1970-03-24

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-12, an Act to establish the International Development Research Centre, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This question of privilege is twofold. It arises as a consequence of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which appears in Votes and Proceedings for last Thursday.
One of the main considerations of that committee was the question of qualifications of electors and candidates in elections. I had presented a bill, C-120, similar to a bill which had been presented by the Minister without Portfolio from York-Scarborough and to two other bills which were on the Order Paper. All these bills, which were referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, provided that all people who vote in elections or who are candidates in elections should be Canadian citizens. The idea was that the Canada Elections Act would be changed so that British subjects who were not Canadian citizens would no longer be entitled to vote in elections or be candidates in an election.
Apparently this matter was considered by the Committee on Privileges and Elections and in its fourth report under item 9 of Part I of the recommendations the sense of those bills has been completely reversed. It states in effect that only Canadian citizens would be qualified as electors and then in parentheses these words are added:
for this purpose British subjects, other than Canadian citizens, who were ordinarily resident in Canada on the 25th day of June 19G7, be deemed to be Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot be deemed to be a Canadian citizen. Either one is a Canadian citizen or is not. This whole thing is a mockery of the bills that were referred to the committee. Under the guise of saying that one must be a Canadian citizen in order to qualify as an elector the committee has added in parentheses that a British subject is to be deemed to be a Canadian citizen.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
My question of privilege is twofold. First of all, the committee has no right to take bills and turn them around.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Why not?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Second, a committee, when considering a bill of an hon. member, should at least invite the hon. member who presented the bill to be present at the hearing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Who else is more qualified to speak about the bill than the author of the bill? This was not done and is never done. I suggest that these are two points of privilege which must be considered, and I am prepared to move a motion accordingly if Your Honour will accept this question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May I first thank the hon. member for his co-operation in agreeing yesterday to postpone the consideration of this matter until this sitting of the House. The delay has made it possible to give additional consideration to the interesting point he has raised for determination by the Chair. The hon. member reminded the House that Bill C-120 standing in the hon. member's name was removed from the Order Paper some time ago after the subject matter thereof was referred by consent, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Eventually, the committee reported to the House. The committee report does refer to the hon. member's bill and submits recommendations which the hon. member suggests differ from the proposals contained in his bill.
The hon. member suggests that he has a question of privilege on two counts: first, that the committee report does not conform with certain aspects of his private bill and, second,
March 24, 1970

Treatment of Private Bills that he was not notified when the committee proceeded with the consideration of Bill C-120.
I wish I could say that as a result of the additional time I have had to consider this matter, due to the hon. member's forbearance and courtesy, the Chair has been able to conclude that he has a legitimate question of privilege. In my view, whether the committee's findings and recommendations conform or do not conform with the proposals contained in the private bill cannot constitute a question of privilege. There are no rules and no precedents to support the hon. member's contention.
The second difficulty raised by the hon. member for Cochrane to the effect that he did not receive advance notice of the consideration by the committee of the subject matter of the bill, while it may amount to a legitimate grievance, does not justify a prima facie question of privilege. All hon. members will agree, I am sure, that as a matter of courtesy an hon. member whose bill or motion is to be considered by a committee should be notified by the committee chairman, the committee clerk, or someone on their behalf. I believe that this is the normal practice. I believe that in normal circumstances, when a private bill, or more often the subject matter of a private bill, is referred for consideration by a committee, either the committee chairman or the committee clerk gets in touch with the member or the member himself takes the initiative to communicate with the officers in charge of proceedings in the committee to ensure that he will be available when the matter is considered and discussed in the committee. In any event I would like to suggest that the procedure should be reviewed so as to ensure that advance notice is always conveyed to the sponsors of private bills and resolutions which have been referred to committees so that the unfortunate incident of which the hon. member has been a victim cannot be repeated.
This having been said, I have to rule that although the hon. member would appear to have a very legitimate grievance, there is no question of privilege on which a motion could be founded and put to the House at this time.



MR. CAFIK-USE OF POST OFFICE BOX 4430

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 17 I rise on a question of privilege. Notice of this question has been given to Your Honour to fulfil the conditions of Standing Order 17(2). My ques-

tion of privilege relates to the mail addressed to, and I quote, "My Member of Parliament, P.O. Box 4430, Ottawa, Ontario."
I raise this question at the earliest opportunity because it has only come to my attention that mail intended for myself was forwarded to another Member of Parliament, and because of other details regarding this case of which I was not aware prior to now.
I believe that Members of Parliament have the right to expect free access by their constituents to themselves without going through an outside intermediary, and I maintain that the action taken by those responsible for the dissemination of information indicating an improper address for Members of Parliament is a direct violation of my privileges and the privileges of all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, as much as I laud the actions of those responsible for these advertisements in so far as they are attempting to involve more people in the democratic process and to advance the goal of participation in the Governmental Process, I feel that their ill-conceived actions have resulted in a backward step for genuine participation. It does not further the cause of participation to publish a misleading and erroneous address for all members of this House.
I further contend that no individuals or groups have the right, however lofty their motives, to place themselves as an intermediary between the public and their elected representatives, and to do so is to violate our exclusive rights as members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I further contend that no one has the right to intercept my mail and remove it from the post office for any purpose whatsoever. This is not only a violation of the Post Office Act, section 8, which gives the Postmaster General the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, conveying and delivering letters within Canada, but it is also a violation of the privileges of this House in so far as this mail was directed to Members of Parliament. Furthermore, the Post Office Act, section 39, indicates that "mailable matter becomes the property of the person to whom it is addressed when deposited in a post office."
I further contend that the very act of establishing this post office box is a contravention of my rights as a member of this House and the Post Office Act, section 69, which makes it
March 24, 1970

an offence for anyone other than the postal authorities to "undertake to collect, convey or deliver any letter within Canada."
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that not only was this mail removed from the post office box but that in many cases such mail was redirected to Members of Parliament on an arbitrary basis without due consideration to determine to whom it should have been directed. Consequently mail intended for one Member of Parliament was misdirected to other Members of Parliament.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members have the right to know what happened to this mail following its removal from post office box 4430 and prior to it being delivered. Were tabulations prepared as to quantity, or was any attempt made to prepare mailing lists? If either of these things was done I feel, with all respect, that our rights have been most seriously violated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: There is one last point, Mr. Speaker, regarding the use of P.O. Box 4430. Many people in Canada may well believe that this is the official way to contact their Member of Parliament. How many may have set that address aside for use at a future date? There is enough alienation in our society without misleading the public as to how to communicate with the members of this House. In view of the importance of this matter I hereby move that the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for report thereon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in regard to the question of privilege that has been raised that I have received hundreds of letters and coupons and they have come to me directly because my constituents know who I am.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Hees:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is now a question of privilege before the House and we cannot have two questions of privilege at the same time; the one before the House is complication enough. The hon. member seeks the
Use of Post Office Box 4430 floor either on a point of order or on a question of privilege but I wonder if it is a matter of urgency. If he has a legitimate point of order perhaps I should hear it.


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, which will not take very long. My point is that I believe the hon. member for Ontario did a disservice to this House by not reading that message nearly as well as the Minister of Finance who wrote it out for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	The	hon.
member for Ontario already has one question of privilege. He cannot have two questions of privilege at the same time.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I demand an apology-


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	The	hon.
member has to wait until the Chair has had his say. For the moment the hon. member has to be patient. I wish I had followed my original intention and not recognized the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
I am sure the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was not seriously suggesting that the statement made by the hon. member for Ontario was not his own or that he was not himself the author of the question of privilege which he has submitted to the House. I am sure the hon. member, who has long experience in the House, knows that he has no right to make this suggestion and I would invite him to confirm the understanding of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Norman Augustine Cafik: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you may be right in imputing to the hon. member rather facetious motives but I know that neither I nor anyone else in the House has the right to impute motives and I feel that on the basis of what he has said I deserve an apology for an absolutely inaccurate and insulting statement by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to impute motives in any way. All I did was criticize the hon. member's mode of reading a message that had been prepared for him by another hon. member.
March 24, 1970

Use of Post Office Box 4430


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.


Mr.   Kees@: I will say it was well read and then everybody will be happy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would not be happy. The hon. member cannot make this suggestion and he has to agree that when an hon. member has made a statement or a speech no other hon. member has the right to suggest that it has not been prepared by himself and is not an expression of his own views and thoughts. That is why I have invited the hon. member to indicate to the Chair that my understanding of his thoughts is correct.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as always I will be very glad to agree with your ruling and withdraw my remarks.


Mr. Baldwin:: He could not write that well.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same question of privilege to say very briefly that while I do not mind getting coupons which should be sent to my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I do not even mind getting coupons from that part of the area which is now in the constituency of Selkirk, I do object to having to answer people who live in the constituencies of Winnipeg South Centre, Winnipeg South or St. Boniface. I think those members should deal with their own coupons and I wish they could be sent to the right members and not to me.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I need not mention names or name places because I think Your Honour is aware of the situation I am alluding to. Not only is there outside interference but there has been inside interference, so to speak, which has been drawn to Your Honour's attention. Not only is there interference with the mails but also with the operations in my own office. This matter, which has been brought to Your Honour's attention, could very well be tied in with any vote on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members will remember, yesterday the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised as a question of privilege the fact that the box in question had been closed. Today the hon. member for Ontario has raised his question of privilege on the grounds that the box has been opened. This leaves the Chair in a box.

I will search for the key to the riddle and try to give an answer. I will consider the matter very seriously. I realize this is a matter of very serious import and have wondered myself for some time whether, in one way or another, the rights and privileges of hon. members were in any way adversely affected either by the opening of the box or by the closing of the box or by the operations which are related in some way to this question. I am pleased the matter was raised earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and today by the hon. member for Ontario.
I should say that I have some procedural misgivings about the way the matter was raised today by the hon. member for Ontario. We all know that one of the most important considerations to be taken into account by the Chair in determining whether there is a prima facie case of privilege is whether the matter was raised at the first opportunity. The hon. member is really complaining that this box was opened some time ago. It seems to me that, so far as all hon. members are concerned, this has been common knowledge or should have been common knowledge for some weeks now. I therefore wonder whether the matter being raised now is being raised at the first opportunity. That is an aspect of the matter that the Chair cannot overlook. With this reservation, the matter will be looked into and tomorrow perhaps or on Thursday, if the House is sitting then, the Chair will give a decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't scare us, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today copies in the two official languages of volume I of the Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31st, 1969.
As the House is aware, the Financial Administration Act requires that the report of the Auditor General be laid before the House on or before December 31st or, if Parliament is then not in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session. The Auditor General has asked me to
March 24, 1970

extend his apologies to the House for the lateness of his report which has been caused by circumstances beyond his control.
In order to reduce the delay to a minimum, the report is being submitted in two volumes. Volume I contains the introduction followed by the usual summary of expenditure and revenue and comments on expenditure and revenue transactions. Volume II, which will be completed and tabled later, will contain the summary of assets and liabilities and the sections on Crown Corporations, departmental operating activities and special audits and examinations.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was requested of me, and the House agreed, that I should table certain figures relating to wages, salaries and supplementary labour incomes and also figures relating to corporate profits before taxes for the last 20 years. I am prepared to do that now.



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago you kindly informed me that there was some delay in supplying hon. members with copies of the Canada Year Book and the handbook "Canada". You also suggested that I table those publications so that they could be distributed more quickly to hon. members. In accordance with your wish and with Standing Order 41(2) of the House, I am happy to table today copies of the Canada Yearbook and of the handbook "Canada" in the two official languages.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)



BAY OF FUNDY-TABLING OF FEASIBILITY STUDY OF TIDAL POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in the two official languages copies of a feasibility study of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


George Harris Hees: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister was obviously well satisfied with the results of the six days he spent recently in the Arctic examining first-hand the living conditions of our native peoples, is he planning to spend an equivalent period of time during the parliamentary recess visiting the slums of our major cities, examining first-hand the living conditions of those living below the poverty line?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will return to the hon. member in due course.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence regarding the announcement that United States military aircraft will undertake an exercise over the province of Saskatchewan? In view of the concern which has been expressed by people in that province because of the lack of information, can the minister tell the House the purpose of the exercise? Can he also tell the House at what altitude these planes will be flying and whether any Canadian planes will be participating in this exercise?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have to contest the assertion by the hon. member that there was a lack of information. We did issue a very comprehensive press release in which the altitudes, routes and everything were spelled out. The purpose of the exercise is, within the arrangements we have with the government of the United States, to help SAC pilots practise on different routes than what they are accustomed to. With regard to the last part of the question, there are no Canadians participating except with reference to the ground arrangements so that we have control of the operation.
5396	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Will the planes in question be carrying any explosive bombs, incendiary bombs or any other explosive devices that could constitute a danger to the civilian population in the event of any of them meeting with a mishap?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe this was stressed in the press communique. There will not be any weapons aboard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary. In view of the fact the minister has explained that the purpose of the exercise is to familiarize pilots with unfamiliar terrain, could this exercise not be held as well 100 or 200 miles north where there is less population and where it would be less likely to cause any concern on the part of the population?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I might again be allowed to refer the hon. member to the press release that was made, we did indicate that the routes which have been selected are the most sparsely populated in that particular area.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to ask his Parliamentary Secretary a question.
Has the government changed the policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission which had been established by the former Minister of Agriculture who said that the Canadian Dairy Commission could hardly operate without a commissioner representing milk purchasers and concerned with the sale of dairy products, since the recent appointment to the Canadian Dairy Commission indicates that no commissioner has been named to represent purchasers?


Mr. Speaker:: I take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. member that his question is rather argumentative. He could perhaps rephrase it, so that the Parliamentary Secretary may answer it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase my question.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the Canadian Dairy Commis-

DEBATES	March 24, 1970
sion now intends to deprive itself of the services of a commissioner representing milk purchasers?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time as in the past years, three commissioners are members of the Canadian Dairy Commission. One resigned some two months ago. His post was filled and a press release was published to that effect. So nothing is changed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether the surpluses of fluid milk which have been mentioned yesterday, when the government policy was announced, will also be submitted to a policy of penalization?


