system is used by Australia, Russia or Great Britain; what is the relationship between protein and the type of wheat the markets of the world want; what is the ultimate protein content for wheat; what is the protein content for bread and what is the most advantageous method by which to establish a grade? As was pointed out by speakers last night, our export sales have dropped considerably from what they were three years ago. Certainly, we are down considerably both in our ability to sell and in our ability to receive a reasonable price that would equal our cost of production.
I agree with the minister that if we are unable to sell wheat at a reasonable price, then we might as well take it out of production and ask our farmers to switch to something else. But before that happens, we should have a pretty good assessment concerning where the difficulty lies. It seems to me it doe not lie in the selling. With relation to the establishment of this new act, I would like to know what the international grading system is. If we in Canada cannot say that the system we are using is the type of system that would meet international standards, then it is the wrong system. If the minister can say there is no such thing as an international grading system, then it is about time we helped develop one. Whatever the international grading system is, we should participate in it and we should be marketing our grain on the basis of that grading system. Let us not talk
April 14, 1970

about the domestic market being in a different category, because we do not have a market of any size there.
If we buy a bag of flour from Czechoslovakia, when that bag arrives in Canada the protein and grade will be marked on it. All the particulars will be there. If we buy a bag of flour from Canada, we will be told that it is Canada's finest, the best procurable or that it is 100 per cent pure or something else which does not relate to grade. In Canada, we do not demand that there be any standard marked on the bag when the flour is for domestic consumption. The type of information marked on the bag is to the effect that it is general purpose flour or pastry flour. There is nothing which has any relation to grade, either internationally or domestically. There is no indication whether it is first or second grade, frozen, or has stones in it. Really, we are interested only in international grading. We must come to some understanding in respect of what that grade is, what our relationship to it is and what steps we should take in this regard.
In relation to this bill, the minister indicated that there will have to be more flexibility in our grading. He said the grading will be done by order in council. He said that new grades will be established by order in council when necessary, with certain limitations, provided certain other emergencies do not develop. I am not sure that is a bad thing. I am not sure it is good either, because I really do not know on what basis we are to establish these grades. I am of the opinion, however, that in Canada we have been overly protective of a system which may have become archaic many years ago. As everyone knows, we have developed recently a certain type of wheat with a low protein content but a very high yield. If we are to continue the production of wheat for feed grain purposes, then obviously it will be necessary to increase our production per acre in order to reduce our cost of production because that grain certainly will not sell at the same price as high protein wheat. So, I agree that there will need to be flexibility. But I believe there has been flexibility, although there has been reluctance on the part of the grain commissioners to accept that flexibility.
It was not too difficult for this particular minister, rightly or wrongly, to make the decision almost immediately that several new types of wheat would be released. This is really the first release in respect of a new 2221&-23
Canada Grain Act
type of wheat. There had been slight modifications over the years, but this is the first time in many years that a totally new type of wheat has been introduced into the grading system. So, there is flexibility.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is progress.


William Arnold Peters: 1 am not arguing that it is not progress. I think it is. But we had this flexibility under the old act, and also had a certain stability which in my opinion protected some farmers who were of the opinion-and they were certainly so advised-that the type and grade of wheat they were producing should not be reduced because the world was depending on No. 1 Northern high protein wheat. It seems that this really is not true. I hear that even Great Britain is buying wheat today on a straight protein basis from places like Argentina and Australia and apparently we are not able to meet that demand.
To be fair to the minister, I think he has done a number of other things, good and bad, which have had some effect on this situation. One of these has been the establishment of the block system. I think this system was established on the basis of the original concept of the terminal elevator. It was originally intended that certain grades could be established at inland and terminal elevators and delivered in both boat and trainload lots to the port terminals. However, over the years there has been a tendency for the country elevator to get rid of the type of grain that is most difficult to dispose of and at the same time fill up the elevator again because that is how they make their money. I can remember one Member of Parliament a few years age telling us that he was lucky enough to have loaded a car with flax seed or mustard seed and when this boxcar arrived at the coast it just happened that it was in the right position at the right time. He was able, therefore, to sell it for two or three times the amount he would have received otherwise because the buyer was there when the car was in position at the coast.
There has been considerable loading and shipping without any relationship to the ability to export or sell that commodity under a reasonable price structure. This has created some problems. I still do not understand why a transport controller has not been established. 1 realize the block system partly solves the difficulty in this regard, but we have had problems and I expect this fall and next year we will have problems again. I believe we will have these problems until someone is

April 14. 1970
Canada Grain Act
made totally responsible for the movement of the boxcars. I think that with a modern communications system we could probably connect that system with the boat shippings and other things involved in the movement of grain. When we do this we always are able to move a great deal of grain in this country. We seem to become involved in a good deal of difficulty when we let the railways handle the movement of grain themselves.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The block system is applied mainly by the Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners to get the wheat into position, but we still need someone to move it along the track. This would seem to me to be the role of a transport commissioner who would have sufficient authority to oversee the movements and decide when the time is right for the sale program to be put into effect. Until we appoint a person who will be solely responsible for that operation, the block system will not function as well as it could, although it has already brought about a great improvement. The minister is to be congratulated for this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That authority is sought in the bill.


Mr. Horner:: That and a lot more.


William Arnold Peters: The minister says that authority is sought in the bill. This raises a problem that I discussed with him personally concerning the individual car order book. The use of the individual car order book would mean that a person could order a car, have it delivered to his elevator and then load that car. He would have the right to do this. Probably this operation is not as practical as one could hope for, but nevertheless it was available. The block system may make it impossible for the farmer, if he is in the wrong protein grain area, to get loadings. This would be one of the responsibilities which I would give to a transport controller.
The new commission-and we will be interested to discuss this in the committee-will go some way toward the establishment of a relationship with the feed grain industry. A great many problems have arisen as a result of the fact that originally the feed grain industry was outside the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Sometimes officials of the Wheat Board come before the Agricultural Committee and say that barley is selling for 85 cents a bushel, and yet when they are questioned they admit

that it is actually selling for as low as 35 cents a bushel. Yet, it is the first figure that is presented to the minister. If I were the minister I would be very angry about this because he has to take responsibility in the House for those figures, and yet the members of the Board have admitted they knew these figures were not correct. They were not really sure what the exact figure was. So, by giving control of the feed grain industry to the grain commissioners, we will eliminate some of the major problems that are developing because a large portion of our sales in specific grades do not come within the control of the national agency and chaos is developing in that area.
I did not intend to speak for this long, but there are a couple of other comments I wish to make. They concern the relationship between these problems of production and sales, particularly export sales, and the operations of the producers themselves. There is probably no industry in Canada with which the government is more involved in an authoritative way than the agricultural industry. The involvement is not in money. It has not really made much of a contribution in monetary terms, but it has certainly made a great intrusion into the agricultural community through regulations. In the last few years the government has been saying to farmers: "Go out and expand. You cannot exist unless you have an economic farming unit". In western Canada, this means you need several sections of land and a very large expenditure for agricultural machinery. At the same time, the government said to the farmers: "It is not entirely our responsibility to sell your products". We lent a great deal of money to farmers to expand their farming units and to establish economic farm units. Then, we said to them: "We cannot sell your produce and we cannot do anything about the sales structure, so we will take your land out of production this year but we will pay you your cost of operation. We will not give you any money but we will pay you the cost of summerfallowing your land. We will not give you the money to pay the interest on your loans, nor will we give you any other consideration."
Tied to that proposal by the government is the new regulation which will affect every farmer who in the future will produce wheat and will sell that commodity to the Canadian Wheat Board under this grain legislation. We have told farmers what they can do and what they cannot do, but we have not given them much assistance. Now, we are establishing a whole new structure which will have a very
April 14. 1970

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
which the international markets demand. As a result, farmers have not been able to cover their costs of production. I hope the bill will receive the type of consideration that will allow for an orderly transfer from the old legislation to the new, with provision for innovations that have been long overdue, to the advantage of all people concerned.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in the discussion on Bill C-196 I do so with concern for the agricultural industry. Not since the 1930's have we seen farmers in western Canada, where the provisions of this bill will apply in particular, so anxious about what may be in store for them. We have seen the government offer western Canada $140 million, and then admit that only $100 million will be needed. But even following that, members of the government say, "We don't know how much of that will be used." The latest report by one Department of Agriculture official expresses his fear that farmers will not sufficiently reduce crops. Then comes this bill.
I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). He was eager to compliment the government for introducing this bill. But does this bill mention protein grading? It does not to any real extent. As recorded at page 5816 of yesterday's Hansard the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said protein grading should be provided under the terms of this bill, and the minister replied, "It will be."


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It will be provided.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Again he says it will be provided. What else will be provided in this bill? Rigid, authoritative controls are also going to be provided through this bill. Elevators are to be licensed in four different ways. Now, grain dealers are to be licensed. Whether licensed dealers will be better than unlicensed ones I do not know. The bill practically limits the type of grain that one can produce because of the application of the block system.
We have seen the government attempt to limit farm production. Now, we see it attempting to bring about a protein grading system. I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board could get together on their respective programs. If the Minister without Portfolio is going to bring about any wheat acreage reduction he is going to do so in the area that produces high protein wheat. If he is going to bring about any increase in wheat production,

it will be in the areas that produce low protein wheat.
Now, we see the Minister of Agriculture trying to establish that the reason our sales have gone off is that we have not really sold wheat under the protein content grading system. The idea of this system has caught fire in western Canada. A number of farm writers have said we should have adopted the protein grading system a long time ago, and that that is the reason why our sales have fallen. But let us not be misled in this House. Protein grading should have been adopted years ago but we did not lose all our markets because we did not adopt it, and now that we are going to adopt it this does not necessarily mean that buyers will be attracted to our door. We will still have to go out and sell our wheat.
If you have a product that is not moving and you cannot sell it at a discount, then you give your salesmen a little more incentive and maybe they will work a little harder to sell it. The President of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange has asked why a salesman should sell Canadian wheat. He has said such a man would make more money selling four cases of dog food to Japan than a full boatload of wheat. One of the brighter members of the agriculture committee replied that there were more people in Japan than dogs, and so there should be a better market for wheat there.
Is protein grading the real answer? I will go into that in detail. Will the program outlined by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board bring about a reduction in high grade protein wheat in western Canada? I think it will and I am going to outline why I think so and why that program will work directly contrary to this piece of legislation if, in fact, this piece of legislation brings about protein grading. What does protein content mean? I should like to read briefly from "Wheat Chemistry and Technology", page 31. Writing on protein content, the Author, Lawrence Zeleny states:
e (3:40 p.m.)
Protein content in wheat varies from about 6 per cent up to about 20 per cent, depending in part upon variety and class but more largely upon environmental factors during growth. Abundant rainfall during the period of kernel development usually results in low protein content, while dry conditions during that period favour high protein content.
Dry conditions produce high protein wheat. Is it going to pay farmers to summerfallow in low moisture areas where low yields are attained and where high protein wheat is produced? There will be no surplus wheat in
April 14. 1970

those areas. Any reduction in wheat acreage will not be because of the program introduced by the minister but because high protein wheat is not produced in surplus. This bill links the block system into the quota system and the regulation of the elevators is going to favour high protein wheat. This system does absolutely nothing for the producers of low protein wheat, other than to declare it feed wheat which will have to be sold to the licensed dealers. Whether those licensed dealers will have the right to transport it across provincial borders or all across Canada is not stated in the bill.
We have two pieces of legislation here which are diametrically opposed insofar as high protein areas are concerned. The area outside the high protein area is completely insignificant. Does that area always have to produce low protein wheat? The book "Wheat Chemistry and Technology" goes on to explain, in dealing with testing methods, that protein content can be considerably influenced by the availability of nitrogen in the soil and by the addition of nitrogen fertilizer. However, this bill does not mention what system of testing would be used.
How is the minister's program working? His own farm is in my riding. He attended a meeting there and discussed whether the LIFT program would help the farmers. I came along a few days later and attended a meeting with the same farmers. I asked them whether I explained the program any differently from the minister and they said that we had both explained it in the same way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is all those bulletins we have been sending you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says it is all the bulletins he sent. But did the minister find that the farmers were accepting his program? I do not think he got any different reaction than I, when three farmers stood up and said they could take advantage of the program. At another meeting where 100 farmers attended, only four indicated their acceptance of the program and one of these told me afterwards that he shouldn't be counted as he will have to seed in order to live.
There is no general acceptance of the acreage reduction program that the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Agriculture introduced. It is definitely linked with this protein bill now before us and with the whole block delivery system. This bill and the block delivery system will eventually affect the quota system; the two go hand in hand.
Canada Grain Act
At a meeting in Brandon, Manitoba, attended by 700 farmers, only nine stood to indicate that they could take advantage of the quota. Surely, before this legislation is passed the man in charge of the Wheat Board, in consultation with the knowledgeable Minister of Agriculture who has long left the farm, will adjust the wheat acreage reduction program.
If the government has $100 million available for western Canadian farmers, should they not be bold enough to outline a plan that the farmers could take advantage of instead of one outlined and devised by academics? How can farmers in Saskatchewan take advantage of it when last year 18 million acres were under summerfallow and 16 million acres in wheat? How can they take any more land out of production? What effect will all that summerfallow have on the protein content next year when we are told that will be the basis upon which grain will be graded? The minister knows that you get low protein wheat but a higher yield under higher moisture conditions.
In an article appearing in the Calgary Herald on Saturday, April 11, 1970, an expert in the Department of Agriculture is quoted, under the heading "Farm Crop Cuts Not Yet Enough", as follows:
J. S. Carmichael, an economist with the agriculture department's markets information division, studied the prairie grain situation on the basis of the DBS survey. His report concludes that farmers need to reduce their planting intentions still more.
Canada already has 950 million bushels of hard red spring wheat on hand.
I do not believe Canada has that much wheat on hand, Mr. Speaker. This government, through the application of that acreage reduction program and this bill, are attempting to reduce the storage costs on wheat so that they will save the Treasury some money and not help the farmers one bit. That is why they kept storage space empty at the Lakehead for two months last winter, because storage costs the government one cent per bushel per month. This is the purpose of this bill.


Mr. Lang:: Nonsense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Its purpose is to directly regulate the handling of grain, to keep commercial storage costs at a minimum and thus save the Treasury money. In the long run, this program might cost the farmer a lot but let's tell the whole story. The minister said that is not quite so-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said that is exactly not so.

April 14, 197C
Canada Grain Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is exactly not so, he says. Let us take a look at what Mr. McNamara had to say before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on April 13, 1969. As recorded at page 1243 of the evidence, I had asked him to comment on whether the selling of our wheat by protein content would give the Wheat Board greater latitude in pricing under an international grains agreement. He replied:
Deafing with the last question first, I feel that if we were to revert to a policy of selling on a basis of guaranteed protein not only would it necessitate-
This is the point on which the minister said "not so", and I want to emphasize that:
-a complete revamping of our handling and selling systems but I cannot see where we would benefit by it. We have explored this with many buyers Of the world and we find that they are not prepared to pay a premium although they would like to have it guaranteed. If we take the cream off our crop I am very much afraid that the residual quantity at the lower protein would mean a lower return for the producers.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. McNamara is the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, so I suppose he is in disfavour. We have to admit he is one of the most able men in the trade. He is over 70 years old and is still kept on by the government, not because of his youth or flexibility but because of his knowledge. He said we shall have to revamp our whole handling system. This bill is designed to revamp it and to reduce the quantity of wheat held in commercial storage, so that the government can get out from under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956. This act says that the government must pay the storage charges on wheat in storage in excess of 178 million bushels. This bill is one means whereby the government will attempt to get out from under the provisions of that act. Mr. McNamara goes on to say:
We are geared to a bulk handling system, and I still think it is the most efficient system-[DOT]
The chairman of the Wheat Board is saying that if we adopt a protein grading system we must change our handling system. He makes that very clear, from my reading of the committee proceedings. He further says that this new method of protein grading and the changes in our handling system will entail mixing at the terminal; but the minister did not say anything about that in his speech. This bill is full of verbiage; the wraps have not even been taken off it and we do not know the minister's full intention. Answering an earlier question he said, yes, that it will
[Mr. Olson.1
include provisions relating to protein grading. I do not know whether the question was asked of him with respect to mixing in terminals.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, it was.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly, it will have to provide for the mixing at terminals. Mr. McNamara has something to say about mixing at terminals. I say that this bill will enable this government to reduce the expenses connected with commercial storage in terminals. It is designed to save the government money, and farmers will have to pay more. That is the name of the game.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is absolutely wrong.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says that is absolutely wrong. Let the minister stand up and deny that next year less money will be paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956 in connection with wheat stored in commercial storage.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, all I want to do is
to direct the hon. member's notice to the fact that the payments made under that act are not determined by the criteria the hon. member has outlined.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has not denied what I have said. He tried to hold me off, but did not deny what I said.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member was using a wrong premise.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let the minister in charge of the Wheat Board deny that next year payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956 will be lower than before. He will not deny that.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps the minister could ask it when I have finished. If he wants to deny what I have said, he can.