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, the representatives of milk producers associations have undertaken a study with the milk producers in order to solve this problem themselves, since it lies outside the federal jurisdiction, but is within the provincial jurisdiction.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a complementary question.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why, according to the new policy, the sum of $1.25 per hundredweight will be deductible at the plant on surpluses, even if the producers do not receive a subsidy?



NATIONAL PARKS


John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has to do with the judgments by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Queen v. Walker and the Queen v. M. E. Clark and Son Ltd., by which judgments the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the arbitrary order of the department that a 42-year perpetual lease could not be renewed were beyond the powers of the government or the department. Under the circumstances, will the minister say what will happen to those people who have lived either in Jasper National Park or in Banff National Park and who, under coercion, signed renewals and thereby through misunderstanding did away with their rights? Is the government going to place
March 24, 1970
them in the same position as those who fought successfully against the orders that were made?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Supreme Court handed down a judgment and the officials of the Department of Justice and of my department are now studying it. I will certainly have comments to make in the House as soon as a policy has been established following the judgment of the Supreme Court.


John George Diefenbaker: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government cannot do this kind of thing. I ask the minister whether in view of this judgment, important in trimming down bureaucratic tyranny, the government will now give consideration to the orders respecting shack camps and temporary habitations in the national parks so that these places will not be subject to the orders which have been made during the past two years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that the order in council relating to this matter of perpetual leases was passed by his own government. We are studying the matter now in all its aspects.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman was endeavouring to make a statement precisely opposite to the truth, he succeeded admirably today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I see he is not in his place today, though he is supposed to be here, and neither is the Minister of Supply and Services who sometimes answers for him.


Some hon. Members:: Author!


Percy Verner Noble: I should like to make an apology. I have just been told that the minister's brother has died. Perhaps I can direct my question to the Prime Minister and he can take it as notice. Has the Minister of Transport received letters or briefs protesting a 21774-64
Inquiries of the Ministry threatened cessation of railway passenger service over a wide area of western Ontario, and will he use his good offices to have the service maintained until a thorough assessment of the situation can be made by the people concerned and by the transport department?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I will see that the question is conveyed to the minister responsible and that the hon. member is notified of the information we have.



WHEAT-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OR ALTERATION OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Having regard to the widespread opinion among western farmers that the "lift" program will be largely ineffective would the minister consider withdrawing this plan either in whole or in part or making major alterations to it?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Certainly not. I believe the hon. member is altogether wrong in his assumption that farmers will not participate in this program. In my view there will be significant participation leading to a reduction in wheat acreage. This is very important in view of the fact that a recent report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates there might have been too great a switch into other grains.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Bearing in mind the situation of farmers who have already diversified and reduced wheat acreage, and the fact that farmers on one section or less would suffer severe loss of income under the proposed acreage reduction program, would the minister revamp this program in order that the quota might be more realistic in these cases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member's supplementary is essentially a repetition of the original question.



WHEAT-PUBLISHING OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM REGULATIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: In
view of the fact that the acreage reduction program as a whole is not being accepted by the farmers, and since there is a great deal of confusion about the regulations governing it, despite the nearness of the planting season,

5398	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry can the minister tell the House whether he and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will publish these regulations and let the House and the farmers know where they are heading?


Otto Emil Lang: Very full information about this program and its application to individual farmers was made available in a mail-out to every permitholder in the prairie provinces. It is, of course, not possible to put the regulations themselves in place until the items which are before this House, on which they would in part be founded, are approved.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Since the minister has himself changed the regulations by public announcement at public meetings since that pamphlet was produced, I again ask him if he will move with all speed to get these regulations into the hands of the public?



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEAL BOARD

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: The minister indicated that an appeal board would be set up. Since many farmers propose to make their plans on the basis of any decisions which the appeal board might reach, may I ask whether the board will be established before seeding time and whether the cases before it will be disposed of in time for plans to be formulated?


Otto Emil Lang: Provision along those lines will be made in the regulations which are being developed. Adequate information has been made available to farmers which should guide them in their plantings, and of course the appeal board will be dealing only with difficult and particular applications of the regulations to certain factual situations. I do not think that should lead to any uncertainty on the part of the farmers.


Stanley James Korchinski: What would happen in the case of a farmer who was hailed out last year, put his land into summerfallow the previous year, and is going to put a crop in this year? Is he going to sell no crop at all? Will no consideration be given to his needs in these critical circumstances?



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM REGULATIONS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In
light of the answers given by the minister, and of the letters and petitions which many

DEBATES	March 24, 1970
of us have received protesting against the acreage reduction program, would the hon. gentleman, in formulating these regulations, consider making provision under the new delivery quota system for farmers who had no wheat carried over, and is further consideration being given to the situation of farmers who reduced their wheat acreage and increased their summerfallow last year?


Otto Emil Lang: As far as the second part of the question is concerned, it has already been made clear what action will be taken to recognize additional summerfallow put in last year. Farmers without surpluses are at least in a position where they can grow non-wheat crops with some security, knowing that there will be less acreage in these crops and therefore the likelihood of a better market. Should they feel they must grow wheat, they can do so in secure knowledge of what the quota will be on the balance of their land.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the grain trade for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that the Wheat Board has been selling barley, since the fall of 1969, for 78 cents and even for 76 cents per bushel, whereas they charged $1.07 per bushel in eastern Canada, could the minister tell the House whether or not the province of Quebec may expect to benefit from preferential export prices if it becomes independent as a result of the elections of April 29?



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: 
Gérard Loiselle: The Department of Transport has written to the chief engineer and to the owners of this ship asking for their full co-operation in having a Canadian officer of the Department of Transport on board during the trip.
We should also like to have a man responsible for the company in Ottawa during that trip in order that communication between the department and the owner of the ship will be established so that each will know what is happening.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary to the Parliamentary Secretary. Along with the information that the Parliamentary Secretary has provided the House, which was very welcome, I am wondering whether he might also tell us the exact date on which the Manhattan will be commencing its voyage, and also whether the Humble Oil Company has accepted full responsibility for any possible pollution damage, and what is the amount of the bond the company is putting up?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I do not have all
the information requested by the hon. member right now. I know the department has asked the company to carry insurance of $6,500,000 in respect of responsibility. As to the other considerations, I will inform the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a very brief supplementary. Perhaps the additional information that the Parliamentary Secretary does not have at his fingertips now could be provided to the House during the question period tomorrow, or perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the minister could make a statement on motions.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Can he advise the House also whether officials from the Department of Transport or other government departments will be accompanying the Manhattan on its voyage into the north and through the passage?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, an officer of the Department of Transport will be on board ship during the trip and a responsible representative of the company will remain here in Ottawa to establish communications.
DEBATES	5399
Inquiries of the Ministry



SECOND VOYAGE OF &quot;MANHATTAN&quot;-ACCEPTANCE OF REGULATIONS BY HUMBLE OIL COMPANY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Humble Oil Company has informed the Department of Transport that it is prepared to accept all of the 24 conditions laid out by the minister as contained in the appendix to Hansard of Tuesday, March 17?


Gérard Loiselle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The list of the conditions laid out by the Department of Transport was submitted to the company which has agreed to fulfil all of them.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LEDAIN COMMISSION

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. May I ask him whether the government has received the report of the LeDain inquiry into drugs yet and, if not, how soon will it be forthcoming?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it will be forthcoming forthwith.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the question I have for the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor will also be answered by forthcoming forthwith. Can be inform the House whether he has completed his study on foreign ownership in Canada, which I understand he was instructed to make by his colleagues in Cabinet, and whether he has already presented recommendations to cabinet to deal with the subject?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House the Prime Minister said a minister would be presenting a document in this area to the cabinet for study within a month. I understand that it is not proper to discuss matters in the
March 24, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry House involving the business of Privy Council. If the Prime Minister feels it is appropriate to say more I am sure he will he happy to do so.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: He is right in line-yes, daddy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was perfectly aware of some of the things the minister has said, but I do not appreciate his saying them in answer to the question, which was rather carefully worded. I did not ask him to tell me what happened in the Privy Council. I asked him whether he has completed the study and whether he has already presented recommendations to cabinet. I am not asking him what the recommendations were, what the conclusions were of what happened in cabinet; I just want to know whether it was done.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, even though I do not appreciate the form of the hon. member's question, I will attempt to give him a further answer. I think I can say there will be no problem in meeting the date that the Prime Minister mentioned in the House.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the statement by government customs officers that there is a dispute over holiday work schedules which could stop all traffic at the Peace Bridge this Easter weekend, I should like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to prevent customs officers from walking off their jobs at the Peace Bridge, leaving everything in chaos?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department and of the Treasury Board as well as representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada will meet later this afternoon in order to find a solution to that problem.



POLLUTION


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has he been made aware of reported mercury contamination of certain types of fish in Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie and their tributaries? If so, is the contamination level high enough to be dangerous to humans, and has the source of the contamination been found?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The very brief answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. We have received an official report from the Ontario Research Foundation that there is mercury in certain species of fish, notably pickerel, in Lake St. Clair, and that the level of mercury is unacceptable in so far as human consumption is concerned. We have moved immediately to ban the export of these fish since all of it was going to the United States. We have determined two sources, both of them ehlor-alkali plants on the Canadian side in the vicinity of Sarnia. One has finished its conversion program and the other is in the process of correcting its cleanup procedures.



PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS-INVESTIGATION OF NTA

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary question-you might call it related; I do not know-to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the widespread public concern to get phosphates in detergents replaced by a non-polluting substance, would the minister make an early statement on motions about preliminary findings of the Fisheries Research Board as to the possibilities of sodium nitrilo tri-acetate, better known as NTA?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question is not supplementary and that it is only distantly related. Perhaps the minister might indicate whether he is prepared to make such a statement.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we can make information along these lines available at a very early date.



MONTREAL BID FOR 1976 SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing a question concerning the bid of the city of Montreal for the 1976 summer Olympic games. Would he please indicate to the House
March 24, 1970
whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has agreed to provide up to $120 million for the construction of housing for athletes and officials of the games as intimated on page 48 of the city of Montreal brief to the International Olympic Association?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, no such agreement has been made. As a matter of fact, there has been no communication, to the best of my knowledge, with me or any of the officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation about this proposal.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. From time to time he has reported that discussions were going on between the Eskimos of northern Quebec and representatives of the government of Canada, and I think the government of the province of Quebec. Can he now give a report on those discussions, because the Eskimos are greatly aroused and fear being transported to another jurisdiction?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Neville, representative of the federal government, has come back to Ottawa during the weekend. He is making his report. As soon as I get it I shall be pleased to make comments to the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread opposition toward this move, which is almost unanimous among the Eskimos in northern Quebec, and the fact that they do not want to be removed in any way, shape or form from the jurisdiction of the federal government, will the minister give consideration to having representations made by way of a submission to the Supreme Court to ascertain whether or not the government of Canada has the power to do what it is endeavouring to do to these Eskimos who are under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament? Will he have a reference made to the Supreme Court of Canada, in order to protect the rights of these people, concerning whether such action is legal?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question. We are consulting the Eskimos, as I explained it several times. It is important to ensure that the basic rights of Eskimos regarding their language and their religion are protected. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the aim of the policy followed by the government is to protect these rights. However, it should be recognized that these people are at the same time citizens of Quebec and this province being a part of Canada, they have rights both as Quebec and Canadian citizens.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the minister to answer the question. In view of the aroused feeling on the part of these Eskimos, will he be prepared to consider a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether or not they can be legally turned over to provincial control, in whole or in part, against their wishes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already said to the House that we are considering the problem now and that we have sent a team to discuss the matter with the Eskimos. This team has returned during the weekend and will soon present us with a report. We will then tell the House what their findings are.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that former employees of the Bank of Canada-and I am referring to ordinary employees, not to former governors-will not have their pensions increased under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, will the minister discuss this matter with the officials of the Bank of Canada in the hope that their employees will be given the same treatment being given public servants generally?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

March 24, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the recent cases involving bribery and corruption in the Royal Canadian Mint, will the government assure the House that a thorough investigation of the operations of the Mint will be started immediately and, if necessary, that a royal commission will be set up in order that the public interest may be fully protected?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think if my hon. friend will check the record he will find that a thorough investigation was carried out immediately that the possibility of some defalcation came to the notice of the Minister of Finance. As a result, two or more persons have been prosecuted. There has been a complete reorganization of the accounting procedures of the Mint and as a matter of fact, as the hon. member knows, it is now to be operated by a Crown corporation.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is on that precise point, Mr. Speaker, that I wish a further investigation to be made. There seems to be some great discrepancy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should ask the question if he has a supplementary.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, would the minister look into this matter further to find out, if such is the case, why very strong steps are being taken to discipline minor members of the Mint when half a million dollars in gold currency disappeared and apparently the real parties have not been brought to justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.



TAXATION


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that the Liberal leader in Quebec is attempting to ride into office on the back of the white paper on taxation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, lots of people, like the Leader of the Opposition, ride on the back of the white paper.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the original question was in order and I do not think a supplementary would be in order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I take it that the answer was also out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: By all means.



WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-EFFECT ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that United States accounting firms are advising clients not to invest in Canada because of the proposed tax reforms, will the minister advise the House if and when he will be withdrawing or changing those proposals in the white paper that are driving away investments in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: In
the first two months of this year the exchange fund had to buy over $200 million in excess foreign exchange coming into Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of hon. members that it might not be appropriate at this time to embark on a debate on the white paper. Quite a few members appear to be anxious to ask questions.



WHEAT-ALTERNATIVE TO ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

['Mr. Speaker, I did discuss this matter earlier with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who had raised it with me. At that time we had received no information as to the mode and amount of compensation which is envisaged and this we are trying to establish. As of a few hours ago, however, we did not have it.']
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. In view of the fact that thousands of farmers will not survive economically under the "Lift" program introduced by the government, is the government now developing alternative programs for these people?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me we have a repetition of the question asked originally. Many members seem to be anxious to ask the same question. It has been asked on a number of occasions now. I suggest that perhaps we should go on to another subject.



Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister
March 24, 1970	COMMONS
say whether the government of Trinidad has been in touch with the government of Canada regarding the possible nationalization of the Bank of London and Montreal and, if so, have assurances been given that this would be done with full compensation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did discuss this matter earlier with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who had raised it with me. At that time we had received no information as to the mode and amount of compensation which is envisaged and this we are trying to establish. As of a few hours ago, however, we did not have it.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. We have heard a great deal in recent months from the Minister of Communications about his handling of the Post Office, but we have heard surprisingly little about Telesat Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question.


William C. Scott: Has the minister now a definite timetable for the launching of the satellite portion of the system and for implementation of the system itself? If he has a timetable, is the program on schedule?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this is not the type of question which might be placed on the Order Paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Len-nox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. Due to the present six-year record of high and acute national unemployment, will his administration now ask for more frequent reports from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicating the week-by-week level of unemployment instead of monthly reports as at present?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this question is in order at this time. It would seem the hon.
DEBATES	5403
Inquiries of the Ministry member is making a request of the government which would normally be done by way of a question on the Order Paper.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It would seem to me that I could receive a yes or no answer. I just asked if he would not do so.


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



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister would tell the House what the intention of the government is, particularly in view of the fourth report of the committee on Privileges and Elections, and whether or not Canada is to deem anyone to be a Canadian citizen whether he is a British subject or any other foreigner?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question about a matter which relates to an order now before the House.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Now that the legislation to set up the Canadian Saltfish Corporation has completed its legislative passage through the other place, is the minister in a position to announce the name of the chairman of the corporation before the beginning of the new fiscal year? Can the minister also assure the House that the corporation will be established in time for its officers to establish our markets and market requirements for the current season?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the Saltfish Corporation legislation receives royal assent tomorrow, I hope we can name the chairman of the board before the end of the week.
March 24, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
HISTORIC SITES	Mr. Orlikow: I wonder if the minister
would give consideration to making a state-PRINCE EDWARD island-reported desig- ment on this subject in some detail after the nation OF province house AS	Easter recess, in view of the importance of
national shrine	summer employment to students?


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is based on news reports following discussions that his Parliamentary Secretary had with ministers of the government of Prince Edward Island and specifically the report that the federal government is considering designating Province House as a national shrine. Can he advise if the Prince Edward Island legislature will still be allowed1 to function and also what other provincial Houses he has in mind for federalizing and enshrinement?


An hon. Member:: What about the one in
Quebec city?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



MANPOWER


David Orlikow: have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of the survey of summer employment which he tabled yesterday. I wish to ask the minister whether, in view of the finding that a very substantial percentage of the students who found employment last year were not able to find employment for the whole period for which they were available for work, and the serious effect this had on their ability to continue their education, the department is giving consideration to establishing programs to increase the possibility of providing full employment for the summer period?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have that point under consideration. I mentioned it in reply to a previous question that the hon. member asked. We are attempting to accelerate our program of publicity and to work with employers in every way we can to extend the period of employment. My hon. friend will realize that with such a large influx of students into the labour market as will take place this summer, it may be very difficult to provide all the students, or even a high proportion of them with full-time employment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be happy to consider making a statement after the recess.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, this is a related question which has to do with unemployment. Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us whether the department has now studied the effects of the closing of the Dunlop plant in Toronto on related industries, particularly the Yarmouth textile mill, and in the event of the closing of such plant can he tell us what alternative employment will be offered to the Dunlop employees and to those in related industries such as the Yarmouth mill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have considered the impact of the closure of the Dunlop plant on other industries. At Dunlop we have already instituted a very large-scale effort to assist the employees, and if that plant closes it is our expectation that we will succeed in getting work for all of the employees or nearly all.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. It will be some days before we will have an opportunity to question him again so I wonder whether he could answer this question now because when we come back after the Easter recess the Bonaventure will perhaps have been retired. Can the minister indicate whether or not he has received any submissions from any groups whatsoever for the purchase of Canada's aircraft carrier?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not yet, Mr. Speaker; we have not as yet received any worth-while offer.
March 24, 1970	COMMONS



FINANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the growing concern for the future of urban renewal, particularly since the tabling of the budget proposal on depreciation allowances, will the minister use his good influence to convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to exempt areas designated for urban renewal from the freeze on depreciation allowances?


Robert Knight Andras: It is an interesting proposition, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Kootenay West.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or his Parliamentary Secretary. Does the minister plan on calling an early meeting of those provincial ministers concerned with water resources in order to ensure as wide an area of co-operation as possible in the understanding and implementation of the Canada Water Act?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: No, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Are any special arrangements being made to facilitate the movement of people of east Asian origin now in Kenya and other African countries, in view of the great difficulties these people are having in finding a place in which to live?


An hon. Member:: What about Yarmouth?
DEBATES	5405
Report on Miscellaneous Estimates


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, over the past year or so we have been studying this question with a view to assisting the movement of any such persons. I have not checked the situation recently but I would be happy to do so and report to my hon. friend.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St.-Barbe):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the complications which have arisen with regard to the establishment of a national park in the province of Newfoundland and the evidence of oil exploration rights, would the minister agree to hold a public hearing in the province similar to that held in Nova Scotia to ascertain the legality of such rights which are seriously hindering economic development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to hold a public hearing to determine whether there can be oil prospection in a park. It is a well-known policy in Canada that no prospection of any kind whatsoever can be carried out in a park. If the government of Newfoundland wants to be given a second national park, it will have to abide by the federal legislation on national parks, just as do the other provinces.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) knows, the point which he raised in the House the other day was again brought up yesterday and it was agreed that the hon. member would be given an opportunity today at this time to present the submissions he has in mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think that Your Honour and this House are faced with a very interesting point,
5406	COMMONS DEBATES	March 24, 1970
Report on Miscellaneous Estimates that is the extent to which the attempt by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to vary the supplementary estimates (B) lor 1969-70 is valid and can be accepted by Your Honour and by this House now when we are dealing with the business of supply.
To start with, I suggest that this attempt to legislate by use of an estimate is most improper and should not be permitted.
Even more at fault, however, is the attempt by the committee to vary the original vote in two very material respects. In permitting this, we get away from the very wholesome restraints which the exercise of the legislative process permits us. I am amazed at what has happened here. I do not want to go into it to any extent, but certainly there must be some fault on the part of the Treasury or of the Minister without Portfolio who has been handling the particular item under discussion, namely, vote 17b which appears on page 2 of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
This attempt to short circuit the normal legislative process by legislating by means of a vote is wrong, but it is even more wrong to attempt to vary the result later. However, I will deal with that later since it is a question of substance. Now, I just want to stake out my claim.
What we are faced with now is the fact that the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates purported to change in two very material respects the original vote 17b in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture. In the first instance, what was done was to change the category of persons entitled to receive the grants from those who were described as holders of permit books under the Wheat Board Act to people who are producers.
Obviously, we are referring to the Wheat Board Act, but I will not take up the time of the House by quoting from it. However, there is no question that a producer is not necessarily the same as a holder of a permit book under the Wheat Board Act. Obviously, those who hold permit books must be producers, but producers need not necessarily be holders of these permits. The words, "providing for a board of appeal to determine disputes hereunder" were added by the committee to the wording of the vote. These words do not appear in the original vote, and constitute a very substantial alteration of the purposes of the original vote as brought down with the message of His Excellency, and contained in the supplementary estimates. I would suggest 
that under those circumstances there is no question but that this House should not consider the amended vote in the business of supply.
However, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very serious issue I would like to ask very briefly, what are the rights of committees in this regard? I would not ask Your Honour to make a judgment at this time covering what should be the terms and conditions with regard to committees in the future but we must remember, Sir, and I think the House should remember, that we have embarked on a completely new procedure. It could be a very excellent procedure, but we must remember we have taken out from this House the old committee of supply procedure, under which there was the right to have a careful examination of estimates and the ability to move amendments. This right has been taken away, and in the result we have put into the hands of committees the right to deal with these estimates.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what limitation should be placed on these committees, bearing in mind that in the period from 1958 to 1962, some 55, 60 and 65 days were often taken by some of the eminent members of the opposition at that time in their examination of the estimates. Are the committees to be limited to the simple right to say yes or no in dealing with these estimates? Are committees possibly to have the right-this is what I would ask Your Honour to consider because committees are now involved in dealing with these estimates-to add recommendations urging the House to consider what steps can be taken, whether by a humble message to His Excellency or by a simple recommendation, to ask for permission to vary the purpose of votes or to extend the amounts?
I have been in touch with members of various committees who are disturbed over the question of what are and what are not then-rights in this regard. I do not expect Your Honour, on this rather narrow point which now confronts you, to make a decision on the wider aspect which I have asked you to consider. However, I hope that during the period of the Easter Recess Your Honour would give some consideration to this, and by a proposal to the Committee on Procedure and Organization, or by a statement in this House, be of some help to the Standing Committees that will be dealing with these estimates after the recess. I shall have something more to say after we get into the actual business of
March 24, 1970	COMMONS
supply, but I wanted to make this narrow observation at this time on this point that confronts Your Honour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, because the point of order seems to me to be so clear, I shall take only a minute or two of the time of the House. I refer to the basic point of order that is before us, namely, as to whether or not a standing committee of the House can propose an amendment to a money vote which alters its purpose in any way.
Without reading it in full, I draw attention to citation 250(4) of Beauchesne, on page 216 of his fourth edition, which reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor-General's recommendationand so on -cannot be amended.
Then I also draw attention to the important words in citation 246(3) on page 207, part of which says that once a financial initiative has been indicated it lays down once and for all the conditions about that charge. Then, I quote specifically these words:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
That citation goes on to say that, of course, a minister could move for a change, but in doing so he would have to secure the Royal recommendation. All in all, Mr. Speaker, because Your Honour raised some question about this the other day from the Chair, and in view of the points raised by the hon member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), it seems to me that the case is so clear that one does not need to argue that the change proposed by the committee is not within its competence.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, to add to the unanimity of opinion, I wish to make a reference to Standing Order 58 as decided upon by this House in December, 1968. I draw particular attention to Standing Order 58(4) which refers to the requirement that written notice shall be given in dealing with estimates. I think there is some importance to be attached to the recital in that section of the various acts that must be preceded by notice, that is, .a motion to concur in estimates, or a motion
DEBATES	5407
Report on Miscellaneous Estimates to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates. Again, looking at paragraph (10) of the same Standing Order, we also have a reference to the motion to concur in, or a motion to reinstate any item in the estimates. From that, and in the light of the citation cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I would argue that it is not within the power of the Standing Committees, when they are considering either final supplementary estimates or main estimates on an order from the House, to do anything other than concur in or reject those estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or
to reduce them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Or to reduce them. In particular, I would argue that the proposal put forward in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates would not be in order because there is not the additional recommendation from the Crown with regard to these particular items.
I submit that the standing committees in exercising their scrutiny of the estimates can do no more and no less than the committee of supply could have done before the amendments to the Standing Orders, and therefore that this section of the committee's report is not in order. On that basis, while it can be said that the opportunities for members of the standing committees have greatly increased, because they have the opportunity of examining both the minister and his officials and at greater length than was the case previously, the actual juridical effect of their examination can be no more and no less than was the case with the old committee of supply, that is to say, either to adopt the estimates, reduce them or reject them altogether. I would say that is confirmed by the Standing Orders when we changed them in December, 1968, indicating the very limited number of ways in which estimates could be changed.
I might indicate that after consultation with the Table the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) put forward a motion, which is the third item under Order No. 1 on today's Order Paper, and I quote:
Consideration of a motion of the President of the Treasury Board concerning Votes 17b (Department of Agriculture) and 36b (Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce) of Supplementary Estimates (B) for 1969-70.
I should make it clear that this was put forward only out of an abundance of caution, in the event that the committee report was
March 24, 1970

Report on Miscellaneous Estimates accepted and it should then be found necessary to restore or reinstate the items as put forward by the House. Of course, if Your Honour finds the report was in effect invalid, and therefore a nullity in respect to the amendments it proposes to make, it would not be necessary to put that particular motion, and the President of the Treasury Board would be seeking the consent of the House to withdraw it. On that basis, I would agree basically with the principle cited, that the report in this form should not be accepted by the House, and what we have before us is really the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, as originally tabled in this House.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their views. The fact that there is unanimity among those who have participated in the procedural discussion makes it easier for the Chair. In fact, for a moment, I wondered whether there was any point in giving a decision but I think it is probably wise to make a ruling based on the advice of hon. members who have taken part in the discussion and who have agreed on a conclusion. As hon. members know, the procedural point was raised last Friday and I indicated then that I had serious misgivings about the procedural aspects of this matter. I have had an opportunity to review it since then and my conclusions coincide with those we have heard during the last few minutes from the hon. members who have taken part in this discussion. It is hardly necessary to remind hon. members that paragraph 1 of the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates reads in part as follows:
Delete in vote 17b, on page 2, the paragraph intituled "Grants", and substitute the following therefor:
The report goes on to rewrite in substantial manner vote 17b of the supplementary estimates (B). It is not necessary, I suggest, to compare in detail the terms of the committee's proposed recommendation with that of the original estimate to establish the fact that a change of substance has been suggested by the committee. In its recommendations, the committee has proposed an alternative to the proposal recommended to the House by His Excellency. No principle is more surely provided for by our constitution and our Standing Orders than that which provides that the Crown alone initiates financial proposals.

In this regard, section (1) of Standing Order 62 reads as follows:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
In the same regard, section (3) of citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once and for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
Along the same vein, may I refer to section (3) of citation 244 of Beauchesne's, as follows:
Amendments proposing, in a money resolution, to substitute a loan for a subsidy; to change the destination, purpose and conditions of a subsidy: attaching a condition to a subsidy; affecting the ends and provisions of a subsidy, must be moved by a minister with the recommendation of the Crown.
There are a number of other citations that can be brought to bear on the same question, but I do not think it will be necessary for me to do so at this stage. It is not competent, I suggest, for the House or any committee of this House to substitute a financial provision in an estimate for one which has been recommended by His Excellency.
For the foregoing reasons, I must decide that the report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates presented to the House Thursday, March 19th last, is a nullity and that no subsequent proceeding may or need be taken in relation thereto.
In view of this decision I assume hon. members will want to give thought to the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council, although the request would have to be made, I assume, by the President of the Treasury Board.
March 24, 1970


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: In the light of what you suggested, Mr. Speaker, I think the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of this motion from the Order Paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the supplementary estimates (B) of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the 31st March, 1970, placed before the House on March 5, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-200 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it has been printed? Since I am now receiving the bill, that is fast service.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-200, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to launch into the icy waters of the second reading of this bill as free from care as was the Humble Oil Company when it sent the Manhattan into the Canadian Arctic.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not as powerful, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope you are not going to engage in any polluting.