John James Greene: The hon. member would be stuck for the right answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. McNamara went on to say this, as reported at page 1246 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 32 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
I am very much opposed to terminal mixing. I know that there is a wide school of thought on this, and I can see that in some of the lower feeding grades, commercial grades, and so on, modifications are required, but I think, personally-and I am not
April 14, 1970

speaking necessarily for my Board on this; because I have held these views for years-that for us to have terminal mixing of our higher grades would result in a much lower quality of product going into the foreign markets.
What he says about foreign markets is pretty clear. He goes on to say:
And one thing we need to maintain at this time is the quality of our exports. Recently there was a case in Japan where the Americans got into a lot of serious trouble. This was mainly because of terminal mixing at the west-coast ports. The quality was not satisfactory. They had to take steps to correct it. Therefore, speaking as Bill McNamara, my voice will always be heard against a change in the regulations which would allow terminal mixing of our top three grades, at least.
I say, as a result of the full application of this bill, terminal mixing will take place. Let the minister deny that charge.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Under the supervision of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now, he says it will take place under the supervision of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Did Mr. McNamara ever believe it would take place under no supervision. He fully believed it would be supervised.
We are told that by revamping our grading and handling systems we may possibly sell more wheat. We may, but not necessarily. In this connection, I have raised questions before the Standing Committee on Agriculture repeatedly over the past ten years. May I refer to Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 41 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. At page 1586 Mr. Treleaven of the Canadian Wheat Board is answering questions about British sales and why sales have dropped off to Europe and Great Britain. He says this:
... there are two or three factors that enter into a decrease in our total sales volume to the United Kingdom.
Mr. McNamara has touched on one and that is the fact of the changes in milling technology. This is a very, very sophisticated milling country, changes in milling technology have allowed them to use less of the strong wheats-[DOT]
I emphasize the word "strong" because a strong wheat is spoken of when people mean high protein wheat. I continue:
__in their grist and still get an acceptable loaf of
bread. So there has been in general a decrease in the proportion of high quality strong wheats that they have bought.
He goes on to say:
Today more and more of that trade is going by trans-shipment from northern European ports- through Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Amsterdam.
Canada Grain Act
He also said that the United Kingdom is buying wheat from central European countries, including Spain, and that they are melding all this wheat into a grist, still using Canadian wheat as the basis, to get the cheapest commodity they can and still produce an acceptable loaf of bread. Although I accept the idea behind protein rating, I do not see that it will bring about gigantic increases in our sales. It could be that the regulatory controls envisaged in this bill and the increased red tape will mean that farmers will obtain less cash for the same amount of work.
The government is saying to western agriculture, and to Canadian agriculture in general, "Please take your reserve land out of production." If Canadian farmers could only produce enough feed grain, we could produce enough hogs, cattle and poultry to supply the needs of this country. Last year, 7 per cent of the beef consumed in Canada was imported; last year we imported 60 million pounds of pork, which is about 400,000 hogs. If we could use our surplus grain profitably, we would not need to import poultry, eggs and all the rest of it. We would not need to import over $10 million worth of poultry and over $20 million worth of eggs. That sounds like a lot of eggs.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What about exports?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister talks about
exports. True, we exported quite a bit of beef and pork, but we could export more. We should not necessarily cut back our production. The farmers are looking for hope; they are looking for leadership and do not want to be told, "Cut back, and we will give you $6 an acre to quit farming certain land." That $6 per acre would not even pay the interest on the money that is tied up. Has the minister ever said that he intends to introduce a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loans or on loans used for the purpose of buying machinery from farm machinery companies? Some companies are foreclosing. I ask the minister whether he would not look into the operations of the farm machinery companies and whether he would not be willing to use, if necessary, the recommendations in the Barber Commission as a means of curbing the activities of some farm machinery companies. But no; we have two ministers in this area, under the old maxim of divide and rule. The Prime Minister went out to Winnipeg some time ago and said, "Why should I sell your wheat?" He did not sell it, but made two

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
ministers responsible for agricultural matters. One of those ministers has introduced a program that is unacceptable. The western farmers would like to be able to accept it. Last week I asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board if he would accept a change in the guaranteed eight bushel quota. Why could it not be transferable to barley or some other crop?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Although 75 per cent of the farmers in western Canada do not have a surplus of wheat, they may have 50 per cent of their land in summerfallow. They may have a quota. They are going to seed wheat this year because the eight bushel quota is the only guarantee they are given. The sad thing about most of that area is that the northern part and along the foothills, which produces the low protein wheat, will not be covered by this bill. We see confusion at its best.
The minister, who may well have been on the farm at one time, happily left the farm. He has had the farm problems dumped in his lap and has now come up with an economic trick that is causing a nightmare throughout western Canada. The farmers are attending meetings, 700 farmers in Brandon, 12,000 in Regina, 6,000 in Saskatoon-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: More than that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says, "More than that". The minister will have more than that on his doorstep here if the two ministers do not get together and give the leadership this federal government is bound to give. I am not referring to the type of leadership displayed by the Prime Minister when he said, why should I sell your wheat? The farmers should be told what they can produce and the government should be prepared to sell it. The government should spend $30 million selling wheat rather than giving that money to the farmers not to produce wheat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We do that as well.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the government is spending $30 million selling wheat, why is there not a salesman going on an extended trip such as the Prime Minister intends to take? He plans to spend two days scuba diving rather than talking to our Pacific rim customers. Why cannot he have such talks when visiting that area? The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is to be amalgamated with the Department of External Affairs. It is only

right that someone knowledgeable should go along on the trip.
What are the facts with regard to protein grading of wheat and the grading of wheat in other countries? Approximately 82 per cent of the wheat produced in Australia is low protein. Is the wheat acreage being cut back in that country? The 1970 figure shows that Australia has not cut back one bit. I see the minister shaking his head. I suggest that he read the report on wheat marketing prepared by Mr. Hudson for the Economic Council of Canada.
What about the United States? That country is supposed to be selling wheat according to protein content. According to the report of the agriculture committee the United States is not doing too well with mixing at the terminals, and has got into trouble with Japan. Is that country cutting back on wheat acreage? They are not cutting back at all. In fact, the northern states, Montana and the Dakotas, have been encouraged to increase their wheat acreage because of Canada's action. What is the net result? Canada is the only country of the five major wheat exporting countries that has said, we quit. Canada is the only country to take that negative approach. The minister shakes his head. He can make his own speech later if he likes. Canada has acted negatively and continues to do so. This bill may or may not do much for us. I am not prepared to judge it as good or bad until I have had an opportunity to examine it fully in committee.
There is no protein grading. Is it the French grading system we are to adopt? Are we going to adopt the Russian system? That country grades on the basis of protein to some extent. Are there two levels of cellulose and protein content that are going to be judged? We are not given this information. Will we be in a better competitive position with France? It is France that seems to be undercutting the price in the International Grains arrangement. I talked to the former minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I asked him whether Canada had notified the French government that Canada was anxious because of their price-cutting, but he said we had not done so. It was left up to the Wheat Board. He informed me the International Grains Arrangement countries were going to be meeting somewhere at some time. That is not good enough.
Farmers in western Canada have never wanted subsidies or handouts. They want a chance to produce. They have proven that
April 14, 1970

they are very efficient, because they have gotten along with less subsidies than the farmers of any other country of the world. Western farmers want the government, the Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners to sell their product. If these agencies are unable to sell it, the farmers would like at least an honest effort to be made. This government has failed to do that. The Prime Minister in a shrugging, fanciful way said in Winnipeg, "Why should I sell your wheat?"
As far back as 1935, the Wheat Board was the responsibility of the government. The Wheat Board officials were appointed by the government and were therefore the direct responsibility of that minister of the crown who had nothing else to do but look after the Wheat Board and encourage the farmers on to greater heights. He has not done a good job. That minister, too, has accepted a negative line of thinking. The minister says, if we cannot sell it, then we had better not produce it. We are the only country in the world to adopt this attitude. The United States cut back wheat production in an orderly way 20 years ago, but they have not cut back any more in the last couple of years. The minister holds out a report which purports to say otherwise. In the last two years in particular, the United States has not cut back wheat acreage.
This program will bring about a wheat acreage reduction in the areas producing high protein wheat. While selling and grading on the basis of protein content may be used as a scapegoat by the government to show why we have lost sales. I say we have lost sales because we have not paid enough attention to the selling angle. We were ready to accept the negative approach that we should curtail production.
The government stated that they were prepared to give to the western farmers $140 million and then said, knowingly, that the figure amount used would be $100 million. In their hearts, they know that only $30 million or $40 million can possibly be accepted by these farmers, even with the best conditions in western Canada. Is the government prepared to adjust its program so that the farmers can take advantage of the $100 million they reportedly are prepared to give them? Neither minister is prepared to adjust his program. Both ministers know that under the program farmers cannot accept more than $30 million or $40 million. The minister shakes his head. He knows better because he has been meeting the same farmers as I have and has been hearing the same results. The Minis-
Canada Grain Act
ter without Portfolio knows better. This is shown by reports from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. These reports show there will be a voluntary wheat acreage reduction by the farmers of 26 per cent and a 5 per cent increase in summerfallow. Under the government's program, the farmers will only be paid on the 5 per cent increase in summerfallow. Five per cent of $100 million is $5 million. I was over generous when I said $30 million or $40 million.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That was before the program was announced.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have not heard of any major changes since the program was announced. If the minister has heard of any changes, I ask him to stand up and tell this House. How many people in Brandon did the minister say would be taking advantage of the program? Was it 7 out of 700?


An hon. Member:: Nine.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How many people before the program was announced were going to reduce their acreage?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That was not the question.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The question in western Canada today is, "Is the government serious? Do they have $100 million for western Canada or are they just baiting and teasing us?" Do they mean it or do they not? If they do, then the program should be adjusted so all farmers can take advantage of it. If you are honest and fair with western Canada, then western Canada will treat you more than fairly and honestly.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-196 I would be the first to say that I am in general agreement with the aims of this bill, which is to revamp the Canada Grain Act, something that has stood for over 40 years. It is significant, in view of the rapidity of change in our modem world, that the Canada Grains Act is only now being revamped, and this indicates that the original act was either exceptionally good or that changes in our grading system have not occurred to a marked extent.
This revamping of our grading system, mainly in the field as I understand it of protein grading of wheat, is at least five years overdue. This bill brings into sharp focus the case for the government passing the standards bill that is now on the Order Paper. Govern-

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
ment proponents of the standards bill indicate that voluntary standardization is not enough, that it is much too slow to be effective in a modern world.	On
the other hand, grading regulations have been entirely under government control and have not been changed for 40 years. This seems to indicate that there is no real evidence that governments move particularly fast when they are called upon to review regulations in a particular industry. Indeed, the slowness of the government in dealing with the Canada Grains Act would be a good indication that the standards bill will result in a similar slow down of changes in standards rather than accelerate them.
The indications for change in this bill have been brought about mainly by the need for protein grading in our export sales of wheat. Knowledgeable people to whom I have talked in the grain industry do not feel that protein grading will in itself increase sales of wheat in the export markets, but that unless this is carried forward we will be unable to maintain even our diminishing percentage of the world market. We in Canada are particularly dependent on the export of wheat to support the basic plank in the western grain economy. This income has in general a very marked .effect on total income not only in western Canada but in the whole of Canada. Indeed, the export of western resources such as wheat, meat, oil seeds, oil and gas, minerals and forest products are the means whereby Canada is able to have a standard of living second only to that of the United States.
At the present time various factors are at work within the Canadian government structure that seem to be doing their best to antagonize our customers abroad. At the same time we are involving ourselves in an extremely heavy welfare-orientated government program; the government is proposing to cut down investment level by implementing its white paper on taxation; and it is attempting to create a bilingual political and economic system. All of this makes us a less competitive nation in the markets of the world. Recently we began to engage in curtailing foreign investment in our resources.
Protein grading of wheat may well be used as the scapegoat for all our ills and lack of export sales. In fact, though important, it has been only one of the many hard facts we have to face. For example, more countries of the world are becoming self-sufficient at this time in cereal grain production, and competition is becoming greater and more intense.

Just three years ago it was suggested that Canada could grow all the wheat it could, for which a ready market would be found. The present state of our grain sales indicate that this is not so.
In the report of the Economic Council of Canada the commissioner pointed out that:
Canada has achieved a rate erf growth of labour productivity and agriculture well above that recorded in other sectors of the economy, and I'll roughly compare comparable dimensions to the rate of growth of agricultural labour productivity in the United States. However, the substantial disparity between the two countries in the absolute level of agricultural labour productivity has widened significantly. Mechanization and yield technology have contributed in nearly equal proportions to growth in the United States. In contrast, Canada has advanced in the area of mechanization but not kept pace in yield technology.
This would indicate that merely researching the guaranteed protein content is not the panacea when we consider the marketing problems of western Canadian wheat. It also indicates that we should be having a second look at the main factors that influence the productivity of the Canadian farmer. Family farms handed down from generation to generation must be virtually bought back from the government. Payment of estate and capital gains taxes and increased tax on the middle income group mitigate against easy acquisition of Canadian farms by a new farming generation.
Canada's percentage of the grain market has dropped from 24 per cent to 19 per cent in recent years and strenuous efforts will be needed to regain this share. Nevertheless, so far as this bill is concerned, protein grading should be introduced without too much dislocation of our markets in the world.
The complexity of marketing problems and changes that might have to be necessitated in wheat grading are indicated by a recent study of the Canadian-American Committee of the National Planning Association and the Private Planning Association of Canada. One of the commission members, Mr. Arden Bur-bridge of North Dakota, suggested that our grading system may have discriminated against developing countries that could have been major customers of ours by setting champagne standards for customers with beer budgets. He is quoted in today's issue of the Globe and Mail, April 14, as follows:
These undeveloped countries have a need expressed more in terms of tons of wholesome nutrients without great concern for fine points of quality (such as bread colour, low volume and baking time).
April 14, 1970

With limited foreign exchange, it would seem that they would prefer to be able to negotiate price to take advantage of their lower quality demands.
Thus, by holding a fixed, rigid price, the exporting countries discriminate against our greatest potential future growth market.
He also suggested that unrealistic demands for high quality wheat prevent the switch to higher yielding semi-dwarf varieties whose quality, while slightly lower, would be adequate for this important market. The switch to protein marketing will have quite far-reaching and serious consequences on the pattern of grain growing in western Canada. For many years the Palliser triangle has been the area of Canada which usually produced the high protein grain that would bring a premium in world markets and which also contained the gluten and baking qualities necessary to meet the requirements of markets in Europe and Japan.
The whole parkland area outside the Palliser Triangle poses a problem in that it has been growing wheat for many years and the farm economy is geared substantial to wheat growing. If this area were not able to produce high protein saleable wheat, and if the discount on what they produced was too low then this whole area would be economically disadvantaged. However, should markets remain available in countries where low protein wheat is acceptable, then it may well continue its role as a wheat growing area in western Canada.
[DOT] (4:20 pm.)
Also there seems to be substantial evidence that the protein level of wheat can be increased by judicious application of nitrogen so that in most years, even with the present varieties of wheat, substantial quantities of high protein wheat can be produced in parkland areas. It would seem possible that high yielding protein wheat can be developed for this parkland area and research would be indicated in this field. Otherwise, if there should have to be a cessation of wheat growing in much of the parkland areas of western Canada, there would be great economic dislocation and hardship. With this in mind, I should like to point out the possibility, that with the United States using protein grading right at the farmer's bin, this would seem to be much more fair than attempting to have a particular area designation.
There is one important aspect of this bill in respect of which I reserve judgment, and that is that all changes in grading are at the whim 22218-24!
Canada Grain Act
of the Governor in Council. This means that in the future any changes in the grading system can be made with simple disregard for Parliament. It has been 40 years since the Canada Grains Act has been amended. It would seem to have been a reasonable success, and it has remained under the control of Parliament. This usurption of power is becoming an everyday occurrence on the part of this government. It would appear they consider that in future all changes in the grading of grain should not be in the hands of Parliament but only in the hands of the Governor in Council.
The minister has stated it is necessary to move quickly, so power must be retained within the government at all times. There have been no major changes in the grain act for 40 years and it has always been the government's prerogative to introduce legislation at any time to make changes. Protein grading should have been instituted some years ago, yet the government has shown that it has not been worried about this problem. So far at least, changes in grading should be made only after reasonable consultation with the producer and marketing groups, and finally with elected representatives in the House of Commons.
Recent changes in the acreage quota by order in council leave much to be desired. Just recently we had operation LIFT proposed by the minister, which seems to have been introduced after very little consultation with producer groups. Under the LIFT program, the minister hoped that no wheat would be grown in western Canada during the coming year. To have followed up the minister's idea in its entirety would have been a disastrous economic move for the grain farmers and die western economy in general. Fortunately, the farmers seem to have more sense than the Minister and seem to be thinking about a modest reduction to approximately 15 million acres of wheat. This seems likely all that can be done in one year.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has indicated that he expects the Wheat Board will only buy from the producers somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250 million to 300 million bushels of wheat based on an eight bushel quota. Obviously, he further expected that the normal intake of about 450 million bushels of wheat from a crop year would be reduced.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member referred to

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
figures concerning the amount of wheat expected to be produced next year by the farmers, as though those figures had been given by me at some time. These figures are completely in error. If you consult the figures at the time the LIFT program was announced and make a calculation on the basis of 53 million acres and eight bushels per authorized acre, you will find that 53 million times eight works out very close to the 425 million bushel figure to which the hon. member has referred.