Gerald William Baldwin: I see I made a mistake in attempting to be facetious, Your Honour. I have too many assistants here.
It will be my intention, at the conclusion of my remarks, to move an amendment to second reading. I have it before me and it will shortly be before the House but I
Supplementary Estimates have some observations to make. An examination of the bill indicates that attached to it as a schedule is the detail of the supplementary estimates (B). On behalf of this party, I must take exception to the bill and move an amendment for reasons which I hope will commend themselves to hon. members of this House. I direct my remarks particularly to the item which Your Honour just disposed of, item 17b of the Department of Agriculture, the details of which are set out further on in the estimates.
I want to make it abundantly plain, on behalf of this party, Mr. Speaker, that we are greatly concerned by the action of this government, in fact of any government, in attempting to use a vote on the supplementary estimates for the purpose of enacting what are in fact legislative proposals. We have been veering more and more toward that practice for the last three years. It is a very dangerous practice and a serious situation can be created where any motley collection of tinsel autocrats and sawdust Caesars, through the use of this method, would be able to virtually impose their financial will upon this Parliament and the country without the safeguards which are so essential to the legislative process. To see this done is bad enough but to see what has been done in this particular case is even worse. Thinking a particular vote did not contain that which was essential, the government attempted to amend it in committee. This bill, I think, brings into question the provisions of the schedule containing the supplementary estimates. I suppose one could say I am anticipating rebuttals to my argument, because some will no doubt say that there is no real principle to an appropriation bill. Nevertheless, the present provisions of the bill call into question every item of the estimates contained in the schedule, and that alone justifies the proposition I am trying to place before the House.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Here, the government has said, "We are going to spend $100 million on what we will call the wheat inventory acreage reduction program," and the Minister without Portfolio made a statement to the House. Subsequently, when the supplementary estimates were brought down, we found that Vote 17b was a legislative item in disguise. It is unfortunate that this legislative item should appear in this form. Actually, the government has three methods by which to legislate on this subject. The vote in question purports to give the


Mr. Speaker:: I ought to say that the Chair has serious reservations about the procedural acceptability of the proposed amendment. I should like a few minutes to look into the matter further. However, at first blush, I fail to see how this reasoned amendment, if it is a
March 24, 1970

reasoned amendment, opposes the principle of the motion now before the House. The hon. member for Peace River knows better than I that the basic principle of a reasoned amendment is that it has first to oppose the principle or give reasons why the House is invited to vote against the motion which is before the House. This is the reservation which I have.
I would be very grateful if hon. members would guide the Chair and give advice on which I could base a decision at this time. If we were operating under other circumstances, I would tell the House I would give further consideration in the next hour, next few hours or wait until tomorrow, but we are under considerable pressure. I think hon. members would prefer that we go on with the substance of the matter referred to by the hon. member rather than have an extended procedural debate on the point. In any event if hon. members have views they could express briefly on the procedural aspect of the matter, I could hear them now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Might I just add a few words on the procedural aspect, and then I will leave myself a sitting target for other hon. members. I realize the difficulty with which Your Honour has confronted me. On the other hand, Your Honour must recognize that an appropriation bill does not contain a principle, although when an appropriation bill has items of this kind in my opinion it completely lacks principles.
In any event, my submission is that we can interpret this measure in such a way that every vote in the estimates, which appear as a part of this schedule, must be read as part of the whole bill. Consequently, the operatives clauses in the bill must be applied to each vote in the estimates, in this case the supplementary estimates, which appear in the schedule. In that sense, I and members of my party object strenuously to this or any other attempt to legislate by a simple vote in the estimates, particularly one which is so obnoxious because of its reference to three different ways by which the Governor in Council can make regulations prescribing the way in which the moneys are going to be paid. Our only method of opposing this practice is by means of a reasoned amendment which states that we object to this principle. I will be frank. I can find no precedent for and no precedent against this method which leaves the matter directly in the lap of Your Honour.
Supplementary Estimates


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, old timers know I am a veteran of the war against dollar items. That appears to put me on the side of the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: The side of the angels.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
I must say I am not really on his side in this particular respect. I wish also to say that my colleagues who represent rural constituencies in western Canada have authorized me to say they are against the Lift program. That, too, appears to put me on the side of the hon. member for Peace River.
However there are a couple of comments I wish to make. My opposition to dollar items is that in most cases they seem to import into a money bill legislation that may have no relation to money, or that does not call for the voting of money. We have often felt that these dollar items were devices to obviate the necessity of a piece of legislation standing on its own. In the case of this Lift program what is before us is not a dollar item, but a $100 million item. Money is involved. I do not think it is quite as foreign to a supply bill to put in a $100 million item with terms and conditions as it is to put in a dollar item.
Let me say again that my colleagues and I are against this $100 million Lift program. I am speaking procedurally, not in terms of substance. It seems there is that difference. I know this is said sometimes when we complain about dollar items, but we must remember that a supply bill is a bill. It is an act of Parliament. It is a form of legislation. I still think that dollar items are repugnant. They are as repugnant as omnibus bills sometimes are. There was one such bill in recent days which we did not like because two or three interns were included in the same bill.
Having said that, may I try to come to Your Honour's assistance by suggesting that I think that what the hon. member for Peace River has placed in this amendment is not so much an amendment as a point of order. He is arguing in his amendment that the government has no right to introduce item 17b, set up this Lift program and attach the terms and conditions to it. I am repeating ad nauseam that my colleagues will oppose the program. As a matter of fact, they want to get on with this job. They told me not to take too long on this procedural point because they want to get at the Minister without Portfolio and have a real go at the Lift program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 24. 1970
Supplementary Estimates


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
applause I am receiving indicates I had better cut this short. I am pleased to do so. I reserve my right to continue the fight against dollar items during the months and years ahead. But it the government has decided on this piece of legislation, which involves both terms and conditions on the one hand and money on the other, it is pretty hard to say it is out of order to bring it in through the medium of his bill.
It seems that the interesting amendment of my hon. friend for Peace River is more a point of order than an amendment. I think Your Honour will probably have to rule that the bill is in order, now that item 17b is being left as it was originally. If Your Honour does so rule and we get into Committee of the Whole on the bill and get to the schedule, then my friends around me will say what they think about the Lift program.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice on the very interesting amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). My original reaction of course was that there was something that did not appear to be right. Perhaps even the comments made very generously by the hon. member for Peace River indicate that this is a novel attempt to get at a motion of this kind.
I believe even if we are operating under new rules, the principles which must guide the Chair in connection with reasoned amendments are the same. The reasoned amendment must oppose the principle of the bill. I refer hon. members to May's 17th edition, page 527, paragraph (2) and page 528, paragraph (3):
An amendment, which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill, is open to objection.
It seems that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed to the House at the present time declares itself in principle, but is not opposing the motion which is before the House in the sense it would be opposing the principle of that motion. I have very serious reservations. It seems we would be opening the door rather wide if this kind of amendment to this motion were accepted at the present time. I can assure the hon. member that I will give the matter further thought. I would be prepared on some other occasion to give further consideration to an amendment such as this; I would be in a better position to accept it or refuse it having given the matter additional study. On the basis of the limited thinking I have been able

to do, and on the strength of the views expressed both by the hon. member for Peace River and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would think that the amendment should not be put to the House.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Otto Emil Lang: I think it would be appropriate for me to say a few things in response to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) concerning the item to which he has referred in seeking to move his amendment.
I believe the House appreciates that it is not by any means a minor item but that it represents in fact, a significant expenditure proposed on behalf of the people of Canada in the interest of the agricultural community of the west. The hon. member for Peace River chose to look to the form of the proposal and said it was iniquitous for us to use this form to pay to the farmers of the prairies the proposed $100 million in connection with the LIFT program. The hon. member has apparently missed the point. The totality of the LIFT program is by no means comprised in this item. The item contains the payments to farmers which it is proposed to make in connection with an acreage adjustment plan. It was apparent to us that this represented an extremely important matter for the prairie region.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be delighted if the minister had been allowed to speak on my amendment, had it been put, but it seems to me he is speaking on an amendment which Your Honour ruled could not be put. There is some question, therefore, as to whether the minister can proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I have serious reservations about the procedure we are now following. I thought the minister's comments perhaps were of an introductory nature and that he would return to the consideration of the motion which is before us at the present time. I have to remind the minister that the proposed amendment was ruled out of order and that what we have before us now is a motion for second reading. I wonder whether it would not be better procedure, if the House agrees, for this debate on the item in question to take place in the committee of the whole once there has been agreement to accept the motion and the matter has been referred to the committee.
March 24, 1970


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Surely, Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of an appropriation bill it is appropriate to talk about any item in the appropriation bill and it cannot be out of order for the minister to talk about an item in a general way or explain the policy which the government may be following in that regard.


Otto Emil Lang: On the same point of order; although I was referring to certain things that had been said by the hon. member for Peace River it was my purpose to talk generally about the item, not to discuss it specifically in relation to the amendment which was so properly ruled out of order by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the President of the Privy Council is well taken. It was my understanding there had been agreement that this debate would be-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister says no. I may say I had already reached that conclusion when I heard him raise his point of order. The minister now has the floor and may make his contribution to the debate on the subject he chooses. I am informed, now, that other hon. members are anxious to take part in the discussion and deal with other points.


An hon. Member:: It is wide open.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
is it not one of our rules, Mr. Speaker, that on second reading we should not refer to particular clauses of a bill? Are we not running afoul of that rule if a debate is permitted on just one item in the schedule. What I am trying to do, I suppose, by raising a point of order, is to make an appeal to common sense. Would it not be better to give the bill second reading, get it into committee, come to the schedule and then have a full debate on item 17b, at which time the minister can make the speech he wishes to make now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member of Peace River chose to take the opportunity on second reading to open the debate on this question. It is fairly generally accepted, under our parliamentary procedure, that debate implies an opportunity for the minister to reply to what has been said. The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might have been apropos had he uttered them while the hon. member for Peace River was speaking, but it seems to me that on the basis of reciprocity the minister should now be allowed to make his statement.
Supplementary Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot agree with the position taken by the President of the Privy Council. The question was raised as a point of order and the minister had the opportunity, had he wished to take it, of speaking on the point of order. He did not participate in that discussion and the amendment was ruled out of order. The President of the Privy Council now suggests that the minister has the right to continue the discussion of the subject which was raised by way of a proposed amendment on the part of the hon. member for Peace River. I do not believe that would be the proper procedure.
I suggest to hon. members I was right in the first instance when I said he could not at this point engage in a discussion of the clauses of a bill. That is a basic rule of debate. When a motion for second reading is before the House we can debate in a general way the principle of the bill but not the clauses in detail. This is why I have some qualms about allowing a discussion at this stage on a particular aspect of the measure itself. I think it would have been better procedurally if there had been a debate, should one be required, on second reading, on the general principles, whatever they may be, followed by a detailed discussion of the particular clauses and schedules at another stage.
It is a little difficult to determine what might be said at this point if we are to limit ourselves entirely to the principle of the bill, which is a money bill. The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is well taken. I agree fully with him. At the same time, if there is to be a general debate I would find it difficult to rule that hon. members cannot refer in any way to the details of the bill before us. So, perhaps the minister would endeavour to limit his remarks as much as possible to the question of principle. If he wishes to consider particular clauses in detail, that would better be done in due course when we are in committee.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly try to limit my observations to the general principle of the bin. As Your Honour has pointed out, a money bill has some peculiarities in that regard. So, while addressing myself to what is, no doubt, the most important part of the bill in many ways, I propose to refer to the general program involved in this one particular item.
This particular set of estimates contains provisions which are extremely important to the prairie farmers. I want to take this opportunity, in the presence of hon. members

March 24, 1870
Supplementary Estimates assembled in the House, rather than in committee, to point out that some of those who sit on the benches opposite have been misled, perhaps into thinking that this particular item in the estimates represents the totality of government programs in this field. It may very well occur that there are government programs which are ongoing or capable of implementation in other ways in conjunction with the required expenditure of money. This is certainly the case in connection with the matter before us today.
q (4:10 p.m.)
As an example of that principle, I want to refer to the fact that the program which the hon. member for Peace River discussed, the "lift" program, has in fact a major portion of its implementation in the general law of the land. Under regulations made in connection with the Wheat Board Act, the most important part of the program can in fact be put into place. The whole of the quota system, as an example, is in fact authorized to be put in place under the Wheat Board Act itself. This is what the government intends.
When the program was announced, the intention of the government along these lines was made clear. The expenditure of the $100 million, which has been referred to on previous occasions by the hon. member for Peace River as a shabby amount and I think by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) as a small crumb, is important and, of course, has to be included in the estimates themselves.
The authority to pay the money in conjunction with the program, as I indicated, is found in part elsewhere in the law. It is important for members to appreciate that, in this fashion, the expenditure of money which is of vital importance to the program, can accompany a program for which authorization is found elsewhere. This certainly puts to nought, if I may simply say that, the arguments which have been heard from time to time about what should or should not be included in the substance of an item in the estimates.
In a case like this, as an example, the vote of the money here is a very important part of the program, but it is certainly only auxiliary or ancillary to other parts of the program which can be put into place under the law generally.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, we are now permitted to make general remarks on

programs of the government. I wish to take this opportunity to speak briefly about matters that were under very heavy discussion last week, specifically inflation and unemployment, and what the government's programs have done to make these situations considerably worse.
A week ago Sunday night, all of those who were watching the CBC television news were very surprised to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) disclose the latest chapter in the government's four year effort to curb inflation. At that time the final plans of his government, which claims to be a modern government using computers and a lot of bright young men who fill the Prime Minister's office called modern thinkers, was disclosed.
We were amazed to hear the Minister of Finance, in his disclosure of the government's present plans to curb inflation, disclose a plan that has been in operation in various countries throughout the world for literally hundreds of years. This government of computers and bright young men is now going to fight inflation by that age old process of slowing down the economy by restricting credit. That has always been followed in every country where it has been tried by workers being laid off. When they get hungry, these workers are willing to work for less. This brings costs down, prices fall and the country concerned considers that it has licked inflation.
We heard the Minister of Finance say very clearly on television the other night that this government considers it may be necessary to have higher unemployment in 1970 than it had in 1969, if, in his own words, we are really going to lick inflation. So there you have the policy of this government. After four years of failure in its efforts to curb inflation it is finally going back to policies that have been in operation for hundreds of years. It is finally admitting that the best the so-called just society can produce is that great reactionary and harsh policy of growing unemployment, growing misery and growing hardship, which has been in use for so long.
Let us examine for a moment this government's programs for fighting inflation in the past four years. During the first three of those four years it resorted, in various budgets, to increasing taxes, which did not work. The cost of living kept increasing year by year at a steadily accelerating rate. Finally, after three years of increased taxes the government decided this method was not effective.
March 24, 1970