William Gordon Ritchie: I am glad the minister made that statement, because no matter how you figure this, on the basis of only eight bushels per specified acre it does not work out. Many farmers will not have the wheat to fill their acreage quotas unless they grow wheat. It does not seem reasonable that the Wheat Board will be obligated to take from the producers as a whole more than 300 million bushels of wheat. If every farmer had wheat to fulfil the eight bushels per authorized acre quota, then we could expect to have 400 million bushels of wheat. I suggest there will not be anything like this distribution of wheat.
In other words, through operation LIFT, the minister is asking that grain farmers reduce their deliveries by 100 million to 150 million bushels unless there is an increase in the amount specified for delivery to much above eight bushels per acre, and he has not indicated to my satisfaction that he intends to do that. What he proposes will help out the storage position of the Wheat Board, but I would submit that at this time it is too much to ask the grain farmer to reduce deliveries by 100 million to 150 million bushels based on the eight bushel allocated quota. With this in mind, I have considerable reservation about grading being entirely the prerogative of the Governor in Council, and I would hope that this phase will be very closely examined in the committee.
Another important feature is the block system of moving all grain. This seems to have considerable advantages but has shown weaknesses in the movement of flax and rape-seed into export positions during the past year. There is no doubt that during this last fall flax and rapeseed sales were lost because oilseeds were not in position. One of the reasons seems to be that the block system is not too helpful in moving these relatively small quantities of grain into forward positions at all desirable times.

As far as the minister's comment on the checkoff for research purposes is concerned, I will only say at this time that this should be carefully examined by the committee and that some recommendations should be brought forward. This is an exceptionally complex bill which involves very difficult phases of the Canadian grain trade. No doubt committee hearings will throw a great deal more light on the functions of this act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, other hon. members of this party and other parties in opposition have directed their attention to some of the intrinsic difficulties in the bill and have made a very convincing case why it is so essential that this bill be subjected to the closest possible scrutiny of the committee, particularly as to its objects. I have other objections which I should like to put before the House at this time. I am not going to infringe upon the rules, but in order to make my case I must say that the objectives of the bill, as set out in large part in clause 11, constitute such a grave infringement of the traditional restrictions on the kind of power given to the government it taints the whole bill and justifies a complete review.
What are the objects of the proposed Canadian Grain Commission which presumably will administer the act. They are set out in clause 11 of the bill which reads in part as follows:
Subject to this Act and any direction to the Commission issued from time to time under this Act by the Governor in Council or the Minister, the Commission shall establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate and supervise grain handling in Canada-
This is the first part in respect of which I take grievous exception. To begin with, as I read this clause, the commission and the Governor in Council can extend these objectives beyond grain, as defined by Parliament in Part I, to include for example any seed. The clause places two duties upon the commission, each one to achieve a purpose. The clause spells out the means by which the commission is to achieve those purposes. The first purpose is to ensure maximum acceptance of Canadian grain as a commodity of dependable quality in domestic and export markets. This purpose is to be achieved by maintaining standards and quality for Canadian grain.
The second purpose is to ensure an efficient grain handling system, which is to be achieved by regulation and supervision of grain handling in Canada.
April 14. 1970



[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This definition of purposes and means appears to be qualified in two ways. The definition is made subject to this act and, more important, to any directions to the Commission issued from time to time under this act by the Governor in Council or the minister, as I have read from proposed clause 11. These restrictions cannot be understood unless some of the excess verbiage is cleared away. The words "subject to this act" are meaningless. In the first place, clause 11 will be part of the act itself and can hardly be subject to itself. In the second place, the words "subject to", as here used, are analogous to "not inconsistent with this act". Mr. Driedger, a one-time eminent civil servant, a deputy minister and now a lecturer of law, in an authoritative text on this subject states:
Sometimes authority is conferred to make regulations not inconsistent with the act. These words are unnecessary. Even in their absence it would not be permissible to make regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the act itself.
In other words, under the rules of statutory interpretation, the duties of the Commission as expressed in clause 11 must be carried out by the Commission in a manner that does not violate the specific provisions enacted by Parliament elsewhere in the act. We are then left with the words "subject to.. .any direction to the Commission issued from time to time under this act by the Governor in Council or the minister." These words are indeed restrictive on the Commission in its duty to carry out the two objects expressed in clause 11; but they constitute a delegation of power to the Governor in Council and to the minister this is unrestricted and unconditional in terms and confined only by the title of the bill. Presumably it will be argued in rebuttal that these words are descriptive; that is, they relate to powers elsewhere delegated in the bill to the Governor in Council and to the minister. But this argument cannot be supported. In the first place, if the phrase is only descriptive of delegated powers defined in other parts of the bill, why are the words "under this act" used?
Again, it is my submission that the Canadian Wheat Board or the Commission, as the case may be, is restricted to dispose of overages as directed by the Governor in Council. This is not a provision that affects the objects of the Commission. There is indeed no need to refer to it in clause 11. The next delegation of power is in clause 78, which empowers the minister to review the Commission's refusal or revocation of an elevator or grain dealer
Canada Grain Act
licence and to direct the Commission to issue or reinstate a licence. This is an appeal procedure and does not run counter to the objects expressed in clause 11. I consider this to be a very serious breach of the type of parliamentary condition which should be laid down when a minister is permitted to sit in judgment and render a decision which affects the rights and liberties of the people of Canada, including those to whom a licence has been issued by the commission. The commission is given further authority with regard to the issuing of licences and the conditional revoking of licences. Then, the bill provides that from that commission there can be appeal to a political person or tribunal, without the protections which we in this country want to maintain.
I have not established this argument to the extent I might have, but I should like to make plain that I object to this granting of authority to the minister to sit as a court of appeal upon decisions of a commission. More than ever, I object to the fact that clause 11 is an unlimited, uncontrolled and improper delegation of power to the Governor in Council and the minister to make laws for any purpose they may see fit pertaining to seeds. This government has become a genius in giving to itself large chunks of power by the writing of regulations and the passage of orders in council. I have continuously objected to this procedure. I think some day the country will wake up to the fact that it has made a very serious error in giving away to a group of people, such as any cabinet or government, the right to do some of the things we have given them the right to do. But this bill would go further. In effect it would authorize the Governor in Council to legislate in respect of objects beyond those included in the bill. This is what we are doing. Apparently we are doing this quite willingly. The government backbenchers are quite happy about it. I am not. I think this is something we should regard far more seriously.
I prepared a reasoned amendment which under normal circumstances I would have moved. However, for reasons I shall set out, I do not intend to move this amendment at this time. This amendment would have been to the effect that this bill be not procedeed with now as it conflicts with the principle of this House that this House will not give the government or a minister of the government legislative power to amend or define the purposes and provisions of an Act of this Parliament or the objects of a body created by that

April 14. 1970
Canada Grain Act
Act. For other reasons, I am now of the opinion that I should object to the bill generally and therefore it becomes unnecessary for me to move this amendment. These other reasons, stated succinctly, are the following. This is a money bill. As there must be, there appears on the first page of the printed bill the recommendation. His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure respecting grain because it involves the expenditure and appropriation of money.
Over the last few days, we in the opposition have been involved in a rather traumatic experience with regard to the opportunities which exist for the officials of this House to scrutinize and call to the attention of the House what, in their opinion, are the errors of omission and commission of the government, of government departments, of government tribunals and of Crown corporations in connection with the expenditure of money which has been voted by this House. I am referring specifically to the Auditor General. Because of the attitude taken by this government, particularly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), I take strong exception to this House granting the right to this government to appropriate money unless and until this particular situation has been clarified. For that reason, speaking for myself, I am not prepared to give approval to the passage of this legislation. I shall set out as clearly and in as short a fashion as possible, my reasons for this attitude.
What is to be the fate of the Auditor General, whoever he may be, when he scrutinizes the expenditures made under the Provisions of this bill? When I refer to these expenditures I have in mind the enormous powers I have cited which give the government the right to set forth completely any objects unrelated to the proposals in the bill. What is to be the fate of that money? To what extent are we in this House, who have a duty here as the servants of the people who have elected us, to have an opportunity to conduct a searching and close examination of these expenditures? I submit that what has taken place constitutes a valid reason for me to say to the government that it cannot have these powers until it clarifies precisely where it stands on this situation. If the government introduces a money bill, it must be prepared to indicate at this time, in my view, that a

clear and definite responsibility rests upon it with regard to the audit of the money which will be granted.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let me go over this briefly. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), in a television interview not so long ago, stated:
We recognize the fact that it's his responsibility to audit the accounts and to account for the manner in which the funds have been expended. We don't think it's his responsibility to give legal opinions with regard to the manner of carrying out the policies and, in particular, we don't regard it as being his responsibility to criticize the underlying policy involved in certain decisions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Does the hon. member disagree with that approach?


Gerald William Baldwin: Part of it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What part?


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister should arm himself with patience and give himself an opportunity to be educated. Then, he will probably change his views on this matter.
What about the other president who, before a television audience consisting of millions of people, supported his colleague, the President of the Privy Council when he said, in response to a question:
Now, In this sense he's pitting his judgment as to sound business practice, sound governmental policy-
Whether or not this government could ever have a sound policy is a very debatable point. However, we will go into that later.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How would you know about sound policy?


Gerald William Baldwin: The president went on to say:
*-against the government, and not unnaturally you wouldn't expect a government in every instance to agree with his judgment. I wonder myself whether the Auditor General should cast himself in this role, or whether we should look for really another kind of person to be Auditor General-
How can we in this House dare appropriate any money for this government when that is their approach to the examination, scrutiny and checking of the expenditures which the government is making? We would be delinquent in our duty if we permitted this bill to go through under the circumstances which prevail today.
April 14. 1970

What about the Prime Minister who yesterday in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said:
I would assume that if that was said it might be interpreted to mean we want another type of function fulfilled by the person who is fulfilling the job now, not some other person.
The reference was to the Auditor General. In other words, the right hon. gentleman said yesterday, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the government is planning a change in the role of the Auditor General. He repeated that later in response to a question which I asked when he chimed in the chorus of the two other presidents and said:
-and whether they are proceeded with with proper probity-
He was dealing with the accounting procedures.
-but with that other function, that of criticizing policy, that of criticizing government decisions, which I think is not one for the Auditor General but for the opposition.
That is absolute nonsense. There must be an opportunity for the Auditor General to criticize government decisions when those decisions represent an expenditure of government moneys which is not in accordance with the views expressed by this House, which is not in accordance with the policy laid down by this parliament. The Auditor General is a servant of Parliament. It is parliament's policies which he cannot criticize. If he did criticize a policy laid down in this House, I for one would agree that he is not doing his job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: But when he criticizes the government for spending money in a way not authorized by this House, then I would say he is doing his duty. However, steps should be taken against him if he fails to point out to Parliament in his annual report, and to the people of Canada, that what in fact has been done by the government is not in conformity with what Parliament has authorized. That is what the Auditor General is doing. I defy any hon. member opposite to examine the Auditor General's report and find there one iota of criticism of the policies of this Parliament. It is the policies of the government in carrying out these functions that he criticizes. That is at issue, and he is entitled to criticize them. Heaven help us when he fails to do so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon.
gentleman then explain the nature of the criticism with regard to the Northumberland
crossing?
Canada Grain Act


Gerald William Baldwin: There was no criticism. If my
hon. friend would take time to read that part of the Auditor General's report carefully, as I did several times, he will see that it constitutes a bare recital of the facts. There is not one word of criticism. It may well be that the hon. gentleman and his government do not like that bare recital of the facts because a simple examination by any person of average intelligence shows there has been some stupidity on the part of the government, but that does not mean the Auditor General is criticizing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Was there any misappropriation of funds under those circumstances, or were they illegally applied?


Gerald William Baldwin: Of course not, but I see my
hon. friend wants me to throw in his face the actual provisions of the statute under which the Auditor General operates. Let me read them. Subsection (1) of section 70 of the act reads as follows:
The Auditor General shaU report annually to the House of Commons the results of his examinations and shall call attention to every case in which he has observed that
(a)	any officer or employee has wilfully or negligently omitted to collect or receive any money belonging to Canada,
(b)	any public money was not duly accounted for and paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund,
(c)	any appropriation was exceeded or was applied to a purpose or in a manner not authorized by Parliament.
That one, for example, deals with many of the recommendations made by the Auditor General. I am not referring to the specific one mentioned by the President of the Privy Council. Many of the items in the Auditor General's report deal with cases where appropriations were applied to a purpose or in a manner not authorized by Parliament. The subsection goes on to read:
(d)	an expenditure was not authorized or was not properly vouched or certified.
(e)	there has been a deficiency or loss through the fraud, default or mistake of any person or
(f)	a special warrant authorized the payment of any money,
and to any other case that the Auditor General considers should be brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
At the time I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee seven years ago, the Auditor General carried on the practice which has been sanctified by time and tradition of bringing to the attention of this House any case where there may have been what he calls non-productive payments, where pay-

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
merits have been made which do not produce any result. It may well be that the government may try to make out a good case to say that these were productive payments. But the Auditor General has a duty, which he exercises, to bring to the attention of the public of Canada and of this House any instance where the payments have been non-productive.
The hon. member may shake his head. He should read the Auditor General's reports for the last six or seven years and he will find this has been done over and over again. As a matter of fact, for years there was a schedule attached to the Auditor General's report in which he itemized dozens and dozens of nonproductive payments. Suddenly, however, for other purposes-not for this one, this is not what the government is getting at and we know this-the government has decided they do not like the Auditor General. They have an aversion to him and they dislike what he has been doing. Their sensitivities have been hurt.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member state any instance in which I made a personal remark about the Auditor General?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not suggesting the hon. gentleman has.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You say I have an aversion to him.


Gerald William Baldwin: In his official capacity. I would think the minister likes me, but he probably has an aversion to me if in my capacity as a member of the opposition I have been too critical and reprimanded him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Or when I have trouble getting a straight answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister simply does not listen. Let him not divert me. I was just getting started. I finished with two presidents, now I will finish with the Prime Minister in a minute or so.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Talk about the bill that is before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am talking about the bill. In response to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), I am saying that I, as a member of this House, with a responsibility to my constituents in particular, and to the country in general, have an aversion and dislike to granting to the government the right to spend money and appropriate money until they
[Mr. Baldwin.!
have clarified where they stand with the Auditor General. That is why I do not like the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What has that to do with the administration of the Grain Act?