Then, last June the government tried another method of fighting inflation. The Minister of Finance told us that the government plan consisted of slowing down construction over the next two years in the three most wealthy provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, by withholding the 5 per cent capital cost allowance to builders in order to persuade them not to build for the next two years. The government forgot to take one important matter into consideration. The builders knew very well that building costs in Canada were going up at a rate of 12 per cent per year. Through a very simple process of arithmetic they knew that if they put off building for two years and started again two years later it would cost them 24 per cent more to build the same building at that time than it would today. They decided this was not good business, that is to increase costs in two years by about 25 per cent in order to save 5 per cent for two years. So, the builders simply laughed at the government and went right on building. That program proved completely worthless.
The other program the Minister of Finance announced last June was equally ineffective. He told us on the night he presented his budget that the Kennedy Round tariff reductions, which were originally supposed to be spread over the next three years, would become effective that very night. He said this lowering of tariffs on a great number of items would increase competition in Canada and lower the price of goods, thereby slowing down the increase in the cost of living and the rapidly rising inflation.
Once again, the government forgot one very important factor. It did not have any way available to require importers to pass on the savings to the consumer. I refer to the savings resulting from removing the tariffs. So the importers did exactly what the builders did. They simply laughed at the government. They did not pass along the tariff reductions; prices did not come down, prices kept going up at an ever-increasing rate. Once again all importers, as has been the case in respect of the construction men, simply laughed at the government.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
How do we account for the action of a government in passing a budget which contains a measure that any businessman, had he been consulted, could have told them would not work. By passing this budget, the government made itself a figure of fun. It has lost the respect of the business community of
Supplementary Estimates Canada because when one mentions this government and its programs to businessmen, they either swear or laugh. Neither is good for the maintenance of the respect a government should receive from the people of the country. The people in the business community know this government is not a business government. One might ask why a government would pass a budget which contains these measures for fighting inflation which will prove to be absolutely worthless. Mr. Speaker, the answer is that this government is run by four men who, by no stretch of the imagination, are businessmen.
These four men are the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). These gentlemen are very nice men to meet and are charming men to whom to talk. In their own fields, I am sure they are very good and were very good before they entered government. Three were professors and one was a labour leader. I am sure they all did their jobs extremely well in the fields in which they were. But these men do not understand plain, ordinary business principles. These are the men who decide what the government is and is not to do. This is not done in an official way. This is the type of consultation that is carried on in any government by a group, usually of five, six or seven persons, which controls the government. These are the men in the government who quietly decide the direction in which the government is to move. This is not done officially. It is just one of the things that happen in every government.
These four men who run this government do not happen to be businessmen. They do not understand business practices. They have taken a completely impractical approach to the business affairs of this country. Most of the things a government has to deal with today are economic matters; yet, they are being dealt with by men who do not understand business and how it operates. So, the country is in a very serious situation. This is the situation which caused the present member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the then deputy prime minister and a veteran of several governments, to resign his portfolio and become a private member. He simply could not stomach the impractical methods by which the government was operating. So, he stepped aside. Last fall, having had various failures on its hands and seeing the cost of living rise steadily at an ever-increasing rate

He did not even deign to answer the question. The answer, of course, was no. What is the difference between the Prime Minister spending six days in the Arctic and six days finding out how people in poverty live in this country? The answer is that it is very pleasant to go to the Arctic, especially when you are accompanied by hosts of photographers, reporters and television cameras and you can get all dressed up, pose with Eskimo girls, beat drums, dance, and have pictures of you flooding back to the newspapers of the country and the television screens all across Canada. But slums make a very poor background for television cameras, for news pictures and for stories that come back. Poverty is a very unpleasant thing to look at-it is not very pretty. The Prime Minister did not think he would like to have the photographers down there taking pictures of the conditions existing in the just society that he and his government said they were going to create. So, he simply pretends that poverty does not exist. He looks the other way.
That is the kind of Prime Minister we have developing this so-called just society. That is why to him unemployment is just a statistic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: It just so happens that I had finished my remarks. Thank you all the same. It is kind of you to give me that consideration!


Mr. Dinsdale:: The government does not want to hear about poverty.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: should like to say, with regard to this bill and the moneys it provides, that significant amounts of this money affect the people in the constituency which I represent and indeed the people all across western Canada. In making his brief comments, the minister said that he wanted to take this opportunity to point out some things to members who have been misled regarding certain facts related to these estimates and this bill. Having been out in Saskatchewan, it seems to me that if the minister thinks members of this House were
Supplementary Estimates misled, speaking in the vernacular, "he ain't seen nothin' yet". He was out in Saskatchewan, as I was, and if he listened as I did he should have found that a great many farmers believe that they were misled. In other words, they thought they were being led down the garden path.
When we look at the estimates contained in this bill we have to consider their purpose as stated by responsible ministers. The Minister announced that $100 million would be made available as an income supplement which would see the western farmers over the hump. When we look at this program closely, we find that there is no firm undertaking to spend $100 million. Indeed, if we consider whether that amount of money is going to be spent we must realize that the restrictions on the farmers are such, and the proposals inherent in the statements of the responsible minister are such, that many farmers will be prevented from taking part in this program. Of course, that may be just as well, because if enough of them took part in the program to achieve the declared intention of the government, that is taking out of wheat production 22 million acres in western Canada, we might very well be headed for a considerable disaster. But I do not think it will happen and the good common sense of the farmers will prevent such a catastrophe.
This proposal affects the livelihood of approximately 190,000 permit holders in western Canada. It is one thing to pass legislation which would permit these people to either take advantage of such a program or stay out of it, but it is another thing to propose a plan which does not give this large number of farmers a real choice. This is the point at which this bill goes past the ordinary prerogatives of the government. The government may have advisers who think that they have within themselves the knowledge to plan production on the individual farms in western Canada and to tell the individual farmer what he may or may not do. They propose to send inspectors to his farm to see that he does what he is supposed to do, and to see that he does it in the way in which it is supposed to be done. But I suggest that any department or any group of men or women who think they can undertake such a task are indeed taking a great deal upon themselves.
The hon. member who spoke just before me mentioned the difficulty of ensuring that a certain group of businessmen do a certain thing, but when you deal with a group of businessmen you are dealing with a relatively

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates small group of men who control a great amount of resources. In this case, however, we are dealing with a numerically large group of farmers which makes it very difficult to ensure the achievement of the desired result from this program. The regulations will be promulgated in due course, so we are told, and the farmers will have to live with those regulations, whatever they are. But so will the businessmen have to live with them, Mr. Speaker, and the businessmen are serving those farmers. The downturn which will occur in the economy, as a result of the restricted spending in that prairie region, and in Saskatchewan in particular, cannot even be calculated. Already we find a serious slump in that prairie region, and in particular in the centre of that region where this program is expected to have its major effect. This is the thing that has been overlooked in connection with the program.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Agriculture is the strongest economic base in the three prairie provinces. Instead of reducing income from agriculture, we should be reinforcing it. We should be making sure that it is strong, positive and moving forward. This proposal is essentially a negative one, and the farmer and the businessman do not know what it may hold in the future. The man who may take a large amount of his land out of production and put it into sum-merfallow this year has no idea what he is going to do with it next year. Last week I attended ten meetings in Saskatchewan and talked to upwards of 900 or 1,000 farmers. More than that, Mr. Speaker, I listened to them. At each of those meetings the question was always asked, "All right for this year, but what do we do next year? What do we do when we have substantial amounts of land placed in summerfallow that will be ready for cropping in the succeeding year? Is it all going to be cropped? Is it going to produce more surplus wheat?"
Is the government already laying its plans for the future and not telling anybody? Does it have a nice little clutch of planners who are already making plans to keep this land out of production next year also? Is this what is taking place? In all conscience, to make economic or moral sense, the people of that region have a right to know where they are heading. Above all else the farmer is a planner. He has to be a planner. What farmers do next year is planned with what they are going to do the year after that in mind. If you are going to put in forage, then obviously you

will have a cow herd to use that forage, or there has to be a market some place where you think you can sell that forage. Otherwise, you are going to plan things that way.
If certain amounts of land are going into forage, does the government have a plan for an increased cattle population? If certain land is going into summerfallow this year what is to be done with it next year? If the government devised a program to cover three or five years then, it might have had some justification for putting a program like this before the country. But it has not done so. Its program covers just one year. In our mythology we say that Saskatchewan is a next year country. Above all, the minister should know this. Admittedly he is not a farmer himself, but you do not have to be a farmer to acquire the wisdom to know what happens. Surely, he ought to know that this is a next year country.
I give you the example of a man who came to me and asked what he could do. He said, "I am operating 2,000 acres and I have 200 cattle." That is a fair sized operation. He said, "This program will divest me of my right to market wheat. If I lose my right to market wheat because I cannot fit into this program, then my gross income is cut by so much. What I have got to do in the next two or three months is figure out how to put another enterprise on my farm." He was talking about a hog enterprise. Whether he will undertake that or not I do not know. He said, "I have got to put some further enterprise on the farm to take care of the quota I am going to lose under this program."
Consider the individual who in the last two or three years attempted to adjust to the market circumstances which he knew existed and the changes which he thought were coming. He reduced his wheat acreage and sought to adjust. Where does he find himself under this program? He finds himself severely penalized, and unable to adjust his operations to fit the governments program. In its broad sweep this program is to be applied from the banks of the Red River in Winnipeg to the Peace River at Fort St. John, which takes in an area of a couple of thousand miles. This program takes within its scope farmers all the way from those in southern Manitoba, many of whom practice continuous cropping, intensive cultivation and who have discarded the summerfallow idea altogether, to farmers across the great plain in the drier region where you have a half or third crop practice. It also takes in the rancher, the one who may be a complete rancher, whose total
March 24. 1970



income comes from livestock and to whom grain is secondary, as well as the mixed farmer. It also takes in the oil seed crop grower. Now, along come a bunch of brain-stormers who think all these farmers can be fitted into a single pattern, a single plan.
The Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt has a copy of the letter I have in my hand, so I will not quote from it. This letter is from a constituent of mine, in which he asks how does he fit into this program with his 400 odd acres of land. He points out that he adjusted his cropping practices last year and most of his land is in summerfallow. He asks should he keep it in summerfallow again, and how can he protect his quota. This is the major problem connected with the program. Here is a program which is supposed to help the income situation in Saskatchewan, but which will make the income situation of many farmers much worse. We were told that this program would prevent expansion into other crops. Time will tell. Forecasts are now being made with respect to the amount of land being turned over to other crops, and left in summerfallow. I think that at this point all bets are off. Nobody knows what is going to happen.
* (4:50 p.m.)
Nothing is said here about a marketing program, about a program to move more of our products into the markets of the world. The government just says, "We are going to take 22 million acres out of production," despite the fact the minister himself has publicly stated that 20 million acres would be a desirable and manageable wheat acreage for the western plains. Mr. Claude Hudson, an unquestioned authority for the wheat industry in Canada has produced a study commissioned by the Economic Council of Canada in which he says we are going to need 25 million acres in wheat by 1975. Last year we only had 24.5 million acres sown to wheat and almost anyone would have to concede that this would have been cut this year to around 20 million acres. Now, the government pushes the panic button and disrupts the total economics of agriculture in western Canada, leaving the individual farmer to work himself out of the box he has been put in by the government.
Should we be unfortunate enough to experience a couple of dry years, on top of the economic dislocation inherent in this plan, we could have serious soil erosion as well. This program is proposed as a solution to an
Supplementary Estimates area already in the down-turn economically and asks the farmers to restrict production, not even, to use the basic resource already there. As far as economics is concerned, it is a weirdo. If agriculture were marginal to the area, it could be treated as a marginal industry not having top priority. But it is not marginal, it is the main industry and the economy of the region depends on the wealth generated by it. You cannot put it into mothballs because if you do the farmers and a lot of business go into mothballs with it.
Here we have this program purporting to put $100 million-odd dollars into the hands of farmers but nobody knows how much of it will actually get there. If it does get there the farmer will probably spend most of it trying to conform with the non-productive program which the government has dreamed up. The only advice I can give to the minister and those around him is to adjust the program before it is too late. Try to recapture some of the confidence of the farmers, try to get them to work along with you to achieve some possible objective. Try for a program which will improve the condition of the farmer and not add to his difficulties.