Gerald William Baldwin: I think the Minister of
Agriculture probably is a little punchdrunk as a result of his travels through western Canada and the beatings he has taken from the farmers in the west.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to polish off the Prime Minister I point out that, today, in response to a very alert question from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), he admitted beyond any shadow of doubt that the government has in mind a new role for the Auditor General. The Prime Minister is going to clarify his duties. He is going to clarify him right out of existence, stopping him from being an effective weapon in connection with the parliamentary scrutiny of improper government expenditures.
This, Mr. Speaker, is extremely important. Are we in this House, under these conditions, to allow a government of this description, a government which has expressed these sentiments, the privilege of appropriating money and spending it? They have given every indication by the statements made by the President of the Privy Council, by the President of the Treasury Board, and by the right hon. Prime Minister that they are avowed and determined to secure a new Auditor General's Act which will diminish the role and the effectiveness of the Auditor General. In addition to that, no doubt they have in mind a replacement of the present incumbent. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think any hon. member who will take the time and the trouble to read what has been said, to examine these comments of the ministers in question and of the Prime Minister, and to look at the Auditor General's Act under which he secures his authority, will see there is an ominous trend developing.
Here is an autocratic government avid for power, lusting not only for what power it has but for new power. All governments of this kind dislike criticism. They like to be free to hide, conceal and pigeonhole the mistakes they make. They dislike the glare of publicity which the Auditor General throws on their operations. They are trying to get rid of him and to minimize his role. For that reason it is incumbent upon us to say to them,"Until you clarify your stand and tell us exactly what you want to do, we have to be very careful
April 14, 1970

indeed." I am giving my personal views on this, Mr. Speaker, as one who has been deeply concerned about the drift in this government, as one who for some years had the honour to be chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and as one who is greatly concerned about the direction in which Parliament is heading. I hope that the attitude I have taken will be supported by other hon. members.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the enlightened addresses by my colleagues from Mackenzie and Crowfoot, supported by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), and now the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) with regard to the legal technicalities of Bill C-196, I think the House will be impressed with the fact that all is not well with respect to this legislation, and with the fact that it is not going to be a cure-all. With respect to this revision of the Canada Grain Act, Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief because many of the problems have already been covered by my colleagues.
I want to serve notice on the government that the proposed revision of the Canada Grain Act in Bill C-196, referred to as an act respecting grain, is not going to be a panacea for the present economic problems facing western Canadian grain farmers. Neither is operation LIFT, or what our farmers refer to as the Fanners' Income Reduction Plan, going to be the answer, as both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) responsible for the Wheat Board very well know.
In my opinion the emphasis being placed both on this legislation and on operation LIFT is greatly overrated, and is basically an admission of the government's failure to sell wheat. There is no doubt that the Canada Grain Act, first developed in 1930, needs updating. The legislation at that time was enacted for the protection of the producers, and set standards for Canadian wheat, which not only was recognized as the best bread wheat in the world but because of the grading system could be sold anywhere in the world by sample.
Although most of our wheat will still be sold by sample, it has become apparent that a new grading system is needed to satisfy some of our better customers as to the protein content of the grain offered. This is particularly so in West Germany, Japan and Britain, where new baking techniques are being used. In my study of the bill I failed to find any
Canada Grain Act
reference to protein grading, but as explained by the minister in his opening statement authority is provided whereby grades may be changed at any time by Order in Council. In fact, it is this provision giving the minister authority to make changes, allocate boxcars and generally direct the movement of different kinds and grades of grain to the terminals, that I find a little disturbing. Certainly, the government will be involved in the grain business, whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would like to shrug off the responsibility or not.
The bill provides that the grains Commission will have authority to licence all grain handling facilities, including feed mills, to regulate and supervise grain handling in Canada, as well as to establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain, subject to directions issued to the commission from time to time by the Governor in Council, or the minister. The protein grading of wheat brings up some very interesting questions. I believe that I am right in saying that sales of wheat made in the past to the Communist countries have been in the lower bread grades of No. 3 and No. 4 Northern. Is it possible that in the future these countries will want to buy their grain on a protein basis?
I hope that in changing the grading system, and re-arranging our transportation and grain handling facilities, it will not be forgotten that practically all areas of western Canada must grow wheat as part of their crop rotation, and all grades will be needed as part of our export pattern. This is a point that was brought out last night by my colleague from Mackenzie when he opened this debate, because he comes from an area of western Canada where approximately 35 per cent of the farmers may not be able to sell their wheat under a protein grading system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are

April 14. 1970
Lobbying Control Act
as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-Industry-Criteria for payments to automobile companies; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr.	McCleave)-Agriculture-Feed
Grains-Requested increase in freight rate assistance.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Public Bills.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Speaker, it has been agreed that we would proceed with Bill No. C-38 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Barry Mather: that Bill C-38, respecting the control of lobbying, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of this bill, it is my intention to divide my remarks into the following categories: first, I wish to outline what the bill aims to do and what it does not aim to do. Second, I wish to cite something of the public need for this type of legislation. Third, I wish to quote from existing United States legislation in this same field and, finally, to ask that hon. members consider whether the subject matter of the bill could be sent to an appropriate committee for consideration as raw material for a useful piece of Canadian legislation?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the explanatory notes of the bill as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to require the identification of lobbyists, persons who, in the interest of others, seek to influence senators or members of the House of Commons to vote or use influence for, or against, a matter which may come before Parliament. Nothing in the bill restricts lobbying, paid or otherwise, or in any way interferes with the right of the public to make representations to members of the Senate and of the House of Commons. Similar legislation in effect in the United States requires that lobbyists register with the Clerk of the Legislature and secure an identification card from the said Clerk.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).)
The definitions and regulations are contained in a few clauses and, if I may, I should like to quote briefly what I think are the key points:
(a) "employer" means any person who has an individual lobbying for him for compensation or expenses;-
(d) "lobbyist" means a person who engages in lobbying;
That is in line with the definition described in the "employer" section. Control of lobbying requires that:
No person shall engage in lobbying until he registers with the Clerk of Parliaments and secures an identification card from the said Clerk.
And the penalty involved for not following these regulations is a $500 fine or three months in prison or both.
I want to emphasize two things which this bill does not seek. First, there is nothing in it to discourage lobbying nor is it my intention that it should be discouraged. All that is sought here is to identify the lobbyist. Second, the bill does not apply to members of the public making representations to Members of Parliament.
As I said earlier, legislation along the lines of my proposal is in effect in the United States where it is called the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. I have a copy here and it sets out in detail the definitions and the regulations regarding accounts of moneys paid to lobbyists and the statements to be filed with the Clerk of their House. The key point as far as my proposal is concerned, that is the registration of lobbyists with the secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, is also dealt with in detail. The United States act goes further and is tougher than what I have in mind here. The United States legislation carries a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
It may well be asked, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with lobbying? Not that I seek to stop it, but what is the danger or the unfairness of it in our form of democratic society? It seems to me that an organized interest group represents a concentration of power. It is a means by which individuals, or individual units of power whether of business, agriculture, labour or such groups as, say, the Pharmaceutical Association or the tobacco industry, may seek to have or to gain a greater impact upon the conduct of public affairs. This could give such groups a tremendous advantage over comparable unorganized citizens.
April 14, 1970

I believe that to counteract this unfair advantage and to expose who is doing what, for whom, why and for how much, we need some legislation such as that which I have put forward this evening, the important point being that it would require identification of the lobbyists.
On the question of how lobbying works in Canada and in Ottawa, I have never read anything better than the comprehensive article prepared by our own research branch of the Library of Parliament which was published in the Parliamentarian of January, 1970. Before I quote from that article, it might be of interest to hon. members that lobbying in Canada goes back to 1858, when the Canadian manufacturers, before they had an association, marshalled their forces in favour of higher tariffs. The article reads:
Organized pressure and interest groups often exert their pressure by means of the professional lobbyist. Professional lobbyists, as they exist in Canada, are usually experts who help interested parties, particularly businessmen, to understand the government procedures and regulations which affect them and in turn provide advice on the best course of action permissible under the existing circumstances. The yellow pages of the telephone book list these experts as business consultants, representatives, or agents. The spectrum of such lobbies includes lawyers, general representatives, and individual experts and the professionals employed by trade and group associations. The Toronto Financial Post suggests there are ten different categories of lobbies in Canada's capital-
Estimates made in 1968 suggest there are 200 national associations that have offices in Ottawa with many companies maintaining their own man-
Perhaps one of the best examples of lobbying on a large scale is found in the nationally organized Canadian Manufacturers' Association (CMA). To carry out its profusion of activity the CMA has a budget of over $700,000 stemming for the most part from dues of over 6,000 member firms which represent more than 75 per cent of Canada's manufacturing capacity-
In the United States there are some 300 registered lobby groups with a membership of more than 5,000 Congressman,... Not counting the hidden lobbies, this group apparently spends over $5 million annually on direct lobbying. In Washington the greatest effort is directed toward individual Congressmen-
The art of putting pressure on government in Canada even though employed in anonymity, usually reaches the most intensive stage when a particular piece of legislation is about to be passed. Examples of such intensity are plainly evident from the activities of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada (PMAC) in 1968 and the Tobacco Industry in 1969.
That concludes the quotations from that source, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to add
Lobbying Control Act
a final one from an editorial in the Toronto Star in July, 1968, which reads:
Canadians are entitled to know a great deal more about professional lobbies at least than is available now. It's time Canadians had a chance to know in a regular way and systematic way who they are what they are after and how much they are paying to get it-
After all, it's the public that finally pays when the lobby prevails over the general interest.
That is my view exactly, Mr. Speaker, and in line with that I would urge hon. members to allow the subject matter of this bill to proceed to the appropriate committee. Inasmuch as members will recall that some months ago the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was reported to be carrying out a research study with a view to promoting the introduction of legislation requiring the registration of lobbyists, I would think that this proposed legislation could be referred to the appropriate committee. If that is what the government wants, it is what I want too, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I express my humble views on the legislative proposal presented today by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather).
In spite of the many interesting explanations he has just given us, I must say honestly that I am against this bill for the following reasons.
First, without being a strong supporter of the status quo in all fields, I suggest that we must maintain it for some time with regard to this matter.
As a matter of fact, since I was elected to the House in 1965, the problem of lobbyists who come to see members of the Commons or the Senate in both chambers or in the committees, is not a very serious one. In my view, there is no such problem.
Even if I am opposed to this bill, this does not mean that the arguments submitted by the hon. member for Surrey are not valid ones. On the contrary, he expressed himself in a sober and sincere manner; he was well documented to show the validity of his assertions. However, I wish to come back to a principle which I have often voiced in the House and which is dear to me: there is no perfect institution on this planet. In fact, we must always try to improve, to progress with the flow of the best evolutionary process, which is

April 14. 1970
Lobbying Control Act
an attitude becoming more and more fashionable in all fields. Furthermore, I feel that any modern man must recognize this principle and arrange his life in keeping with this evolution.
As pressures made in Canada by certain groups of people who engage in lobbying, as it is usually called, are linked to the nature of parliamentary institutions, I feel that we must consider the possibility of improving in a general and global way these parliamentary institutions as well as this lobbying.
That is why when we talk about improving our parliamentary institutions-be it the operation of the House of Commons, of the committees, of the Senate or our relations with the public-I suggest that a task force made up of independent, competent and free men should first make a thorough study of the situation.
As recommended by the member for Surrey, we must apply our energies to improve certain things in order to ensure the proper operation of the government and of our judiciary system.
If each of us tries to improve such or such an aspect of our institutions, as the member for Surrey is doing today with respect to lobbying, next another member will ask for a reform of the international organization of the House, and later another member or group of members will make representations regarding the working conditions of members of Parliament and Senators.
With all due respect to the House, I think this procedure is too haphazard. It is a little like a doctor trying to cure an organic disease which causes headaches by ordering his patient to take aspirin only. It might relieve the patient but it would not eliminate the cause of the disease. That is why I am convinced that for the moment it is better to maintain the status quo.
In my opinion, the House has more important duties. It would be more desirable to maintain the status quo until experts have summarized our needs and tried to determine how we can improve our parliamentary institutions of which we can be proud. The principles they stand for remain but parliamentary institutions could be made better, at least as far as the application of these principles is concerned.
When I refer to the status quo, I am thinking about lobbying, the action of lobbyists who try to influence the work of the govern-

ment or even that of members of the judiciary. I think that it would be advisable to ask ourselves what our present institutions are worth and to make the necessary distinctions.
Allow me to quote Standing Order 114 concerning the role of parliamentary agents. I think, as stated by the mover of the bill, that the role of the parliamentary agents can be related to that of lobbyists who wish to influence Parliament in one way or another when a piece of legislation has to be passed.
The Standing Order in question reads as follows:
(1)	No person shall act as parliamentary agent conducting proceedings before the House of Commons or its committees without the express sanction and authority of Mr. Speaker, and all such agents shall be personally responsible to the House and to Mr. Speaker, for the observance of the rules, orders and practice of Parliament and rules prescribed by Mr. Speaker, and also for the payment of all fees and charges.
(2)	A list of such persons shall be kept by the Chief Clerk of Private Bills and a copy filed with the Clerk of the House.
(3)	No person shall be allowed to be registered as a parliamentary agent during any session unless he has paid a fee of twenty-five dollars for such session and is actually employed in promoting or opposing some private bill or petition pending in Parliament during that session.
Standing Order 115 sets out what the parliamentary agents are liable to if they wilfully act in violation of the rules. This order reads partly as follows:
-shall be liable to an absolute or tempory prohibition to practice as a parliamentary agent, at the pleasure of Mr. Speaker; provided that upon the application of such agent, Mr. Speaker shall state in writing the ground for such prohibition.
Mr. Speaker, I was not able to present my speech as clearly as the hon. member who spoke before me as I express myself from a few notes that I had time to take down during the presentation of this bill which interested me greatly.
I noticed that in the explanatory notes of this bill, mention is made of an identification card and it is said there also that nothing in the bill restricts this kind of activity, paid or otherwise, or in any way interferes with the right of an individual to make representations. Reference is made also to a similar legislation in the United States.
I was wondering why this bill is introduced. [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Listening to the explanations of the hon. member, a while ago, I understood why he wanted the bill adopted.
April 14, 1970

But, it seems to me that, for the time being, this is not very important because, when I compare the United States with Canada, with regard to political activities, I see a huge difference between the two countries in this regard.
As I said a while ago, as far as I am concerned lobbying has not been a problem here in Canada, in the last few years. On the other hand, I believe the same does not apply in the United States because I have been told that there were people over there who specialized in lobbying and made a profession of it.
Mr. Speaker, clause 3(2) states and I quote:
The identification card delivered by the Clerk of Parliaments authorizes lobbying before the Senate and the House of Commons or any committees thereof.
Now, I thought that, at one point, the member meant groups or individuals who wanted to meet a particular senator or member of Parliament, in connection with the committees of one house or the other, I feel that under the rules now governing election agents, who are usually lawyers, those people have as many privileges as their counterparts in the United States, if I understood the explanations given by the mover of the bill a while ago.
As for the representatives of groups of farmers, workers, etc., who want to appear as witnesses before the committees of one house or the other, it seems to me that to date these arrangements were made without too much trouble and that, either on the suggestion of a member, with the approval of the committee, through the chairman or the steering committee, all those calls and those representations to the committees went on smoothly. I am not referring here to the groups asking for interviews with certain members of Parliament and with caucuses. It seems to me that up to now those calls, interviews and meetings went on smoothly because flexible and even efficient methods were used.
Mr. Speaker, I was astonished at the provisions of clause 3(3)(d), and I quote:
To the extent that can practically be determined in advance, the money paid or to be paid or the value of any other consideration given or to be given to the applicant for lobbying and the expenditure of same.
I wonder whether we should concern ourselves with all that since we are so proud of working and acting in a climate of freedom, the Canadian Parliament being one of those that respect the most group and individual liberties.
Lobbying Control Act
In fact, since we still believe in the free enterprise system which has made it possible for us to build a country of which we are proud, I wonder why we do not let a group, a private company or another organization give the people representing them the expense allowances they want, provided such lobbyists abide by the rules, and by the general principles concerning respect of laws and moderation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
On page 3, of the bill, one can read this:
(4)	All applications and registrations shall be open to the inspection of any Senator, Member of the House of Commons or any member of the Press Gallery in Ottawa.
I appreciate that in our country, as also in the whole western world, the press plays a substantial information role.
Despite all the respect I have for the members of the Press Gallery, I wonder why one of them should be appointed to review applications and registrations, and the more so since, sometimes, some lobbying may be somewhat confidential.
I wonder why the members of the Press Gallery should be specially mentioned, besides senators and members of the House of Commons, and why reference should not be made also to members of some other organizations. The following subclause reads as follows:
(5)	It shall be the duty of the Clerk of Parliaments to have published in the Canada Gazette the name of each registered lobbyist.
I know that matters of discretion are always present when it comes to the freedom of groups which are not always interested, for serious reasons, particularly at the beginning of certain endeavours relating to big interests in the public field, and where some indiscretion might prove prejudicial.
As for the registration which shall take place in the first week of each session of Parliament and shall terminate with the prorogation, I for one know well as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that nothing prevents lobbying. However, a lobbyist wishing to be duly heard in Parliament would have but one week, at the beginning of each session, to comply with the requisites. If this clause were passed, we would cause considerable harm and we would go against progress in many fields in Canada, because we all know that during a session, different problems may come up for reconsideration for various reasons which need not be mentioned.

April 14, 1970
Lobbying Control Act Everyone here is aware that for many reasons, a month or two after the beginning of the session, or toward the end of a session, it may be in the public interest that lobbyists come to make representations to their member of Parliament. As for the penalty; the bill provides as follows:
-five hundred dollars or imprisonment for three months, or both fine and imprisonment.
I am still wondering why the hon. member imagines that anything so serious can take place in this field as to call for a $500 fine or imprisonment for three months or both. Furthermore, he refers to the case of a Canadian citizen, remunerated or not. What difference does it make whether a Canadian citizen, to act in this capacity, is remunerated or not? If someone has lobbying to do, it can be presumed that he will not be remunerated. However, when a company or a group has representatives lobbying on its behalf, we all know that remuneration is normal.
What about groups such as the Catholic Farmers' Union in eastern Canada-the area where I come from-which having to make representations to the Canadian legislators, would be subject to these rules, whatever remuneration is paid to its representatives, or even whether or not it is represented.
There are very important pressure groups in Canada. The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) has already indicated it to the House. I think there is no need to remind hon. members that these groups are made up of persons who are endeavouring most of the time-if not all the time-to get the Canadian government to take action in their interests, and that without going against the public interest, enabling us nevertheless to get to know the needs of Canadians.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to compliment the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and the distinguished government whip who must be one of the most successful and industrious lobbyists in Ottawa. I say that because it takes real lobbying to get some of these very worth-while private members' bills talked out. Today we have witnessed an example of a really professional lobbyist at work. The government whip could not have picked a better member to make such an (Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski).]
eloquent but lengthy speech, though I am still not sure whether or not he supported the principle of the bill.
I am glad to see the government House leader in his seat, because I think it is about time Parliament took a long, hard look at the provisions relating to private members' hour and private members' legislation. The order that we are debating this afternoon seeks merely to refer Bill C-38, an act respecting the control of lobbying, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. At that committee the bill would receive the type of detailed examination and study that the subject deserves, the speech that has just concluded could more properly be made, the questions the hon. member has raised could more properly be directed to witnesses who would appear before the committee and the whole subject of lobbying in the Parliament of Canada could be studied in depth. Unfortunately, we go through this meaningless charade where the government whip, the champion of all lobbyists, musters government troops to talk out private members' bills which then die on the Order Paper.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I disagree with the principle of the bill. I believe that lobbying is a legitimate part of the democratic function. I see no reason why we should create another privileged group in Ottawa by bringing in legislation making it mandatory for those engaged in the process of lobbying to register with the government. Lobbying is a legitimate exercise and a very useful function; for example, legitimate organizations have offices in Ottawa which do very good work keeping Members of Parliament informed as to various things going on within the industries they represent. In this connection I think of the Fisheries Council of Canada. Surely no one would suggest that this organization should register as a professional lobbyist. I think also of the Grocery Products Manufacturers' Association of Canada. Both these organizations have their offices in Ottawa.
My main point is that this is a subject which deserves the type of study and examination which can be given only in committee. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why a bill of this nature should be subject to the influence of the government whip and talked out. If the government agreed to refer the bill to committee, we would then be in a position to examine the whole question of lobbying in Ottawa. Perhaps there might be a case for having lobbyists registered, although
April 14, 1970



I am not convinced there is. This is one of the things committee examination would bring out.
I suggest there is a case to be made for having a private member's bill of this nature, serving a useful function in spotlighting this subject-if private members' hour is of any use-sent to committee. The government must take a hard, long look at such bills and at least refer them to committee where they can be examined. When such bills come back to the House at the report stage or for third reading, the government whip could then do his work and they could be talked out.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to engage in debate on a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather). Over the years I have had the pleasure and privilege of engaging in debate with him during private members' hour in respect of a number of bills and resolutions he has presented. It is therefore with pleasure that I take a few minutes this afternoon to again engage in debate with him.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to speeches by my colleague the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc), because he speaks clearly and slowly enough to allow a beginner like me to understand him.

Having handed out these bouquets, I regret very much having to say to the hon. member for Surrey, a fellow British Columbian, that this is a pretty funny bill.


An hon. Member:: Then say something funny about it.


Grant Deachman: Clause 2(e) of the bill provides as follows:
"promoting", "advocating" and "opposing" means any act, speech, communication or conduct within the Parliament Buildings on the part of a lobbyist which influences or is intended to influence a Senator or a Member of the House of Commons to vote or use his influence for or against any matter which may come or is pending before either House of Parliament or any committee thereof while Parliament is in session.
I wonder what is meant by the word "influence". I do not feel when someone comes to me and gives his opinion in respect of a matter before the House of Commons, or if I listen to an explanation from someone who is making representations before a committee of the House, that I am necessarily being
Lobbying Control Act
influenced. I am gathering knowledge which in due course may assist me in making up my mind. I do not believe I am being influenced or that I am under the influence of anybody or anything.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is ten minutes enough time?


An hon. Member:: He is not under the influence of the clock.


Grant Deachman: Nor am I under the influence of the hon. gentleman. I never pretend that I have influence to use for or against any matter which might come or be pending before either House. I think the word "influence" is badly chosen and I should like the hon. member to have another look at that clause and come back to the House on another occasion, as I am certain he will, and present his bill. 1 refer particularly to clause 3, the only operative clause in the three pages of this bill. It is very short, comprising four lines. It tells us what this bill is going to do, and provides:
No person shall engage in lobbying until he registers with the Clerk of Parliaments and secures an identification card from the said Clerk.
That is all this bill would do. The man comes in and says to the Clerk of Parliaments, "I am a lobbyist, pure and simple. I am here to promote, advocate or oppose something and I am hoping to influence"-as it says in the bill-"Senators and Members of the House of Commons. I want a card to do this." The Clerk of Parliaments gets out his pen and his little stack of lobbyist cards, writes on one of them the name of this gentleman, gives it to him and then he performs his lobbying.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: Yes, I would be delighted.


David Orlikow: The hon. member left out a small but very important fact upon which the lobbyist would have to agree when he asked for this card. That is, he would be saying in effect, "I not only want to promote such and such, but I am being paid to promote it." Is that not a fact, under the provisions of this bill?


Grant Deachman: I am not sure that is so, but I will look at the bill and see what it says.


David Orlikow: Why don't you read it before you talk?


Grant Deachman: It simply says that no person shall engage in lobbying-not lobbying

April 14, 1970
Lobbying Control Act
for hire. It says that lobbying means the practice of promoting or opposing the introduction or enactment of legislation, and that a lobbyist is a person who engages in lobbying. Nowhere does it say that a lobbyist has to be hired for what he does, or receive money. Perhaps my friend could show me in the bill where it says that a lobbyist has to receive money in order to qualify to see the Clerk of Parliaments and ask for this card. I do not think the hon. gentleman, who sits with the hon. member for Surrey to assist him, can point out in the bill now before us where it says a lobbyist must receive an indemnity for his work.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


David Orlikow: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is questioning what I said I would ask him to re-read clause 2, the interpretation clause, because I suggest it provides precisely what I said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that we are debating second reading of the bill. The practice, which has always been vigorously enforced by the Chair, at this stage is that we discuss the principle of the bill. I would not like to see this interesting discussion, which should be saved for the committee stage, pre-empted at this stage.


Grant Deachman: I am very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, that you have brought this point to mind, because I am about to pass on to a discussion of another aspect.


James Aloysius McGrath: There is nothing left to discuss.


Grant Deachman: This afternoon I went to the Parliamentary Library to look up some works on the subject of lobbying. It would astonish hon. members to know that there are in the Parliamentary Library about 40 books on the subject of lobbying. There is a shelf of these books as long as the arm of the hon. member for Surrey, and he is a tall fellow. Practically without exception all these books were written in the United States, because that is where lobbying has developed to a very high science, a much higher science than we find here. In the United States, particularly in respect of committees, there is very intense lobbying.
Here the procedure is much simpler than in the United States Congress. Lobbying in the United States has developed to a very fine art compared with lobbying in Canada or even in

Great Britain. One reason, of course, is that the United States is a large country with great riches and groups of people, companies and organizations are very interested in the influence they can bring to bear on legislation.
I brought into the House of Commons this afternoon a text entitled "Co-operative Lobbying-The Power of Pressure" by Donald R. Hall. This is a very recent book on the subject of lobbying in the United States. It is Very interesting to read a paragraph or two concerning what this man has to say about the practice in the United States. He says:
The lobbyist is both artist and scientist, a person of whom high standards are demanded. His education and income compare favourably with those of other white-collar professionals in America. The elite among lobbyists are public figures, socially acceptable in high places, often the confidants of Presidents and other high officials.
There is a little paragraph in which he tells about one of these individuals. I know it would be of interest to the House if I were to pinpoint exactly what he means when he refers to this type of person. I read from page 8 of the text:
The most "in" lobbyist in Washington these days is a highly social specimen. Tall, white-maned, mild-mannered Dale Miller is a genuine son-of-a-lobbyist whose father got Lyndon Johnson his first Washington job as secretary to a Congressman. He has been the President's friend for 30 years.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: I would be very glad to.


Barry Mather: As much as I like helping the hon. member talk out my proposal, I wonder whether he wants to put himself and his organization on record as holding back a proposal which is merely to send to committee a proposal in respect of identifying lobbyists.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any member of the House of Commons would want to hold back debate. At a time when I am taking part in a debate I am astonished that the hon. member would say I would withhold it. In fact, it is my desire only to see that we debate this subject as long as Your Honour will permit the debate to continue. I continue reading the quotation:
Miller has had it all: a bridge for which he secured $600,000 in federal funds has been named after him; his daughter works on the White House staff; his wife Scooter has replaced Perle Mesta as Washington's most adept hostess; the President tabbed him to be his inaugural chairman; and the Johnson daughters call him "Uncle Dale."
April 14. 1970

That shows the extent to which lobbyists go in their effort to influence legislators in Washington. I conclude by reading the following:
"I think", he says, "a person acquires influence in Washington through integrity and effort-not through contacts." Mr. Miller does not say, however, whether he believes in a flat earth and werewolves.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Grant Deachman: I do not want to come to the question for a moment; I believe there are speakers to follow me. I want to read something which I think hon. members will find extremely interesting because it shows the extent to which various associations in the United States are interrelated in the process of lobbying the government. The title of this chapter which appears at page 172 is "Methods of Intergroup Co-operation". It shows the extent to which various associations are allied in presenting their case to the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-196, respecting grain, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, ended at five o'clock to allow for private members' hour I was commenting on the remarks made previously by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) who was seriously concerned about a large number of our western wheat farmers who might find themselves in a low protein area if proposals in the bill are brought into effect. He had a very valid point
Canada Grain Act
and I would like an explanation from the minister as to how these farmers would be treated if they should be limited to the sale of wheat growing in those areas and were not able to conform to the level of proteins set forth in any of the new grading systems.
Any government decision to phase out wheat in certain areas for some mythical supply management theory would be repugnant to the average western farmer who has found little to be happy about in decisions supposedly reached on his behalf by those in authority at the federal level. Recent discoveries which show that protein content in grain can be successfully increased by the application of nitrogen at the proper time would indicate that farmers outside the Pal-liser triangle will be able to grow top-grade wheat under protein grading. Will these farmers be protected under the new block system? Any program, such as that under the Canada Grain Act, must be fair and equitable to all farmers, just as the initial Grain Act was. It was accepted by the producers as a boon to western agriculture when it was enacted. Let us hope now that the new act can achieve the same wide acceptance.
Has the government taken note of a resolution that was passed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at its annual meeting in 1969 in Quebec city which might have some bearing on the problem of income to the lower protein areas? I should like to quote as follows from one of the resolutions passed at that meeting, listed under section 8 and entitled "Grain production and grading":
(a)	Varieties
Whereas there is a potential market for nonbread wheat for human consumption as well as for livestock feeds; and
Whereas there is a need for higher yielding coarse grains;
Resolved that the Canadian plant breeding efforts be intensified toward achieving the objective of higher yielding varieties:
(a)	of grains within the present quality standards;
(b)	for higher yielding coarse grains;
(c)	for non-bread wheats for human use and livestock feed.
However that no such varieties be licensed unless such varieties are readily distinguishable from the high quality wheats presently licensed and have been adequately tested.
(b)	Grading
Whereas there seem to be far too many grades of grain in the Canadian system of grading (in the case of wheat there are over 200 grades); and
Whereas we believe that we could get along with a much smaller number of grades, thus relieving the storage problems in our elevators and terminals;

April 14. 1970
Canada Grain Act
Resolved that we request that the Board of Grain Commissioners review the present grading system with a view of reducing the number of grades.
This follows the line of some of the testimony we heard in the Standing Committee on Agriculture when we travelled across western Canada last year. At present I am in favour of a serious look being taken at our grading system, but let us not go overboard and think that it will be the complete answer.
I feel that the government has been very lax in the area of market research. This problem was emphasized a year ago last March at the conference of the Agricultural Congress when a report was tabled suggesting we were way behind some of our competitors in market research, that Canada should have a competent body which could advise farmers at least five years in advance what the consumer demand trends were likely to be for various agricultural products, and that we should govern ourselves accordingly. In other words, it is too late to close the door after the horse has been stolen. That, in effect, is what the government is now trying to do by way of a crash program.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The Agricultural Congress suggested that we might have to cut back some wheat acreage over a ten-year period, but no suggestion was made that a program should be carried out such as the present administration is trying to force on western farmers. Like other western members, 1 have never seen our agricultural industry in the state of chaos it is in today. Farmers are faced with highest machinery costs, highest land taxes, highest interest rates, and the highest cost of living in history, not to mention the lowest returns related to input costs.
Now we find that contrary to what the minister has stated, and to add insult to injury, our neighbouring American farmers in North Dakota and Montana are stepping-up their hard wheat acreage this year by as much as 10 per cent or 15 per cent, according to some reports emanating from across the line and coming into my riding which adjoins the U.S.A. in that area. It is no wonder that our farmers are confused with a program like Operation LIFT when they see U.S.A. farmers stepping-up their production of hard wheat, laughing at Canada behind our backs while we withdraw production and fiddle around with amendments to the Grain Act instead of doing something more positive.

This bill, in the course of the next two years, may assist us in a more or less superficial way to increase wheat sales in some of the world markets, but what the government ought to be doing now is injecting at least $150 million into the western farm economy on a straight acreage payment system, with no strings attached, to tide farmers over this emergency, especially in view of the fact that grain farmers will not receive any final Wheat Board payments this spring. The government owes our farmers this, in view of its partial responsibility for the collapse of the International Wheat Agreement at the Kennedy Round talks in Geneva and for the resulting loss of wheat sales and lower prices.
My next suggestion is that another $30 million or $40 million should be immediately placed at the disposal of XCAN to set up a sales force around the world, to carry out a function similar to that undertaken by sales firms like Dreyfus, Cargills and Bungys. These sales people should be placed in about 50 countries on a salary plus commission basis, and should be supported with far more flexible trading policies, in so far as wheat is concerned, than is now the case with the Wheat Board. I want to go on record as saying that I have always supported the Wheat Board and the system of orderly marketing, but the Wheat Board can be no more effective than the government policies which back it up.
My next suggestion, which I think may be the most important, is one that I have made previously. It is that our Prime Minister, his Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board should journey to Washington, and behind closed doors without benefit of press, radio or television discuss with President Nixon and Clifford Hardin, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the very sensitive area of price-cutting under the IGA. The U.S.A. and France have been the chief offenders in this regard, and it is high time it was impressed on them that they should carry out the agreement on pricing wheat under the IGA rules. This action would not only be doing a favour to Canadian farmers but to the farmers of Australia, Argentina, France and the United States as well. The floor and ceiling prices under the original IWA worked for 18 years and can easily be made to work again if united action is taken to make them work.
April 14. 1970

I do not think for a minute that consumers expect primary producers to subsidize them by producing basic food commodities at less than cost, and I am sure that Canada cannot compete in a price war with the United States, especially when the U.S.A. consumes about 85 per cent of its wheat production whereas in Canada the figures are just the opposite.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again emphasize that the mere changing of our grading system is no guarantee that we will automatically increase our sales of grain. I agree that we must be prepared to meet competition in highly competitive situations. If changing the act will make it easier for us to meet our customers needs, that is all to the good; but the fact still remains that the cash position of the western farmer will not improve appreciably until he can move his grain into commercial positions. Until then the farmer is going to find it increasingly difficult to finance his operations, or indeed to stay solvent under present conditions.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant to impose on the time of the House at this stage of the bill, but I believe that on occasion more time should be taken in an effort to attract the minister's attention to the problems faced by the western grain industry, because the government does not seem to be taking any effective steps to meet the problems that exist in western Canada, problems which have resulted in a real crisis in western agriculture.
The big problem is that grain is just not selling, and nobody on the government side seems to want to talk about sales. They want to talk about inventories; they want to talk about grading; they want to talk about several other really minor items, but they refuse to get down to the basic problem which is the selling of wheat. As long as that problem is ignored, none of these other government measures will be of any use. To a large extent the low sales have been caused by the total failure of the government to handle our grain properly, and in some instances to move grain that has already been sold. We have had examples of ships coming to Canada to load grain that had been sold, but they had to leave empty because they were unable to receive their cargoes, either through sloppy labour-management relations at the terminal elevators or because the government could not properly organize the box car situation and have the grain on hand when it was
Canada Grain Act
needed. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this has resulted in a severe crisis in western Canada.
As has already been pointed out by other speakers, farmers are now getting the lowest income from grain that they have experienced in a good many years. At the same time, as is evident from the DBS figures released today, their costs have certainly not declined in proportion to their income. We now find that the government, with all its great brain power, has been successful in coming up with only two rather piddling projects to solve this major problem. The first is Operation LIFT, which I believe has been correctly lettered. I believe the National Farmers Union, instead of calling this program "Low Inventories for Tomorow" is calling it "Lower Income for Tomorrow." I think that is the proper appellation to give it because it will certainly not result in any increase in the farmers' prosperity.
In my view we are experiencing today a completely medieval approach to agricultural problems. That is what they used to do back in the Middle Ages in an effort to control the prosperity of people in Europe: they used to withhold production in order to keep prices up. Surely that is no way to approach agricultural problems today, or any of the other problems of the country. Canada needs production; it does not need restraint on production-but this is what the government has been doing with Operation LIFT. This program will not result in any injection of cash into the western farmers' pocket. In order to obtain money under it he has to do some summerfallowing; he has to pay the labour and other expenses involved in that and he also has to pay his land taxes. How will this program put extra purchasing power into his pocket?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I suggest that if the government was sincere about assisting the western farm economy- and I suggest they have not been sincere- they would have used the $140 million which they said they were going to inject into it, to subsidize the export of our grain. In this way we might have recovered some of the markets lost through their gross inefficiency in the handling of the agricultural affairs of this country. At one time we had 40 per cent of the world export market of grain, but it has now shrunk to 17 per cent or 18 per cent through the carelessness of this administration. One of the most effective ways to recoup our loss would be to use this money to subsidize exports.