Mr. Oza  Telrauli@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the supplementary estimates introduced today by the minister and which have no bearing on any votes regarding grants to gold mines.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to say a few words about the situation of the mining towns in northwesternn Quebec, in particular Val-D'Or, Malartic, Cadillac, Chapais, Rouyn-Noranda and Chibougamau. These seven municipalities exist today mainly because of mining operations, which provide employment to 2,000 workers. They were established around the 30's. Millions of dollars were spent to provide the citizens with adequate public services and to make of these communities well-organized municipalities.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has not yet visited Abitibi, I am pleased to invite him to do so and I hope that he will come during the 70's. Several ministers of this government have already paid a short visit to Abitibi. They were surprised to find that our municipalities were modern and equipped with the same facilities as large urban centres in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, lately I received seven resolutions from city councils and school boards of my area asking the government to continue

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates the grants to gold mines after the 70's and even asking for an increase. Several letters were sent for that purpose to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen).
Mr. Speaker, here is one of the resolutions which was passed by these seven municipalities.
Whereas gold has for thousands of years been recognized as a precious metal and been sought after by all the peoples of the world;
Whereas Canada, as many other countries, has its gold-mining industry;
Whereas considerable capital has been invested to build up that important industry in our country;
Whereas, in 1939 there were 232 gold mines in Canada;
Whereas, 30 years later, namely in 1969, only some thirty of them were still operating;
Whereas that industry is threatened with extinction in the near future;
Whereas well-organized cities were built near those mines, for the miners and their families;
Whereas those cities were built in a large measure with funds provided by small investors;
Whereas the government of Canada recognized, in 1947, that the closing down of mines as a result of higher operation costs penalized and even ruined the defenseless small investor;
Whereas the government of Canada started, in 1947, to pay subsidies to the gold mines threatened with having to close down;
Whereas almost all Canadian gold mines operating today would have closed down had it not been for federal grants;
Whereas operating costs are still going up and subsidies have not been increased since 1958;
Whereas the Gold Mining Assistance Act will remain in force only to the end of 1970;
Be it resolved as moved by alderman Adrien Paquin, seconded by alderman Wilfrid Asselin, that the municipal council, in the face of so serious a situation, ask the federal government not only that assistance to the gold mines be maintained after 1970 but that it be increased to enable those mines to continue operating and to save from bankruptcy those municipalities which depend on them.
Mr. Speaker, I have just read the resolution approved by seven municipalities in my riding of Villeneuve. Everyone knows that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistanct Act expires at the end of December 1970. I beg the Minister and the government to study thoroughly all the elements related to that industry.
In January 1934, the United States increased the price of gold. It was at that time $20.67 per ounce and it went up to $35 per ounce. That rise led to an increase in prospection and prospectors thus discovered mines of all kinds. A rise in grants after 1970

would be beneficial, I think, to the government and the Canadian people. No doubt such a decision would be the beginning of a new development in prospection throughout Canada.
The word "emergency" was well chosen when the government passed that measure and it is still appropriate today. Without that measure, all gold mines could not survive, which would be unfortunate in a just society, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so justly said during the 1968 election campaign.
In my area, 2,000 miners earn their living that way. They pay every year to the government large amounts of money in the form of taxes. If the government compared the income of employees and employers who must rely on gold mines to live, to the grants that amount to about $15 million, they would find out that those grants are largely made up through taxes paid by the workers.
The implementation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act has enabled this country to overcome the economic difficulties created by the rise in operation costs and the stability in the price of gold.
Mining is one of the oldest industries in Canada. It goes back to the first French explorers and settlers, some 350 years ago. The first ore discovery was probably made by a mining engineer accompanying Samuel de Champlain during one of his exploration journeys in the New World, at the beginning of the 17th century. Champlain himself mentioned the existence of silver in Nova Scotia and of copper in the Gaspe peninsula.
It is, however, mainly in the course of the last century that the most interesting discoveries were made. Three important events were the highlights of this time: the building of the railways, the Klondike gold rush and the disovery of a silver field at Cobalt in Ontario.
In 1970, the Canadian government will pay many millions of dollars in subsidies to the western farmers, in order to prevent them from producing wheat. I want to be quite clear about that: I do not mind whether the government pays subsidies to the farmers for Canadians certainly need farmers to grow wheat.
The same could apply to unsold milk. But we could certainly sell all the gold we produce to the United States. Let me quote here from a newspaper article written by Mr. Amedee Gaudreault, which outlines very
March 24, 1970	COMMONS
well, in my view, the situation now prevailing in the gold mines and I quote:
Some experts have told me that gold mining operations have not changed very much over the last ten years and that no major improvements are foreseen in the near future. From 1950 to 1960 the important progress that was achieved then made it possible to increase the production of a miner by about 50 per cent, but that was all.
Besides, the industry never stopped declining: production amounted to 4,541,962 ounces in 1955, to 3,606,031 ounces in 1965 and to about 2,500,000 ounces last year. As for the miners, they numbered 22,491 in 1950, 18,032 in 1955, 12,520 in 1965 and 7,800 in 1969; nearly 75 per cent of them are employed in northeastern Ontario and northwestern Quebec, where is located the famous "belt", comprising Timmins, Porcupine, Kirkland Lake, No-randa and Val d'Or.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

A committee of six municipal members was formed to study the possibility of presenting a brief to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). Preparing a brief every three years is certainly an expensive proposition for the municipalities concerned because the brief alone would cost approximately $15,000 and there would be the added expense of the delegates. In closing, may I point out to the minister that we are trying to help the government find a way to solve the problem of unemployment in Canada. Let us not add to the half million already waiting for work who are on the rolls of the unemployed. It would be helpful if the miners in my district could find employment. I, therefore, hope the government will support our proposition to continue the subsidies for 1970 and after. The government should make its decision as soon as possible because the municipalities in my district are very nervous and do not know whether the government will pay the subsidy on gold mining. I hope the government will decide this matter very shortly, because these municipalities could receive no greater gift than the knowledge the government is deciding the question of these subsidies in the very near future.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I wish to make a few brief remarks about matters that concern my riding, my province and the nation generally. About two weeks ago we heard the budget speech presented in the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The budget speech confirmed what hon. members on this side of the House and the Canadian public have been thinking for the past couple of years, that there is now a 21774-65
DEBATES	5421
Supplementary Estimates new meaning to the old Liberal slogan, "participatory democracy". That meaning is summed up by the phrase, "sharing the grief".
While the Minister of Finance arrogantly balances himself on the edge of his House of Commons seat, almost 6 million Canadians living below the poverty line are trying to balance themselves on their meagre budgets and keep body and soul together on salaries which fall below the poverty level.
Much has been said of the present government and the fact that it was elected on the charisma of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); he made no promises, except that he would build a just society. He did not keep that promise. He built an unjust society. It is equally obvious the government is anxious to keep the Prime Minister's latest promise to force the unemployment rate in Canada up to 6 per cent. According to the latest statistics released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the unemployment rate as a national average is 6.5 per cent of our labour force. In the Atlantic provinces the rate has been forced-and I use the word "forced" deliberately, because the policies of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have forced up the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada-to 11 per cent.
In the absence of definite figures for Newfoundland, I predict that the unemployment rate there will probably exceed 20 per cent. When one realizes that one fifth of wage earners of a province of Canada will be unemployed, should not one be frightened? One ought to be alarmed at the 6.5 per cent national unemployment rate, the highest in six or seven years. Since assuming office in 1968, this government has embarked on a deliberate policy of forcing people onto the rolls of the unemployed. That is no laughing matter. The average unemployed Canadian must now be asking himself, "What is this all about and where will it end." Having spoken to the people of my riding, of my province generally and to other Canadians, I am convinced our people realize that the government does not know where it is going and what is worst they could not care less. The answer to the second part of the question, "Where will it all end," will be found in the ballot boxes after the next general election.
The government has embarked on a policy that is rapidly strangling the Canadian economy. Certainly, it has a stranglehold on the unemployed, on those living below the poverty line, on western farmers, Atlantic fishermen, small businessmen and Canadians gen-

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates erally. Its callous and indifferent attitude towards the economically depressed regions of Canada is sapping the spirit and initiative of our people, and in my opinion can only result in social and economic disaster. The government refuses to acknowledge that our economy is on its knees and actually bleeding to death. The Minister of Finance, his colleagues and the Prime Minister go about their merry way arrogantly boasting about the rapidly increasing unemployment rate and their phoney war on inflation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
At the same time, they have the gall to brag about how generous they are towards the depressed, have-not areas of Canada. Let the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance convince the unemployed in this country and those living below the poverty line that the government's anti-inflation policy is the right one. Let them try to convince the 83,000 Newfoundlanders who have been forced to accept welfare that the government's anti-inflation policy is the right one. The figure to which I referred a moment ago with regard to unemployment must give the Prime Minister a great deal of satisfaction.
This government appears to have adopted the attitude of "don't confuse us with the facts". The fact is that those regions of the country which do not contribute to inflation, such as the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, are being forced to take the same medicine as the wealthier provinces where there may be a need to impose anti-inflationary measures.
It is obvious there is a great deal of confusion in the government. In my two years as a member I have witnessed the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) continually battling the question of what comes first, the fishermen or necessary facilities for fishermen? This is similar to the question which came first, the chicken or the egg? I know in my constituency many people wish to return to the fishing industry but are unable to do so because of a lack of adequate facilities. The Minister of Public Works has refused to approve expenditures to build facilities because there are no fishermen in the area. He does not recognize the fact that these people are not actively engaged in the fisheries because there are no facilities. That is why I say they are arguing about what comes first, fishermen or facilities.
There have been a number of developments in recent months which are having a detri-

mental effect on the economy in the have-not areas. I do not want to drag out the subject of the seal fishery, but what my colleagues have said in this House bears repeating. Regulations have been imposed by the Minister of Fisheries, the basis of which stem almost entirely from the fact there have been representations by our embassies in Europe and other parts of the world because of pressure applied to them by the so-called sob-sisters, the bleeding heart societies and, in many cases, the vested interests. Our government has seen fit to yield to the pressure applied by those people at the expense of the Atlantic coast fishermen who, in many cases, augment their income from the seal fishery. Because of the regulations now imposed, it will be extremely difficult for these fishermen. There are fishermen in Atlantic Canada who desperately need the extra few dollars available from the seal fishery.
This government, with its typical arrogance and lack of interest or concern for the have-nots of this nation, has set about to destroy that industry. They have robbed those fishermen of the chance to earn a few dollars to tide them over until they return to their fishing boats or engage in some other job. I believe these regulations are crazy and stupid. They certainly were not well thought out by the Minister of Fisheries or his staff. Any reasonable person who has any idea of what is happening in Atlantic Canada would never allow this sort of thing. The Minister of Fisheries has done a great deal for the fisheries of Atlantic Canada. I am surprised that he permitted this regulation to be imposed on the sealing industry. It will have a ruinous effect on the industry, if not this year then next year or the year after.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) recently made a statement boasting of the fact that there were 22 areas in Canada designated to be special areas. There are eight such areas in Newfoundland. One area in my riding which is certainly more deserving than probably any other part of the province, was not even mentioned. I refer to the Argentia-Placentia area and the phasing out of the Argentia US naval station. There are approximately 200 fishermen and their families who were resettled in that area by this government and the Newfoundland government. They have not been provided with any facilities to encourage them to earn a living from the fisheries. It is a very depressed area. I am very disappointed that the minister did not see fit to extend the
March 24, 1970

same benefits to that area that will be extended to other specially designated areas in Canada.
In that same area there is a great deal of economic and social unrest as well as uncertainty, brought about by the government's resettlement program. I have said before in this House and in committee, and I will keep saying that there has been a grave injustice done to the people who were encouraged and in some cases forced to vacate their former homes and properties to move to the so-called resettlement areas. These people were enticed to move by the government. They were helped financially to a certain extent to help defray the cost of moving and to resettle. They were then completely forgotten.
These people were treated like checkers on a board, like pieces of machinery, like little red pins on a map. They were taken away from the place their families had been for generations, in most cases in areas where they could earn a decent living for themselves and their families. In some cases, they were forced to move to the so-called growth areas. They now find they are completely incapable of carrying on their vocation of fishing. They have been almost forced to become welfare addicts. I believe this is a serious injustice.
I hope this government will recognize its responsibility and pay special attention to the people concerned. The government should help them to rehabilitate themselves in their new environment. These people should be given a chance to restore their independence. Like most Canadians, they want to be able to stand tall, walk straight and earn a decent living for themselves and their families. I have spent hours talking about this, written hundreds of letters and have made many speeches on the subject. Much to my regret and the regret of the people concerned, the government so far has elected to turn a deaf ear to the problem. Special attention should be given to these areas by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in view of the fact their way of life was destroyed by the government and they are now unable to help themselves. As I said a moment ago, they are unable to earn a living for themselves and their families.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There are a number of other matters which affect my area, one of which is housing. I was very interested in the question asked today by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Has-tings (Mr. Hees). He challenged the Prime
21774-65J
Supplementary Estimates Minister to pay some attention and visit the slums of Canada in the same way which he did in the Arctic. As the hon. member mentioned later, this is not a popular suggestion because slums do not make good pictures. I would also challenge the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for housing to go into parts of my riding where people are living under conditions which are altogether substandard, and should not to be tolerated by anyone in 1970. The government does not seem to appreciate the need for decent housing which exists among Canadians. Hon. gentlemen opposite are making a lot of noise about urban renewal schemes and subsidized housing, but not enough is being done in an area which should obviously be given priority. I urge the government to step up its programs in this field. There is great need for urban renewal in Canada. There is great need for extensive studies to ascertain the fact of bad housing conditions, with their attendant inconvenience and squalor, and the effect it is having upon our young people who will be governing Canada tomorrow. Again, I urge the government to intensify its program to enable those now experiencing wretched-substandard housing conditions to enjoy some of the amenities that are being taken for granted by most Canadians.


William Gordon Ritchie: On rising to speak on this bill, may I say that I intend to confine my comments to the subject of the Lift program announced by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I do not know how well this program has been named; I strongly suspect there is not much lift attached to this program and that it may never get off the ground. In some respects this is a pity, because it might have been a useful program. But it was ill-conceived and ill-considered; the most charitable thing one could say about it, I suppose, is that it was introduced in too great a hurry.
During his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told us that it would be necessary to introduce supplementary estimates providing $100 million for prairie farmers. The Lift program will certainly not need all that money. Upwards of half of it will be saved, unless all the reports I have received are misleading. I say from personal knowledge, and as a result of discussions with farmers and with hon. members of this House who come from agricultural areas, that it will be virtually impossible for farmers to follow this plan in its entirety.