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
The government could also have made some useful changes in the quota system of grain had they been really interested in lowering the production of wheat. As the quota arrangement now exists there is a positive incentive for farmers to grow wheat. At its initial price, a bushel of wheat is worth between $1.20 and $1.25, whereas a bushel of barley for example is worth only 60 cents, yet a bushel of barley uses up the one-bushel an acre quota of the quota book the same as a bushel of wheat. The government could demonstrate its interest in wheat reduction by rewriting the quota regulations to allow farmers to grow whatever is most efficient. Certain areas of the country can grow barley much more efficiently than wheat, but the farmers are forced by government regulation to grow wheat in order to maximize the income from their land. Therefore, to a large extent we have the government artificially stimulating the production of wheat whilst at the same time trying to reduce it through the ridiculously stupid operation called LIFT. The government could do this without legislation such as Bill C-196. This is but another arm of their weapon against the farm program and against farmers in general.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will not achieve much in solving the problems of the farmer. It was heralded as a means of obtaining protein grading, but I suggest we do not need a bill the size of this one to achieve that, and I question whether it is a significant step forward in the marketing of our grain. The same result could surely be obtained by an amendment to the present legislation, the excellence of which is proven by the fact that it has remained virtually unchanged since 1930. However, it appears that the government is taking advantage of the problems created in large part by itself in order to justify the introduction of legislation such as Bill C-196.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this bill will go a long way toward regimenting the western farm economy. Apart from removing the control for grading of grain from this chamber to the cabinet, the bill will give the government power to licence all forms of grain handlers including truckers, railroad companies, grain elevators and feed mills. I suggest that this type of legislation is totally unnecessary and is laying the groundwork for another incursion by the government into the day-to-day affairs of its citizens. This. Mr. Speaker, is what this government seems to do at every opportunity.
I do not see any reason why the regulatory body to be established by this legislation

should be required to issue a licence to a farmer who wants to transport his grain from one province to another for the purpose of processing, when he intends to haul it back for use on his farm. As I read the bill, that power will be given to this regulatory agency.
I think that all we are doing here is expanding a bureaucracy which has already grown beyond acceptable limits. Surely the Canadian Wheat Board as presently constituted is greatly overstaffed, and savings and efficiencies could be effected there. It should look after the marketing of wheat and not be concerned with the other grains such as barley, oats, flax, rapeseed and others.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, this bill reveals the government's lack of faith in the market economy. The government does not believe that people are capable of looking after their own affairs and can plan and conduct their activities for their own advantage. The bill lays the groundwork for another large, government bureaucracy and I think this House and Canadians at large will regret the day it delegates more authority to the executive in this regard. When considering this measure the committee should be very careful not to allow these tendencies to go any further.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, during the last 12 years, any time the subject of agriculture has come before the House I have argued in favour of protecting the small family farm. With the large international grain market in the past I have felt, perhaps with some justification, that the large farm was in quite a good position. However, with the collapse of the world wheat agreement the whole agricultural structure of western Canada has come down in ruins. I can no longer attack this problem, therefore, from the narrow concept of giving a guaranteed income to the family farm.
I do not think this bill will get to the root of our problem though, in fairness, perhaps it is not so designed. The problem in western Canada is the collapse of international markets. The attempt to produce high quality grains may be a partial answer, and I compliment the government in this regard, but the problem is much bigger than that. I do not apologize for enlarging the thought, because this is our only opportunity to give the government the benefit of the experience of most of us from western Canada. Most of us have been raised on the farm. We have been at one time or another actively engaged in agriculture and we have had to think about it a
April 14, 1970

great deal. We have spent lots of time riding the plough or working on the farm.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Agriculture is a way of life farming people do not want to give up. They are willing to co-operate and accept leadership of the proper kind. They are willing to take risks along with any other industry of the world, and they have done so. They have become efficient. They were told they had only to become bigger and everything would go well. These are not partisan remarks at all, because all governments so far have gone along with this policy. Farmers over the years have been encouraged to take out large loans and become bigger and more efficient. We have become efficient and now we have a large production; I will not say overproduction because I think people farming the grain fields of western Canada have a duty to perform, that of feeding a hungry world.
The problem is not just one of satisfying grain farmers and their concern for their farms. The question is, are we as a nation and is the government as a government doing everything possible to eliminate not only the grain farmer's problem but a very serious world food problem by encouraging the production of the very best, hard, red spring wheat with which this bill is intimately tied up and which can be used in eliminating hunger?
I think we have to look a little beyond this bill. We have to look at an idea which is not new; it was trotted out ten years ago and has to do with a world food bank. If we are to have a world food bank we must have storage facilities. I cannot think of a better place than Canada to store grain that is to be distributed on a worldwide basis. Mr. Speaker-I say this knowing the minister is listening-I think we should improve our grain storage facilities far beyond what they are today, especially if we look ten years ahead and pay attention to stories of the horrors of the growth in world population.
Ten years from now, instead of telling farmers to curb production we may be looking desperately for open fields and sunny places on the surface of the earth where we can grow good, hard, red spring wheat in order to feed the hungry peoples of the world who will have increased by 1.5 billion or 2 billion. They will need more food. So any long-term policy we have should look not only at immediate profits for western farmers but should examine this whole problem from
Canada Grain Act
the point of view of a world citizen. I do not think it would be idle dreaming to say that perhaps defence money could be spent, and sensibly spent, in developing a world food bank. Incidentally, a world food bank should not be concerned only with wheat; it should be concerned with pork products, fish and all other foods. Anything connected with food for humans should be integrated into a world food policy. Because this concept is relatively new and has never been tried on a global scale is no reason why Canadians should not be foremost in its development.
We cannot afford the moon race, we may not be able to afford an armaments race any more, but we can certainly make a great effort to fill the empty pantries of the world. This might be, as the world population explodes, the greatest contribution we can make and will be far better than any pious talk at the United Nations. Speaking under the shelter of the eagle's wing, we mumble about place in the world. We cannot do anything about it anyway, but we can do something about feeding people. So I think we should take a very serious view of establishing a world food bank.
This is not to say we should do less with regard to the project now being considered. I think it does not go far enough. 1 think a great deal more research must be done to determine exactly what kind of grain we should produce in future. But I am entirely opposed to the idea that we should put land back to fallow as long as there are so many hungry people in the world. I do not think it is beyond the imagination or organizing ability of the Canadian people to find a solution to both these problems at the same time. I do not think enough research has gone into our export needs.
Let us not consider our wheat only from the point of view of its high protein content or milling quality. Let us take an imaginative view of it in relation to the control of pollution. I understand, and I stand to be corrected, that if we produced a fuel for automobiles which contained 50 per cent grain alcohol, we could reduce air pollution in our cities by 75 per cent. There is an answer to the wheat surplus. No commodity is more efficiently utilized in the production of grain alcohol than wheat. It does not necessarily have to be high protein wheat. We have experience in western Canada in the production of this commodity. We might produce it on a commercial scale and surprise people. To add a little levity to my speech, in case people think

April 14. 1970
Canada Grain Act
I am being too serious, let me say that we have in Canadian industries some experience in using alcohol in this regard.
I am quite sure that grain alcohol can be produced as cheaply, if not more cheaply than gasoline. If the gasoline we are using, which is polluting our atmosphere, could be diluted with good grain alcohol, if in North America the fuel for internal combustion engines were to consist of 50 per cent grain alcohol, North America would be able to utilize the total wheat production of Canada. That is why I say this bill does not go far enough and is not as imaginative as it might be.
I mentioned storage facilities. They are important because, provided we can recover the markets we have lost and enlarge present markets along the lines I have suggested, these facilities are necessary in order to move our grain efficiently to the markets of the world. Another thing which leaps to my mind is this: we should develop more efficiency in transporting grain from the farm to storage facilities and from storage facilities, wherever they may be, to tidewater.
With unemployment rising rapidly-in this regard I disagree within the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), because I do not think unemployment in itself has any virtue-I think we would do well if we put thousands of people to work building up-to-date, modern and ultramodern facilities in transportation and in storage. In this way we would be able to compete with sellers of grain whether or not it was high protein. Of course, in most cases the storage facilities would be the same whether the grain was high or low in protein.
There is a crisis in agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I am not speaking so much about the crisis in other branches of agriculture; I am speaking primarily of the grain industry. I do not do this with any shame because that industry, so far as western Canada is concerned, is the key to the whole agricultural economy. Our farmers cannot stay in business if inflation continues to rise at the rate of 5 per cent per year. At present there is no solution for this. This is what I heard today over the radio, and I see no reason to doubt it. The farmer is not receiving, nor is he hoping for a 5 per cent increase in his selling price. There is only one way he can hope to remain in business, and that is by cutting down his overhead.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
During the past week I received several long-distance telephone calls from irate and desperate farmers concerning the loans which

we thrust upon them a few years ago. From time to time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and I have had verbal exchanges in the House. The minister was very keen to boast about the hundreds of millions of dollars loaned at very reasonable rates of interest in order to assist our farmers. These farmers begged me to do what I could-and goodness knows how little that is-to at least maintain the rate of interest at which they borrowed this money. In a great many cases they have no income whatsoever, yet the interest rate on government guaranteed loans is being increased by the banks from 3J per cent to 7 per cent more than the original rate. No such boasts were made in this House, on the hustings or in the Department of Agriculture generally when the farmers were encouraged to take advantage of farm loans and participate in our growing agricultural industry. These farmers now face a situation of no markets and an increasing interest rate on loans. They are desperate and have asked me to do something about it. What can I do but appeal to this House, through Your Honour, and ask that something be done? These farmers believe we can do something. They believe we have the right to set interest rates because of the change in the ceiling of interest rates a year or so ago.
At that time the public was informed that if we removed the ceiling on interest rates, money would flow freely into the proper channels and people who needed loans would be able to borrow at a reasonable interest rate. Money was being loaned at exorbitant interest rates by the loan sharks. I am receiving long-distance telephone calls from farmers complaining that the government is not renewing their loans at the original 5 per cent or 6 per cent rate of interest; the banks are now demanding 8J per cent to 12 per cent interest. In some cases, because they are in financial straits, farmers must obtain permission from the minister to renew their loan so that the banks will not foreclose. Farmers who have some security in mixed farming are being forced to sell their cattle because they cannot sell their grain. This is necessary to pay off the loans which were obtained only a few months ago when the government was boasting about the hundreds of millions of dollars available to the people of Canada. The farmers were told that they never had it so good. Apart from droughts and acts of God, the farmers never had it so bad!
Farmers were encouraged to become larger in operation and more efficient. They were urged to purchase the farms of inefficient
April 14, 1970

neighbours, to plow the land more efficiently and to use fertilizers, which were bought with cash. It is not necessary to be Jeremiah to see that these people are now starving in the midst of plenty. They owe "x" number of dollars, no money is being earned and the banks are asking to be paid. These people are becoming alarmed.
Are we to assume that the financial institutions of Canada have more influence on this House than farmers who are in these terrible straits? Parliament encouraged these people to get into this unenviable position. Some of these farmers had a small quarter-section of land; the mother and the children helped with the chores. They were encouraged to become more efficient and to grow more bushels per acre of better quality grain. They were told that this benevolent government would see to it that everything would be fine.
For 12 years I have been begging the government to obtain markets. The government has become deeply embroiled in the agricultural industry and is now telling farmers how to run their business, even though they know a great deal more about it than the government. I suggest it is time for the government to pick up the tab. Anyone can make sales when you have unlimited markets. It is possible to make money selling hot-dogs to a large crowd of fairgoers on a sunny day. However, the storm clouds of competition are now upon us. World markets are no longer forced to rely upon us; they have become very competitive.
It is necessary to streamline our policies. We must do more than produce high quality grain. We must do a great deal more than simply amend the regulations which state how the grain shall qualify for market. We need salesmen. These salesmen should be in a position to sell good quality wheat at reasonable, world prices. It must be worth while for our farmers to produce grain. If the world wheat agreement has broken down, we are a free agent and can no longer rely on that agreement. We must determine whether Canada will again participate in a world wheat agreement. If the old agreement is out of date, I suggest there should be a new one along the lines I have mentioned. It should be based on the need to fill hungry stomachs. Canada can pioneer in this field. This can be compared with defence: it is better to spend a billion dollars a year to feed hungry people than manufacture useless weapons of war, nerve gases and all the other things necessary
Canada Grain Act
for the game of war. This game is tied up with the subsidizing of privately-owned factories producing weapons of war.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Any institution that is conducive to poverty in this country is a menace. In this regard I think a great deal more homework must be done. From the short-term point of view I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he convene a national conference of farmers to decide just where the farmers are going in agriculture today, what should be our long-term policy, what should be our world policy in agriculture, what our national policy is going to be, our provincial policy, and what the farmers themselves are going to do about all this. Any negative policy that asks farmers not to be farmers will not work. A policy must be devised, even at the eleventh hour, that will show the farmers how they fit into their job of producing food for people. If we are sincere, I think problems of price, storage, transportation and grading will fall into their proper place.
I firmly believe that there is and always will be a great future for agriculture. I believe that the efficient farmer is the man who loves his job and his land the farmer who is more interested in his way of life than in so-called dollar efficiency; the farmer who finds farming the most satisfying way to earn his daily bread. I suggest any government policy that tells farmers to leave their land fallow is inadequate even in the short-term, and certainly over the long-term. It is not only against humanity but against nature. When policies are inhuman and do not take into account human values, when your policies try to put dollar efficiency ahead of enriching individual human life, such policies are doomed to failure. If your policies put human values first along with quality of life, I think you will find that those little problems of financing and marketing, efficiency and distribution, storage and so on will find their rightful place.
Having observed the evolution of agricultural policies over the past 12 years, I have come to the conclusion that we have been on the wrong track. More and more we have had government interference, the taking over of land by the state and the adoption of an inhuman, unrealistic approach to farming. You cannot conduct a farming operation in any country unless you have the man on the soil. I know of no way to force a man to be a good farmer. Farming is a way of life. It is

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
man's oldest profession and is one of man's noblest professions. When a heartless state takes over the responsibility of telling farmers what they will grow, how they will grow it and where they will sell what they grow, farming becomes no longer a profession but just another form of slavery. Under such circumstances farming is not worth the long hours that are required. It is not worth facing the weather and taking a gamble, pitting yourself against nature and your intelligence against the elements, endeavouring through good times and bad to produce the best and the cheapest food.
I suggest we have not given enough thought to the future of farming. We have given too much thought to making the farmers farm our way. This approach does not work. If you lend a farmer money, if you force him to borrow money, I think you have the duty to see that he is able to repay that loan. If you ask him to be efficient, do not criticize him when he becomes efficient. We have asked our farmers to expand their operations, and they have expanded. All the farmers ask now is that the government, which already has interfered too much in their way of life, present them with a reasonable program to protect the financial position in which they find themselves.
I suggest that the government should keep faith with the farmers and let them repay the money lent to them at the original interest rate of the loan. Secondly, our agricultural policy in all phases should reflect positive rather than negative thinking. We must find some way of making the land productive and able to pay its way. The suggestion of putting certain Wheatland which perhaps should never have been plowed back into grass is sound, but even this must be done carefully. The price of grass seed today on the Prairies has skyrocketed. Even if the farmer wanted to return his land to grass and take advantage of what I think was a well-meant program, this is almost beyond his financial grasp. If a farmer already owes money, by the time he has bought grass seed at exorbitant prices he will owe a lot more. In most cases it just cannot be done.
The government is making an effort to pump money back into the Prairies. This is the reason no member from the Prairies has stood up and said that he wants nothing to do with this program. I think all western members are hopeful that there will be some positive help given by the passage of this bill. Certainly I think improvement in grading of

grain will assist. I also think we should give the farmers an incentive of some kind to produce the high quality grain that will sell on the limited market that we have. In addition to this I beg the minister to take a much broader and imaginative look, I might even say a daring look, at our agricultural policies, and to turn back the pages of time and adopt a natural attitude to farming, a natural trust of individual farmers, their old-fashioned thrift and their self-sufficiency.
When offering the farmers a loan, I would say that the best advice of all is to tell them not to take it unless they need it very badly. But if in its kindness the government does make a loan available to the farmers, I hope they will keep their good faith and allow the farmers to repay it at the same interest rate as the original loan, particularly in times like these when they find it very hard to exist and to keep their families on the land they love.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-196 is another move by the government to try to do something about a problem which is becoming difficult. As I see it, this is an attempt to regulate the handling of grain, the movement of grain and the juggling around and trying to regulate in some way the grading of grain. Having looked at this bill, I think it would be very fair to say that it really is not aimed in the direction in which our agricultural problems lie. This bill misses the boat. The real problem relates to the loss of our markets in the world. Markets for wheat have been dropping continuously ever since the Liberals took power, not too long ago. A few years ago Canada possessed about 33 per cent of the world wheat market. That position has now slipped to approximately 17 per cent.
At the present time there is a surplus of wheat in the world of 2 billion bushels or a little more. We also know that half or more of this surplus exists in our own country; half of that world surplus is in Canada. If we look a little further into the problem to determine who are the wheat producers of the world, we find that Canada produces only about 5 per cent of the world's wheat. What does this reflect-this loss of sales from 33 per cent to 17 per cent, with half the world's wheat surplus in a country that produces only 5 per cent of the world's wheat? The situation is getting progressively worse day by day, yet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) sits back reading a newspaper while a speech on this very important topic is being made.
April 14. 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: This indicates that the minister may not think the problem is as serious as it really is. Part of his suggestion is to change the grading of wheat from the old system to a protein grading system. Nowhere in the bill does it say how he is going to do this, who is going to do it or where the physical facilities needed for this type of grading are located. What is the use of passing a bill that cannot be implemented? What is the use of introducing a grading system for which no physical facilities exist at the present time? I see this as just another snow job or smokescreen to cover inactivity. It gives people something to talk about but does not offer any real, concrete solution to the problem we face.
In the past five or six years in my own area half of the farmers have quit farming. They have quit because the economy of the farm has become more and more difficult. The farmers' income has been dropping continuously at an accelerated rate, particularly since 1962. Farmers are leaving the farms at the rate of about 10 per cent a year. If we carry this to its logical conclusion, how many farmers will we have five or six years from now? We must remember that we are losing 10 per cent per year and we have lost 5 per cent to 10 per cent per year in the last five years. Even more farmers are being uprooted from their homes. They are leaving the farms to go to the cities, or moving to towns.
These people have spent years working the soil and trying to eke out an honest living. Their reward in this country is a move to town at age 55 to try to get a job as a janitor sweeping somebody's floors, so they can make a living until they reach the age at which they can draw the old age pension. That is not a very colourful picture, but it is what we have in this country today. I hope the Minister of Agriculture, who is a farmer, does no face that prospect when he reaches age 55, assuming he is not 55 now.
What are the reasons for this difficult situation? I think they are very obvious. In the past 20 years the price of farm produce has remained the same or has dropped. The price of wheat, for example, is lower now than it was in 1950. The price of beef and hogs is about the same, or maybe a little less at times: it does fluctuate, but for all intents and purposes we can say it is about the same. Let us compare the price of farm machinery in the same period. What is the price of a trac-22218-25
Canada Grain Act
tor today as compared with the price in 1950? The price of a tractor has more than doubled.
We have a situation in which gross income has stayed about the same. The price of produce has not increased; it has remained roughly the same or has decreased a little. On the other hand, overheads, farm expenses, the cost of machinery and labour have more than doubled. Nothing at all has been done about this situation. There has been a lot of publicity and talk about the Barber commission which studied the price of farm machinery and equipment safety. About six months ago that commission came out with a report on farm safety. At that time I stood in the House of Commons and asked the minister whether he was going to take any action. He simply stood up and said no, he was not. He lived up to that answer; he did not take any action. We waited another six or eight months and-


An hon. Member:: That is one of the promises he kept.


Paul Yewchuk: It is one of the promises he kept.


Thomas Miller Bell: He promised nothing, and he did nothing. He is an honest man.


Paul Yewchuk: The official report of the Barber commission came out about two or three months ago. At that time the Minister of Agriculture was a little more optimistic. He said he thought the report was pretty good and he was going to do something about it. I have quit holding my breath because I have not seen any activity in that direction and there does not seem to be any evidence that he is in fact doing anything at all to lower the price of farm machinery.
That commission report contained substantial suggestions in respect of farm machinery prices. I have not seen any action toward the implementation of those recommendations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are talking about the Canada Grain Act, or at least I thought that was what the bill was about.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is all related.


Paul Yewchuk: These matters are extremely important and they are very closely related to the bill we are discussing. I want to make a few comments about the LIFT program, which stands for "Lower Income For Tomorrow" for farmers. What the minister and his colleague from Saskatoon are doing is asking the farmer to give up one year of his income. I wonder what other group in this country

April 14, 1970
Canada Grain Act
would tolerate that. What other group of people would sit back and accept the government's suggestion that they quit work this year and take a holiday without pay. This business about $6 per acre for working the land is a big hoax: in most cases it will not cover the cost involved in summerfallow.
The publicity given to the LIFT program and giving the farmer a holiday with pay is a big laugh. The government, is just asking the farmer to give up a year's salary. They disregard the fact that almost every farmer has tremendous debts and that they have been getting progressively deeper and deeper into debt during the past several years. Their income has progressively decreased. We are now asking them to completely give up their income for a year. The government is not making any suggestion as to how farmers will meet their payments to the banks and the farm machinery companies, or in respect of farm improvement loans or, for that matter, to the grocer. I know of some farmers in Alberta who do not even have access to credit at the grocery store any longer because they are so deeply in debt. Their prospects are extremely grim.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
If the government is truly concerned about trying to do something in respect of the agricultural problem, from the point of view of solving the wheat surplus and at the same time assisting all the farmers, I think it could come up with something a lot more original than simply asking the farmers to stop growing wheat. If it cannot come up with something original, it could look back at the situation in the years when the Conservatives were in power. It could learn something from that. When agricultural conditions were difficult at that time, they gave the farmers an acreage payment. When the crops were snowed under, they gave them a snowed under bonus. Every farmer who has been in the west for some time would say that the Conservative years were good years for them. It is a well-known fact that Liberal years have not been good years.


An hon. Member:: Lean years.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, Liberal years are lean years; that is a good slogan. If the government truly wants to spend the $140 million it indicates it has available, I think it should try to help the farmer in a better way. One way would be to provide an acreage payment. They could use a few dollars as an acreage payment, but I think more importantly the

government should re-establish Canada's position on the world market. We should increase our sales rather than stop producing. This is a simple solution. It just requires a little action. But for some reason the government seems to ignore this very simple suggestion.
There are several ways in which new markets could be gained. One would be to subsidize the price of wheat. This would allow us to recapture a good deal of the world market in which Canada has been undersold by other countries. We could use some of the LIFT money to do this. We could try to get back the 33 per cent of the wheat market we had during the Conservative years. We might also try to advertise a little. We should set up a marketing agency concerned solely with the marketing of Canadian wheat.
I think these suggestions would prove to be very useful if the government attempted to implement them. I have been a member of the House for only two years, but that short period of time is long enough for me to notice that the Liberal government bounces from crisis to crisis. It does not seem to be able to look at a problem and predict that it may become worse. The government does not seem to recognize the seriousness of a problem in time to bring in a policy to prevent a crisis occurring. The Minister of Agriculture and the government just will not do that.
I think the Minister of Agriculture knows the problem pertaining to farming. Being a farmer himself, he should know the problem. But I wonder why he does not do something useful in an attempt to solve it. When he was appointed Minister of Agriculture as his just reward for joining the party in power, we thought maybe this would be pretty good. We thought here is a man, a farmer himself and an Albertan, who is very familiar with the western agricultural problem and we were looking forward to a good deal of relief for western farmers.
I am sorry to say that not only I but all the farmers I know, and many whom I do not know, have been extremely disappointed because in spite of the fact that the agricultural minister is familiar with the farming problem, he repeatedly refuses to develop long-term and intermediate policies which would pull the farmer out of the terrible mire in which he now wades. Let us, for example, briefly summarize what the minister has done in the past few years to help the farmer improve his income situation and his standard of living. The first thing was to increase the
April 14, 1970

interest rate on farm credit loans. I think the Minister of Agriculture thought this was a good thing for the farmers, but I am not sure it was. Another thing he did was increase the amount a farmer could borrow. Perhaps that is all right in some respects, but all it really did was get the farmer deeper in debt. The ability to borrow more money by itself is of no value unless the ability to repay the debt is also developed. This is the most important thing.
To date the Minister of Agriculture has done absolutely nothing to increase the ability of the farmer to repay his loan. That is why I repeat the old slogan that the Liberal years are bad years. What we need in this country is a return to a Conservative government. I do not say that with partisan feeling, but because I feel it would be good for agriculture in the west and in the east.
If I might return for a moment to the LIFT program, recently I conducted a survey among farmers who are friends of mine, in a fairly large area of northern Alberta. It is very obvious that the LIFT program is a sham. It will not help many farmers in the area I surveyed. As a matter of fact, in a radius of 50 miles not one farmer said that he would benefit from this program. So it is just another snow job on the public. It is another cover up for the inactivity of the government and its inability to sell wheat, as well as its general inability to cope with an agricultural problem which progressively has become worse over the past few years.
I think the Minister of Agriculture should be able to do a little better than he has. I know he is intelligent. As I said, he is a farmer himself and I think he knows the problem. He is the minister responsible, and therefore I ask why he repeatedly lets us down and sits idly by as the agricultural industry day by day slips slowly down the drain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, before the minister closes the debate I should like to ask a question. This question may have been asked before, and if so I apologize. I understand that under the former act the Auditor General was the auditor for the Canadian Grain Commission. In Bill C-196 I do not see any indication that the Auditor General is to be auditor in so far as the Grain Commission is concerned. Perhaps the minister would answer this question.
22218-25 i
Canada Grain Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am bound under our Standing Orders to point out to the House that if the minister speaks now he closes the debate.
[DOT] (9:20 p.ra.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, of course the Auditor General does in fact, under the statutes setting up the office and the Financial Administration Act, have the authority to audit the books and accounts of what is now the Board of Grain Commissioners. Whether or not it is specifically stated in each act does not negate the provisions of the Financial Administration Act. So of course the Auditor General will have an interest in public expenditures amounting to slightly over $10 million by the Board of Grain Commissioners as it now exists and which will be called the Canadian Grain Commission when this bill has passed all stages and becomes an act.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I take it from what the minister said that there is to be no change from the previous arrangements?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. In so far as a number of other questions that have been asked are concerned, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate if I were to meet the members of this House in the standing committee where we would have an opportunity to examine Bill C-196 clause by clause. I will be able to reply to a number of questions that have been raised when we reach those clauses.
It is perhaps unfortunate that a great deal of the debate has centred around subjects that in my view at least are really not related to the Canada Grain Act. Notwithstanding my views on that, I want to say that I do not intend to violate the rules of Parliament by dealing with them when this bill is before the House. However, there were a number of questions raised with respect to the new grading schedule that will be attached to this act and amended from time to time by the Governor in Council. This, of coruse, will be dealt with when we get to the particular clause in the act that deals with grading.
While it does not at this point in time spell out in detail how the grading schedule will be devised, it certainly asks Parliament for the authority for the Governor in Council to amend this grading schedule from time to time. We have more than one example of what the schedule of grades will be, and indeed attached to this act now is an example
April 14, 1970
5868	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill of what it will be. But, of course, as hon. members have pointed out, there is provision in this act for it to be amended from time to time, particularly for the purpose of making changes that will take into account the changing requirements of our customers. I would be prepared to deal with that matter in greater detail when we are before the standing committee.
A number of other questions were raised, but in my view it would be more appropriate for us to deal with them when we are specifically dealing with certain sections of the act that are applicable to those questions.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-197, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-197 is a very important and new departure in federal legislation. I intend to deal more specifically with the objectives of this act and indeed some of the specific provisions in the act within the next few minutes. However, I would like to set the preamble to that discussion by making the comment that the situation we have respecting the marketing of foreign products in Canada, in my view at least, makes it at least desirable if not essential that we have enabling legislation on the statute books, that is, authority from Parliament for the government to respond from time to time to the requests of a substantial majority of producers in this field.
The farming industry of Canada is made up of over 400,000 individual farmers all of whom are making decisions, in many cases independently of one another. Over the years governments have considered it essential to provide the legislative framework which would make it possible for farmers to work
IMr. Olson.]

together in solving some of their problems. This is particularly important with respect to farmers' efforts in marketing the products of the farm in today's highly organized economy.
I think it is important that we place our agricultural industry in a position to improve our marketing systems. Rapid improvements in production methods and capability, combined with increasing complexity and diversity of the markets for farm products, underline the importance of expanding and improving our efforts in the field of marketing.
There are serious problems in the agricultural industry associated with fluctuations in farm income mainly due to instability of product prices. There are undoubtedly opportunities to expand markets. Hon. members referred to this from time to time in the course of the debate just ended. There are opportunities, I suggest, to improve the efficiency of our marketing systems. There are wide fluctuations in the supply of products which are available for marketing. Producers are investing more and more money and know-how in production facilities and production programs. Therefore I think it is important that we provide for some form of national co-ordination of these marketing programs.
I think it would be appropriate for me to give some historical background. For example, the federal government introduced fairly broad marketing legislation in the early 1930s. This legislation was later ruled by the courts to be ultra vires or outside federal jurisdiction. Since then provincial governments have implemented marketing legislation which has enabled producers to organize a number of provincial marketing boards, agencies and commissions-several other names have been attached to these-under the authority of the provincial marketing legislation.
About half of Canada's farm products today are marketed under the aegis of some type of provincial or federal marketing agency. But the provinces and the producers generally have been frustrated in their attempts to do an effective job of the orderly marketing of farm products, that is, working through individual, provincially organized marketing bodies, and the need for national legislation of the type which we have set before you has become evident.
April 14, 1970