March 24. 1970
Supplementary Estimates
The prediction in the Richardson Grain Letter that the figure of 15 million acres would be realized seems to be altogether optimistic. Reports indicate that the plan will have minimal acceptance in Manitoba and Alberta, and perhaps more effect in the great wheat lands of Saskatchewan. Statistics from the Dominion Bureau indicate that farmers will be planting about 18 million acres. If a figure of 15 million is realized, it means a net reduction of seven million acres.
The minister's plan to divert 20 million acres to summerfallow and two million acres to forage appear unrealistic and lacking in foresight. My criticism does not apply so strongly to the proposal relating to forage; that seems to be a useful program. The scheme as a whole would get rid of wheat, but at enormous cost. Because of the way in which surplus wheat is distributed all over the prairies, many farmers would still have very little to sell, while others will be left with a great deal. As the scheme was outlined by the minister, a farmer would receive payment for putting his land to summerfallow or forage, and be allocated a quota for delivering wheat, the quota being related to wheat he does not grow.
The second half of the program is, thus, attractive only to farmers who have sizeable surpluses of wheat on their farms. Their number is hard to assess but it seems likely it will amount to about 50 per cent, and to somewhat more in Saskatchewan. Farmers who have little wheat in stock would do best to try to grow a substantial crop on a small acreage. This is what often happens when an attempt is made to reduce acreage; farmers cultivate more intensively and end up with almost as many bushels as before. As a number of hon. members have pointed out, the plan tends to penalize farmers who have reduced their acreage in the past few years of their own accord.
I wish to turn, now, to a facet of the minister's announcement which seems to have escaped attention. All the announcements refer to an eight bushel quota. The minister did say the figure could be nine bushels if the maximum summerfallow came into being and no wheat were grown at all. In this respect he would seem to be on very safe ground, since some 50 per cent of farmers have no carryover-though it is true they may be farming a smaller number of acres than the 50 per cent which hold a surplus.
Nowhere in the Lift program or in the minister's statements is the Wheat Board

committed to taking more than eight bushels. However one tries to work out a quota to fit this new program, it seems the government is not committed to taking into the grain handling system more than about 300 million bushels of wheat. On the basis of 30 million acres of summerfallow this year, plus two million acres under forage crops, plus 25 per cent of last year's summerfallow, making up about 39 million acres of eligible quota acres, the amount of grain which can be delivered would total about 300 million bushels to reach an eight bushel per specified acreage quota. Four various reasons, though, many farmers would obviously not have the amount of wheat necessary if the full quota is to be reached. Even if the acreage under summerfallow were increased and wheat acreage reduced, there would still be less wheat delivered under the quota because many farmers would lack the wheat to fill their quotas if they reduced their acreage.
What about disappearances from the system? The minister has stated that this year 375 million bushels would disappear into export channels. Taking into account a further 100 million or 150 million flowing into domestic channels, there could be a total disappearance from the system of some 500 million bushels. But the Wheat Board is committed to taking only 300 million bushels of wheat, so there could be a loss from stocks of about 200 million bushels currently held by the Board. This would be a good thing for the government but it would really amount to transferring the burden to the farmer.
[DOT] (5.30 p.m.)
The really serious impact of this policy will be to reduce the cash flow to the grain farmers, computed on the basis of $1.25 a bushel for 200 million bushels, by about $250 million even at today's reduced prices. This would be nothing short of an economic disaster for the western grain farmer and indeed the whole grain economy throughout the country, particularly if this policy is carried out as bluntly as is suggested.
Even if two million acres of forage are put into crops and another six million in summerfallow more than last year, the government would contribute only $50 million to $55 million to the farm economy. Unless the government is committed to taking more than 300 million bushels into export and domestic systems, it seems to me the western farmer is in for a severe blow which will be felt throughout the entire western economy.
March 24, 1970

I should now like to turn to a more serious matter in its impact, at least in many ways- the new use of quotas to restrict deliveries. The government has proceeded in this matter by regulation, though many people still feel it should have been done by legislation. After all, this is a drastic change in the whole pattern of grain marketing and there has been no opportunity for debate on this important matter and no opportunity for the elected representatives of farming groups and other interested parties to appear before a parliamentary committee such as the Committee on Agriculture. This is what we would normally expect. It would seem that voluntary action might have been obtained with the same results.
The new regulations carry a very large stick indeed, since the producer's deliveries will be restricted if he fails to utilize his land in a fashion approved by the government. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 20 under the title "Is it legal?" It refers to the regulatory powers of the act and states in part:
But it is certainly not self-evident that there is any such power in the act. One looks for it in vain in article 4, which sets out the board's specific powers; for example; "to buy, take delivery or, store, transfer, sell, ship or otherwise dispose of grain"-
It goes on:
These obviously are marketing powers. There are a pair of basket clauses at the end empowering the board to act as an agent on behalf of a minister or the government "in respect of any operations that it may be directed to carry out by the Governor in Council" and "generally to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or incidental to carrying out its operations."
It continues:
Obviously an acreage reduction program cannot be classified as an "incidental" and it has not been "necessary" in more than three decades of Wheat Board experience. The preceding language is presumably to be read in the context of the whole act. At face value there would be no limit to what the board could do on government direction, but this would be a nonsensical construction. In fact the act has to do with marketing and it is certainly arguable that production is a quite different subject.
Other sections of the statute, for example those dealing with permit books and powers of administration, appear no more helpful. Even the definition of quota looks difficult; it means "the quantity of grain described in a permit book as fixed from time to time by the board." How is "grain produced" to be equated with summer-fallow or, for that matter, forage? While it is beyond question that the board's powers over marketing, as established by past cases, are very extensive, the presumption that they are ample
Supplementary Estimates enough to permit it to alter production patterns under threat of penalty certainly invites serious challenge.
Regulations ought not to have a retroactive effect. A farmer who summerfallowed land last year voluntarily is automatically being penalized by some loss of his quota entitlement. There is no escape from the penalty which is inherent in the quota, and the penalty is a matter of regulation and not of legislation passed by Parliament.
Further on the editorial states:
In this case 188,000 producers, who were obviously not consulted as individuals, have been suddenly confronted with a requirement that they alter their whole scheme of production. Quantitative changes in quotas are, of course, usual but in this instance the whole basis of establishing quotas has been changed overnight from the practice of three decades.
So the workings of this act or regulation, which might have produced a useful effort, will not contribute much toward the reduction of grain without a serious loss of income and damage to the western grain economy. This program seems to have been devised hurriedly, and with little thought, by people who are not fully conversant with the needs of the western farmers. In concluding these few remarks, I urge the minister to withdraw or make major changes to this program. It might be a useful program, but I suggest that the problem of surplus wheat can be solved only by selling. We cannot in one year curtail the production of western grain to the extent that we will end up with little or no surplus. I sincerely hope the minister will take a good look at what he has proposed and make some very useful changes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the supplementary estimates and to deal further with a matter my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), initially brought to the attention of the House. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) has spoken on it, and I expect one or two more hon. members will deal with this matter when I have concluded my remarks.
For anyone to suggest that this so-called Operation Lift-I believe the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) had different words for it, and I have regarded it as "Liberals Increasing Farmers' Troubles"-is being approved and accepted by anything more than half the farmers in western Canada, let alone the majority, is to indicate that he is suffering from delusions of some kind.

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates
In true Liberal fashion the minister has dubbed and clubbed his hasty wheat acreage reduction plan as Operation Lift. It would be more appropriate, I think, to use the initials of the plan itself, WARP or operation WARP. My dictionary gives the following definition of warp: to change from straight or right or natural state; to make crooked or perverted. That is a pretty good definition of what this plan will do to Prairie farming. The minister laboured "Lang," or long, and concluded that we would have less wheat in 1970 if we did not grow any wheat in 1970. This was his conclusion after all that labour.
The Liberals have been somewhat less than honest in their promotion of operation WARP. They have implied that it will provide a large income supplement to grain growers. In the minister's words, "If farmers get behind this program.. the cash position of grain producers and the whole Prairie economy will be substantially improved this fall". I submit that is nonsense. The $6 per acre provided for summerfallow will mostly, if not entirely, be taken up in the cost of additional summerfallow. To suggest this is some kind of cash injection or additional cash in the farmers' pockets is dishonest and misrepresenting what the money will actually have to be used for. It is not-I repeat not-a cash injection of any kind in respect of farm income.
o (5:40 p.m.)
I for one, and the many farmers who have written to me-some of whom have even telephoned and spoken by the hundreds to my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar in the past several days-resent the inference by any government spokesman and any headline writers of the press that by any means this is an injection of cash into the farmers' pockets, because it is not. Let us put this program in its proper place. All it is is a small carrot and a large club. The small carrot is the $6 an acre payment for converting wheat acreage to summerfallow acreage. A payment of $6 an acre to support the cost of summerfallowing is a mighty small carrot. But the club, or the gun at the head of the farmer, is the new quota system. The farmer who wishes to move a large amount of grain next year must take acreage out of production and must not use that acreage for any crop other than forage.
Whatever misgivings the farmer may have, that the new quota system will persuade him, because he has two choices: it will

either be compulsory, or he has to do it. This new program, operation WARP, is designed to do one thing and one thing only. It is designed to drastically cut wheat production in 1970 without substantially increasing other grain or oilseed crops. On thing it certainly does not do: it does not in any sense relieve the serious cash shortage which has paralyzed the vast majority of grain farmers in Saskatchewan.
Payments under this plan will barely meet costs in the most favourable areas. Certainly, in many areas it will fail to even cover the farmers' costs. Perhaps this program would be tolerable if it were part of a comprehensive attack on the short-term farm crisis and longer term adjustments. But as a minimum it must be accompanied by substantial supplementary payments to farmers related not to next year's production but to this year's lack of income.
Every major farm organization has called for a program of supplementary payments to Prairie grain producers. They have pleaded for this repeatedly over the past several years. It was a central point in the farm program put forward by the members of the official opposition and of my party repeatedly in this House. Possibly in many respects this was as a result of the demand by farm organizations, but in other respects we were putting forward programs which were part of the policies of our respective parties.
We proposed that the federal government provide not less than $200 million to support payments across the three Prairie provinces. Not only did the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) turn a deaf ear to this proposal, but even the Liberal Premier of Saskatchewan went to the Federal-Provincial Conference in February and made not one demand for supplementary cash payments to meet Saskatchewan's farm crisis. To this day he has failed the farm organizations, the farmers and the small town merchants. His silence and the silence of many other Liberals on this question demonstrates better than anything else the true kinship that exists along the Thateher-Trudeau axis.
We need, first of all, production guides which recognize the value of what farmers can grow as a national trading asset of benefit to all Canada. We need production guides which recognize long-term world food needs. We need production guides which recognize the contribution which satisfying rural life and employment can make to the economic and social structure of Canada. We need,
March 24, 1970

secondly, trade policies to make possible more purchases by people who buy or who would want to buy what we can produce. We have accepted large sales to Russia and China. We accepted these sales as a matter of right. We have done practically nothing about going out and developing the type of trade policies which would solidify, expand or extend these things.
Third, we need government policies in respect of government guarantees. We need government guarantees to buy specified amounts of produce and to buy those specified amounts at prices which will make farming viable and which will encourage people to make it their lifetime work and thereby make possible diversification and other adjustments within the farm industry. What is happening today with regard to diversification is that the farmer is being urged to diversity in the face of excessive costs and a ruinous debt burden, in many cases. The farmer alone is carrying the unfair risk. The government ought to carry some of this responsibility.
We also need laws to prevent the extension of non-farm corporate ownership to larger areas of farm activity. We need laws to establish minimum prices for grain sold within the provinces. The provincial governments can act on this; they can act to establish minimum prices for grain sold within the province. We need laws to fully protect the farmer and others against foreclosure and any other punitive action when, through no fault of his own, he is unable to pay his debts. The farmer will not be able to use the payment of $6 an acre to pay off his debts; he will need this money to buy seed or for summerfallowing.
We need a provincial government, particularly in Saskatchewan, which will support orderly marketing and not attack it as did a Liberal minister in the legislature last month. We need provincial governments which will co-operate and not interfere with the government of Canada when it starts to enforce the necessary laws in respect of orderly marketing. On this score I am pleased that the Minister without Portfolio did not weaken in the face of the opposition he received from his friends in his own province.
Mr. Speaker, I and many members of this House have received many letters, petitions and resolutions either in partial or in complete opposition to, as I call it, operation WARP. I should like to quote from a petition forwarded to the Minister without Portfolio from the Raymore district of Saskatchewan.
Supplementary Estimates It had attached to it the signatures of 104 farmers and small businessmen in that district. The preamble reads:
We, the undersigned farmers in the Raymore area, wish to submit to you the following information for your kind consideration, discussion and positive action:
It goes on to state:
We believe that large wheat inventory is caused by poor distribution. Not overproduction. As long as there is one hungry human in the world we do not wish to cut production. We believe on farm wheat to be an asset, not a liability. We also regard wheat in our granaries as income for the year the wheat was produced, similar to stocks, bonds, cash accumulated by other citizens during previous years of work. No other segment of the population is obliged to opt out of production for twelve months through no fault of its own. No individual, be he the wealthiest man or the poorest, will tell you he can afford to go one whole year without production.
It continues:
The effects of inventory on the farmer as compared to industry differs. If industry decreases its inventory its costs drop almost in direct proportion. In the farmers situation his costs are based on a year's operation. Cost of production per acre changes very little. Yields are affected by variables, not just by value of inputs.
They go on in their petition to cite the reasons they are not in favour of the minister's program. They state:
The proposed plan offers in place of the 1970 wheat crop approximately $100 million as compared to 1969 value of production of $684 million at $1 + = $700 million. Therefore, the plan offers approximately one-seventh of value for the 1970 crop as compared to the 1969 wheat crop which is 15 cents a bushel for 1970 wheat.
They state further:
Storage costs to the federal government will not decrease in proportion to a decreasing stockpile. If we have 450 million bushels stored on the farm, plus 450 million bushels stored in elevators and terminals, or nothing on the farm plus 450 million bushels in elevators, cost of storage will remain the same since the federal government pays storage to the elevator system, not to the farmers.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
So there is no saving to the government or to the farmer in storage costs. They contend that the real problem is not one of large inventory but of low sales, low prices, high cost of inputs and high interest rates. They believe-I was particularly struck with this one because I have had similar submissions from people in many parts of the Prairies- that the estimate of the carryover of wheat is too high by at least 20 per cent. I know of substantial areas in Saskatchewan where there is no carryover of wheat. I would like