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I will refer to this a little later, but over the last two years there has been a series of meetings which I attended-and indeed there were meetings before that-where provincial ministers met with the federal minister and the Department of Agriculture with a view to putting some co-ordinating measure in place at the national level which would allow these provincial boards, and additional marketing structures for other commodities, to be more effective in achieving the desired result, which is a uniform price structure and stability for producers.
In the past provision was made through specific legislation for marketing agencies under the jurisdiction of the federal government. An outstanding example of this is the Canadian Wheat Board. But we have concluded that there is now need for legislative authority which places the federal government in a position to design structures and orderly marketing programs to deal with specific but greatly varying circumstances related to different farm commodities.
The constitution provides the federal government with authority for the general overseeing of the marketing of farm products in interprovincial and international trade, and the provinces with authority over marketing of farm products within a province. National structures must therefore relate closely to the provinces and to the provincial marketing boards where they exist. In a sense, therefore, Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides for a bridging of the jurisdiction in this very important area. The provinces, for example, may delegate responsibility over intraprovincial marketing to agencies established under this legislation. The complexity of this jurisdictional question, the varying circumstances associated with different products and the need for taking action promptly when it is appropriate to do so all underline the importance of the Governor in Council having authority to proceed under the mandate which this legislation will provide.
The legislation also provides for the establishment of a National Farm Products Marketing Council. This council will be a very important body. Operating under this legislation it will provide guidance and advice in the first instance as to whether or not a scheme should be considered. It will basically determine the nature of schemes which are to * be considered under this legislation and will carry the responsibility for continuing scruti-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill ny and guidance of agencies which are established under the legislation.
The council will also have the responsibility of maintaining very close liaison with provincial marketing councils and with provincial governments generally. It will have among its functions the promotion of improvement of marketing of farm products in Canada. The legislation vests with the council the responsibility to assure that the policies of agencies which are carried out are such as to maintain and promote an efficient and competitive agricultural industry. It is also their responsibility to have in mind not only the interests of the producers but also of the consumers and others who are interested in the farm product which is being marketed.
The council will hold public hearings before recommending any plans. This is in order to assure that all interested parties have an opportunity to study and to consider proposed marketing plans and to make their views known with regard to them. I do not * see the formation of national marketing agencies as a panacea for all our problems but, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand this legislation does mark real progress in placing us in a position to respond to requests for specific marketing schemes that are designed to provide improvements through national agencies for specific commodities.
As said a few moments ago, the objective of this legislation is to provide for more effective marketing of farm products by placing the federal government in a position to respond to and to create national marketing agencies for specific commodities as the need arises. For example, this bill will provide for the establishment by the Governor in Council of a National Farm Products Marketing Council, which will provide advice with respect to the establishment of and supervision over the operation of specific commodity agencies established under this bill. The bill will also provide for the establishment by the Governor in Council of national marketing agencies authorized to administer an approved marketing plan related to a designated farm product or farm products.
Due to the nature of the organization of the farming industry, with a great many producers making individual decisions, it has been accepted that the producers should have the opportunity to organize for more orderly marketing of their products. To a large degree the provinces have proceeded to implement farm products marketing legislation providing for the establishment of producer
April 14, 1970
5870	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
marketing boards, and more recently for other types of farm product marketing agencies as well. As a matter of fact, there are now approximately 120 provincial or sub-provincial marketing agencies in operation across Canada.
It has become evident to producers that there is a further need for a national approach to such marketing schemes, at least for some of the commodities, because of the limited effectiveness of segmented and uncoordinated provincial schemes. In addition, there is good reason to provide for national leadership in this area having regard for the interests of the economy and the efficient use of resources devoted to agriculture in the various regions of Canada. Without legislation such as this, producer groups and provinces could place the onus for lack of co-ordinated action in the marketing field on the federal government, and indeed they have done so.
As I said, over the last 24 months we had a number of meetings with them dealing with this matter. As I have also said, the bill provides the Governor in Council with the authority to establish agencies which would exercise some or all of the federal powers over the marketing of a named farm commodity within a region or within all of Canada. The Governor in Council could approve a specific marketing plan and appoint an agency which would be authorized to administer the plan. The bill thus provides for the design of specific marketing schemes tailored to the requirements and the peculiarities or particular commodities, and such schemes of course could be approved individually by the Governor in Council.
On the one hand, the agencies established under this bill could be granted very limited powers as necessary to achieve a minimum co-ordination, or promotional function. On the other hand, a range of powers could be granted as appropriate to carrying out a more comprehensive marketing function, including such things as selling, pricing, assembling, packing, processing, transporting and the storing of designated products involved in interprovincial and export trade.
The marketing agencies established by the Governor in Council would be in the position, on the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture, to receive a delegation of powers from provinces in order that the agencies would be a in position to exercise provincial as well as federal authority over the marketing of a designated farm product or products. The federal government generally has juris-
diction over the interprovincial and export movement of products, and the provinces over the marketing of products within a province.
The bill also provides for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a National Farm Products Marketing Council. This council will have considerable responsibility with respect to the design, review and the overseeing of the operation of marketing plans and of marketing agencies established under this legislation. Considerable emphasis is placed in the bill on the maintenance and expansion of an economic and competitive farming industry, and on a dependable supply of high quality products to the consumer. The council is vested with the prime responsibility for determining that such plans are in the interests of the agricultural industry and have regard for other sectors of the economy, including the consumer.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I should like to advise hon. members that there have been extensive discussions with a member of producer organizations, particularly the poultry producers, who are most anxious that the government establish a structure that will enable them to set up a national marketing agency. It has been decided to proceed with general legislation rather than with specific commodity legislation, and the nature of this bill and the support for it has been indicated by producers during these meetings.
In addition, the matter has been discussed with other more general farm organizations and groups of farmers and other interested persons. The indication is that there is a general support, and in some cases very strong support for this type of legislation rather than some of the other objectives that would be open to us. I want to repeat that the matter has been discussed in detail with the provinces at both the ministerial and official level, first in the context of the specific request that came forward, for example, from the poultry industry and more recently in the context of the proposal to provide this enabling legislation. I should say that the provinces generally support this type of legislation. Indeed, much of it was designed because of the essential nature of their participation, in line with some of the suggestions they made to us.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not directly affect any other bill or policy that I am aware of. It is, however, closely related to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act which provides for delegation of federal
April 14. 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	5871
Farm. Products Marketing Agencies Bill
powers to similar provincial boards, a practice which has been used many times in the past.
With respect to international ramifications, the bill does not provide the opportunity to give marketing agencies established under it direct or, indeed, automatic control over the importation of agricultural products. In certain circumstances authority could be delegated to these agencies, but I should like to make it clear that Bill C-197 does not automatically provide the exercise of control in international trade.
The bill has very important federal-provincial ramifications, as marketing of farm products is an area that is under both federal and provincial jurisdiction. I have said that we see no serious problems in that regard due to the extensive consultations with the provincial authorities and to the provisions in the act for agencies established thereunder to receive delegation of provincial powers and to name bodies established under provincial legislation as agents, within a province, of the national marketing agency.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that many farm organizations in Canada have waited a long time for this kind of legislation. I should like to conclude by suggesting to hon. members, and indeed to Canadian farmers generally who think that national marketing legislation is as simple as providing the authority for somebody to set production quotas and prices, that in my view this will not solve the problem of the marketplace. That has been tried without success and is one extreme in the attitude toward national marketing agencies. The other extreme is to shy away from any suggestion of marketing boards, commissions or agencies and have nothing to do with any kind of structure that would give the producers greater influence in the marketplace.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the adamant refusal to recognize that producers, and particularly farmers, ought to have a greater influence in the marketplace through their own efforts is also wrong. Had I time I could name specific commodities which experienced difficulty because of lack of co-ordinated effort between producers and where in retrospect it would have been possible to have had a more uniform price structure had there been some co-ordination of effort under the aegis of this kind of legislation. In its absence there were, instead, very depressed prices throughout the whole marketing season notwithstanding an excess of supply and market demand. Either extreme position is wrong, in
my view. We have to find some area in
between where national marketing agencies are not so compulsory, where they have not only one thing on their minds and that is to set production quotas and prices. There must be an area in between for co-ordination amongst producers.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this area of supply management-a term which is being overused these days and which does not relate only to production-a great deal of benefit could flow to farmers if there was a co-ordinated agency which could manage the flow of production into the marketplace in relation to what the market could absorb on a daily, weekly or even on a monthly basis.
I hope hon. members of this House will give this legislation careful consideration with these concepts in mind. It could become a useful instrument in assisting agricultural producers in Canada to have a greater influence in the marketplace for their own benefit and indeed for the stability of the industry all across Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer who has produced various commodities I find this as damnable a piece of legislation as any I have seen introduced in what is supposed to be a free enterprise country in the free world. The government labels itself as supporting free enterprise, but I do not think they can expect the opposition or indeed their own members who realize the consequences of this bill, to support what amounts to a blank cheque.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I do not know how many times the Minister of Agriculture mentioned Order in Council. I shall count the number of times tomorrow. He is asking Parliament for the authority to say, "I will direct the farmers in the country. I will tell them what to do. I will tell them where they are to do it, how much they are to produce and at what price. I will say through what agency we will sell, to whom we shall sell and, if we are keeping the commodity within the country, the time of the sale." I think I have said enough on that point to illustrate that no one in the free world would expect a minister in Canada to introduce such a bill and plead, as he did, for the House to give it consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: He mentioned the Wheat Board as an illustration of a selling agency.
April 14. 1970
5872	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Someone said the chicken farmers are the group primarily which wants this type of legislation. The Wheat Board did not tell me what to produce until this government came along. The Wheat Board was an agency of the farmers, acting on behalf of the farmers, and the minister cannot see it. This agency acted on behalf of the farmers. In this bill the minister is seeking to control even the type of board that is to be set up-and not only the type of board but the type of agency the board can appoint. I might as well go home, as might the rest of hon. members who are backbenchers, because if we are to be saddled with this, it is too much. Do you know what notation I have made opposite the word "Minister" in the definition clause? In capital letters I have written GOD, because that is who the minister thinks he is.
I have never seen anything in all my days that has excited me more than this bill. If the minister or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had come to this House and said, "Canadians, we are dissolving Parliament and turning over all our powers to the Russians" I could have accepted what was said because at least I would know where I stood. I would know I have absolutely no say in anything, I have no rights, and I am dominated. I would expect that from that type of authority, but I do not expect it from the Canadian Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not think the minister ought to expect this type of legislation to go through without someone in this country being aroused, because I certainly read it differently from the way the minister reads it. In my speech yesterday I thought I was cooperative. I tried to illustrate some of my misgivings about the bill. Now I am told an inspector can enter my premises. I could talk on and on. I wish somebody in this country would realize what is happening. I wish Canadians would wake up for once, because one by one the things they stand for are being taken away. The government is dictating to us. They talk about the wheat problem and say, "Mr. Farmer, you are No. 1 on the list because you own a wheat farm." I wish I could say to our people, "Mr. Farmer, Mr. Businessman, Mr. whoever you may be, Mr. Canadian, look at Bill C-197, because that is a good indication of where this government is going." It is telling us absolutely what to do.
I have never been licensed to produce anything, but this bill does that. It says if you [Mr. Korchinski.)
have no licence to produce certain things, you can be put in jail for two years. That is what the bill provides. My God! Where art thou, my God? Surely you will have compassion on us, because this government certainly has none.
Without even starting to say some of the things I wanted to say, I can tell hon. members that the explanation given for the bill was very smooth. I do not know whether the minister's efforts were intended to placate us. I cannot be placated by a bill with these provisions. I quote clause 34(1) which reads as follows:
An inspector may at any reasonable time enter any place, other than a private dwelling place or any part of a place that is designed to be used and is being used as a permanent or temporary private dwelling place, in which he reasonably believes there is any regulated product produced for, or intended to be marketed in, interprovincial or export trade and may examine any books, records or other documents in such place that on reasonable grounds he believes contain any information relating to the regulated product and make copies thereof of extracts therefrom.
I have already said you can go to jail if you do certain things. Who would keep a cow in a house? Who is going to keep a pig in the house? Obviously, these animals will not be kept in the house but in some other place, and the inspector will go to that other place. Oh, yes, he is not going to enter your dwell-inghouse. But I have seen houses that are attached to barns; that is in Europe, in the old European style and not in Canada. Had this bill been introduced in Europe it would have provided the farmer with a certain kind of immunity. But in Canada we separate houses from barns. This minister, thinking he has all the answers, seeks to extend his bureaucratic control.
I believe that all Canadians should once and for all understand what is happening. It is not merely this minister's doing, because obviously this bill is approved by cabinet. This minister is only an instrument for putting through a bill based on the ideology oi this government. He is only one minister of the government. All I have to say is, Canada beware, because we have gone further than we dreamed in the two years this government has been in power.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the next item of business would the minister, the acting government House leader,
April 14. 1970	COMMONS
confirm that the business for tomorrow will be the budget debate?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that is the intention. The House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), will advise tomorrow what other business is to be considered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will not be unnerved by my standing up to take part in a debate on agriculture. Having managed to survive Hon. Paul Martin's discovery of the soybean, the House can probably survive my remarks as well. I speak on behalf of 9,500 farms in Nova Scotia. I speak of a problem, however, which affects not only my own provinces but all other provinces. It has to do with feed freight assistance. I have no quarrel, really, with the answer that brought us here. The minister gave as full an answer as could be given on the Orders of the Day, but I think it would be very helpful if he would elaborate on this question when he replies to me in a few minutes' time.
Let me relate the dimensions of the problem. Nova Scotia in 1965 grew 17 per cent of the grain for its own consumption, and in 1950 it grew 32 per cent of what it consumed in total. So that looking over the figures which are supplied to me by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, it is clear that for the last 20 or 25 years roughly 80 per cent of the grain needed for Nova Scotia farmers has had to be imported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
On Saturday night I spoke to a group of people in the farming industry. They asked that this matter be raised in Parliament. I understand that the farming industry is affected in this order. About 80 per cent of the expense in the pork industry is for grain, and about 70 per cent of the expense in the chicken industry is for grain. I pause to point out that both these farming endeavours can be carried out on non-productive land; that is, hogs and chickens are penned and fed. The 22218-26
DEBATES	5873
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion best estimate the Nova Scotia dairy industry could give me is that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the cost of raising livestock is attributed directly to grain. In other words, the dairy farmer would have an opportunity if some other program were substituted which would help him to clear land thereby enabling him to grow grain to feed the livestock. However, the farmer who produces swine or raises chickens would not be in the same position. The Maritime Federation of Agriculture has pinpointed the problem in this way:
Whereas Maritime farmers import in excess of 50 per cent of the feed grains, used in these provinces and, whereas the poultry and broiler industry rely almost entirely on imported feed grains, and
whereas the dairy, beef and hog phases of agriculture in the Maritimes are in an expansion program based to a large degree on imported feed grains, and
whereas feed freight equalization is one of the most direct methods of helping development in the Atlantic region, particularly in the production of poultry, hogs, livestock, livestock products and allied industries, and
whereas the government of Canada is seeking to eradicate the regional disparities in Canada, and more especially, to eradicate the regional disparity between the Atlantic region of Canada and the Ontario-Quebec region of Canada.
There is then a resolution asking that the levels of assistance to Maritime livestock farmers as they existed during 1967-68 and 1968-69 be maintained. Maritime Co-operative Services Ltd. made a submission recently to the minister. I quote from paragraph 7:
Therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada be requested to provide adequate funds to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board so that the rates of feed freight equalization can be restored and maintained at the 1962 levels and that vegetable proteins be included in the program.
The point was also made in a brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which was submitted to the minister on Monday of this week. I quote from paragraph 37 on page 12:
In the present circumstances of restricted markets for western grain, and increasing pressures on the structure of Canadian agriculture, the maintenance of the Feed freight assistance program seems more than ever justified and necessary. It contributes both to a fair balance of regional opportunity in livestock production, and to the fullest utilization of western feed grains in Canada's domestic agriculture.
The point I want to make is that Maritime farmers could grow grain, but they would not do it as well or as economically as the western farmer. The western farmer is crying for markets; therefore it makes good sense to
5874	COMMONS DEBATES	April 14, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ship as much grain as possible to the Atlantic farmers. Why pay the western farmers not to grow wheat and ask the eastern farmers to do something that the western farmers can do better?
I have two questions for the minister. First, is the amount of feed freight assistance being cut per ton, or will it be cut; if so, at what level? Second, are there long-range plans to cut out this program which is of such great assistance to Atlantic agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to cover as much ground as I can during the three minutes at my disposal, but to give a detailed explanation in reply to the number of comments and questions raised by the hon. member would be impossible in that length of time. I should advise the hon. member that making estimates with respect to a program such as feed freight assistance is very difficult. This is an open-ended program under which we offer to pay a certain number of dollars per ton of total volume offered for movement, for example from Thunder Bay and other places in Ontario farther east, in any year.
Last year we had a situation where there was a significant upswing in the total volume of feed grain coming into certain parts of Ontario, and indeed into the Maritime provinces, in substitution for what had been supplied through production of Ontario grain in the past. As a result, the government ran into additional expense. When we realized this was happening to a very large degree in September, 1969, we made some adjustments. We adjusted the rates into many areas, but primarily we wanted to equalize the disparities that had shown up between various zones as a result of changes in transportation costs.
What we want is a form of equalized payment so that the balance of the payments that a livestock feeder has to pay, whether $2 a ton or $3 a ton out of the ten, is reasonably the same for all. However, when transportation costs change, this does become distorted. Another thing we did was to add by way of a supplementary estimate another $1 million, raising the total amount from $221.5 million to $222.5 million, to take care of the increased volume. I also realize there were reductions in the rates that had an affect in all areas from Ontario to the Maritimes.
So far as the amount for 1970-71 is concerned, it is true that this is down, from a total expenditure of $22.5 million in 1969-70 to an estimated expenditure of $17.6 million in 1970-71. We have not changed the rates. It is too early at this point in time to be able to predict with any accuracy how much will be brought forward for this feeding season. However, that is a matter we will have to look at as we see what the total supplies of locally grown grain from Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes amount to, and this will not be known until later.
So far as the long-range plans are concerned, I am aware that ministers ought not to give commitments extending far into the future committing future ministers as well, indeed, as future Parliaments and governments. However, as far as I am concerned- and I have said this many times across the country-I think feed freight assistance is a good, sound, economic program for Canadians both in the grain producing area and in the livestock feeding area; in other words, at both ends.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Wednesday, April 15, 1970