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates to hear and see the minister's evidence of the 900 million to one billion bushels of wheat that is in farmers' hands and in elevator storage as of July 31. There are six or seven more reasons why these farmers signed this petition. I will read the last one, which says they are opposed to the plan because-
There is no provision for farmers who have no wheat because he was hailed out, dried out, froze out, drowned out, wormed out or craned out-
And I will insert here, "or Liberaled out."
-or the young man trying to start out.
They end their petition by saying:
Therefore, we are opposed to the black paper on wheat reduction program and cannot, and will not, accept its implications.
The Archbishop of the Diocese of Qu'Ap-pelle of the Anglican Church of Canada
wrote:
At the same time we feel strongly that the program to reduce wheat production by the federal government can be regarded only as a means of buying time in which to attack the root problem of food distribution around the world.
We recognize that the decision to limit production of wheat was the only one to make on economic grounds.
Morally, however, it is another matter. When two-thirds of the world population is hungry; when a child dies of hunger every three seconds while food is surplus in western Canada, it seems to us monstrous not to produce food.
I also have here a letter from Avonlea, Saskatchewan, and one from Lancer, Saskatchewan. This brings me to the question: What about next year? My colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar asked that question. I hope the minister will enlighten us some time this evening as to what is to happen next year. A gentleman from Lancer, Saskatchewan, wrote to me as follows:
I have some 500 acres of fallow now and 500 acres of stubble. If I summerfallow the entire amount of 1,000 acres this year, next year I must seed 1,000 acres. I have no choice but to do this because I could not fallow any longer than two years.
So we would like to know from the minister what about next year? I have here another letter from Saskatchewan which says that it is going to be very hard, with no wheat payments this spring, to licence their vehicles, repair their machinery, purchase fuel and cover their day-to-day and monthly living expenses. The writer of the letter is saying this while waiting for the payment of $6 per acre which he is not likely to get by mid-July if he increases his summer fallow. What does

he do for income? As yet they have not delivered their one-bushel quota and their crop year is over half gone.
Some of these letters are copies of ones that I have received. The originals were sent to the minister, and I hope he has read them all carefully. I hope he takes the time to answer the questions put forward by these farmers who have written from various parts of western Canada. One constituent started off his letter by saying:
To pen a letter to me is like a bath to a hippie, however this plan our agricultural department has come up with, namely Lift, has lifted my hand.
The only thing it will lift is a lot of good topsoil and a good many farmers' blood pressure. I can see some merit in this for a farmer who grew only wheat and never tried to reduce his wheat acreage or diversify and was fortunate enough to have a bumper crop every year since 1966. This will certainly help him out, but for people in the Park Belt it is more like a kick in the rear. Most of the farmers in our area have been trying hard to reduce wheat acreage by seeding oilseeds and specialty crops more out of desperation than anything else, as flaxseed, sunflower, buckwheat, safflower, which are a great risk because of frost-
The tone of that letter is similar to the tone of most letters that I am getting. I will not take the time of the House to read any more of them. I suggest to the minister that it is apparent that the program is a fait accompli. There is not the slightest possible chance that he and the government will decide to withdraw it and substitute something else.
I ask him with all the sincerity I can command to announce his regulations soon. I hope he will announce them tomorrow and not next Monday or Tuesday when the House is in recess, when all he need do is hold a press conference and he will not have to answer any questions from the opposition. In the course of that announcement I hope the minister will advise us that the government, in formulating regulations having to do with Operation Lift-or WARP as I call it-and with the new quota system, has recognized the problems of the farmers and has taken into consideration those farmers who reduced their wheat acreage.
I submit that the answer which the minister gave me today is insufficient. The recognition of 25 per cent summerf allow in 1969 is not high enough. I hope, also, that the minister will in his regulations give some recognition to farmers who do not have any wheat carryover and have no choice but to seed some more wheat. I hope he will put out regulations which will require his inspectors to inspect farmers' properties and granaries, and provide that those who do not have any
March 24, 1970

carryover will receive recognition and some allowance for wheat growing will be made for them in the present crop year. I hope the minister will include these and many other improvements that are needed in this program, which otherwise I think will prove to be a disaster and certainly a disappointment to most farmers in western Canada.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House to concur in interim supply for the period April 1 to June 30 further illustrates the basic conflict which exists within the government. On the one hand we see the western farmer faced with an enormous surplus of wheat for which the government cannot find markets, and in fact through this motion it is asking the House to provide $100 million to pay the western farmer, in effect, not to grow wheat. On the other hand we find the government apparently about to embark on a policy which will further reduce the amount of wheat used for feed grain purposes.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in his estimates has reduced by some $5 million the amount for feed grain assistance for the coming year, and he has given indications that the entire program may be withdrawn. As the House is aware, since 1941 the federal government has paid a subsidy on the transportation of feed grains from the Prairie provinces to the Atlantic provinces and to British Columbia. The program was originally started as a measure to encourage livestock production in those areas where feed grains were in short supply. In effect, the feed grain assistance program was designed to move large amounts of grain from surplus areas to deficit areas.
As the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture points out in a recent statement on the program:
With the vast amounts of feed grains on hand in western Canada, it seems to make good economic and common sense to move as much as possible of this surplus grain to eastern Canada and British Columbia, where relatively little grain is produced and feed grain requirements are far from
Supplementary Estimates being met by local production. Furthermore, grain should be produced for livestock feed where the necessary resources are available to produce grain most economically.
This has been the policy since 1941, but from recent statements it would appear that the federal government is now considering the total withdrawal of this assistance program. While it is true that a reduction in the program will mean an immediate saving to the government, any saving obtained will have to be passed on to the farmer in increased costs of production and so will eventually be passed on to the consumer. Here again is the conflict within the government, because this is in direct violation of the government's avowed position of maintaining the line on prices, and it is a direct contradiction of the purpose of the Prices and Incomes Commission that prices should be held down at this time.
The Maritime provinces already suffer from low incomes, and reduction or complete elimination of the feed freight assistance will certainly not help this situation. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) has unfurled vast new programs to overcome regional disparities in the Atlantic area, but now we find his colleague proposing measures which will help to negate his efforts. The farmer in the Maritime provinces needs more government help, rather than a reduction in assistance. As the brief from the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture points out:
The continuation of the feed freight assistance program can be justified by government and agriculture as an equitable program which gave rise to great development benefits in the past and which contains even greater potentials for the future.
Removal of the program cannot be justified without simultaneously eliminating other restraints such as tariffs on United States grains, Wheat Board import licence requirements and Wheat Board pricing of feed grains so that our livestock feeders can look to other areas of the continent for a supply of feed grains at the lowest possible cost.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I think the federation is saying, in effect, that if the government does not want Maritime farmers to use western feed grains because they have suddenly found some market for those grains, then take off the other restrictions so that the Maritime farmers can buy feed grains from other sources. I hope the minister will take this into consideration. This action of the government is only

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates another roadblock in our fight to obtain a comprehensive transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces.
It is an historical fact that because the Maritime provinces are situated at such great distances from the markets of central Canada, special freight rate assistance must be given to them so they can compete with other parts of the country. What is particularly disturbing to every Maritimer is the fact that for almost three years now the region has been in a kind of suspended animation interrupted occasionally by announcements from various transport ministers-and we have had quite a few-that a rational and sound transportation policy was being worked out for the area, and disturbed at other intervals by various railway freight increases.
We have had commissions and committees studying the problem, but as yet they have not come up with any solutions. The Transport Committee has made two trips to the region, and almost a year ago now presented a very comprehensive report containing their suggestions for a new transportation policy. The Atlantic Premiers presented an excellent report about a year ago and made many suggestions which would go a long way toward solving some of our problems.
In November, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) announced the formation of a new federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation, and included in its terms of reference was to be a detailed examination of the Maritime freight rate assistance on rail traffic within the region. This committee was composed of representatives from each of the Atlantic provinces, with a federal appointee to act as chairman. We have been told by the minister the committee has met four times, and I am informed that they have agreed on two recommendations. These recommendations refer to two noticeable errors in the Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act passed in this House in the last year. This is the only concrete step that has been taken in some three years under three different ministers of transport to revise the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Because the Maritime Freight Rates Act has sometimes been deliberately misconstrued and misinterpreted, we have been accused of asking for things to which we are not entitled. For a moment or two I should like to refer to the background of this legislation. When this act was passed in 1927 it was a direct result of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims,

commonly known as the Duncan Commission, appointed in 1926 to study the problems of freight rates in the area as compared with the rest of Canada.
The findings were very interesting because the study indicated that between 1912 and 1925 freight rates in the area had increased by 92 per cent, while rates elsewhere in Canada had increased by only 55 per cent. As the commission pointed out, this high increase placed a burden upon the trade and commerce in the region and, in fact, made it almost impossible for business to compete in the Canadian market.
The point that I want to make, because it has been deliberately overlooked, is that to adjust this discrepancy the Duncan Commission recommended that there be an immediate 20 per cent decrease in rates in the Maritime area. In other words, the 20 per cent decrease that is sneeringly referred to as the maritime subsidy is nothing more than this recommendation which was to bring our rate back to the same level that applied in the rest of the country. This interpretation is very irritating to people in the Maritime provinces.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act has served its purpose in some cases, but it certainly could not be called a rousing success nor an abject failure. It has helped business and commerce in the area, but it has not fulfilled the original intention of preventing rail rates there increasing more than in the rest of Canada. It has not kept transportation costs from being a barrier to the marketing of goods from the region throughout the country.
The philosophy in the act was good, but somewhere along the line the mechanics failed. To show what has happened in the erosion of our competitive position as compared with 1927, when the next round of railway freight rate increases come into effect on April 6 the rates will have caught up with three of the four rate hikes applied across the country which have meant increases of 20 per cent to 38 per cent in various categories since the National Transportation Act became effective on March 23, 1967. The Atlantic region will have had increases of 14 per cent to 28 per cent since September 23, 1969. In other words, the 20 per cent laid down by statute in the Maritime Freight Rates Act has gone out the window.
The only step the government has taken to implement the intent of the National Transportation Act, which was to develop a transportation policy for all modes of transportation in Canada, has been to pass Bill C-207, the
March 24, 1970

Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act. This bill was supposed to extend the same assistance to truckers as that extended to rail carriers, but those who drafted it did a sloppy job and created the two inequities which are causing further confusion in the Maritime freight rates picture.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Two errors appeared in the drafting of the legislation which extended these subsidies to the truckers in the area. The subsidies were supposed to be comparable to those granted to rail carriers. By some quirk or error in the drafting of the legislation it turned out that the subsidy on the westward movement of freight was extended to household goods; in other words, furniture. The trucker hauling furniture for someone moving from the Mari-times to another part of Canada can collect a subsidy on the shipment. In other words, we are paying for the migration of maritimers. The second problem is that because different methods are used to compute the amount of assistance, the assistance paid can be substantially less for goods moved by truck than for the same type of shipment by rail.
The Saint John Telegraph-Journal had this to say about the matter:
-in one category, a wide range of miscellaneous commodities in lots of 1,500 pounds or more, the rate by both truck and railway piggyback service is 99 cents per 100 pounds-but because of the different formulas under the two acts, the subsidy works out at 21 cents by truck and 26 cents by rail.
I am talking about the act the Minister of Transport introduced in the House with such flowery promises. The railways were to have no real advantage over the truckers. How the minister's draftsmen produced this mess, we shall never know. We simply must amend the act. The provision extending a subsidy to the movement of household goods must be corrected as soon as possible, before too many people move themselves and their furniture out of the Atlantic area.
The editorial in the Telegraph-Journal continues as follows:
-the disparity between truck and rail subsidies would not have arisen if Ottawa had followed the recommendation of the Atlantic Premiers, based on the extensive task force study, that the subsidies be paid directly to the shippers instead of to the carriers. Such a system would also permit a desirable flexibility in using the assistance, and it would spur rather than dull the competition for traffic between railways and truckers.
The editorial deals with one of the most serious complaints that I and other members 21774-661
Supplementary Estimates from the Atlantic provinces have against the whole approach displayed by the department and the Minister of Transport toward the problem of transportation in the Maritimes. The minister asked for advice from various sources. He asked the Atlantic Premiers for their recommendations and said he would consider them seriously. The Atlantic premiers submitted a comprehensive report containing excellent suggestions. The suggestions respecting the solutions to our problems have all been accepted by most shippers in the area. I suppose we shall discover that this report has been tossed under a desk somewhere and completely ignored.
The minister said he would appoint a federal-provincial committee to look into this question: why, I do not know, because he already had received the report of the Premiers. Why would he wish to appoint a committee? I can only suspect the reason, as can the people of my area. The minister must want further delay. The committee has met four times, and its chairman is a federal appointee. The question is, why cannot the Minister of Transport obtain a report from the committee? Is it any wonder the people of the area are accusing the minister and this government of deliberate heel-dragging on the promise to develop a new Atlantic transportation policy?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The people sense this is just a lot of horseplay.


Charles Humbert Thomas: The situation has become so upsetting in the area that hardly a week goes by without an editorial appearing in one of the local papers asking why no action is forthcoming. I thought the minister would begin keeping some of the promises he made when piloting Bill C-207 through the House. He said that would be an interim measure only, and that a completely new policy would be evolved. Our problems would be solved, the shippers in the Atlantic area would be governed by a definite policy and everything in the area would be fine.
In closing, I ask the Minister of Transport to redeem his promises by giving us something more than a shoddy, poorly drafted piece of legislation which instead of helping to solve our problems will complicate them still further.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I very rarely pass up an opportunity to speak on the subject that, depending on the way you look at it, either touches a raw spot



March 24. 1970
Supplementary Estimates
The writer adds that according to the pamphlet he received from the ministry, the program is to be backed by on-the-farm inspection. This, he says, will entail the employment of thousands of administrators and the cost of such poucing will be exorbitant. I raise this question: Will the Manpower offices be called upon to supply these inspectors, or will we use the same old political patronage system as in the past?
I wish the minister would tell us what to do. It was suggested by some officials with whom I met recently that application should be made to the branch administering PFA. I say to the minister that there would be so many applications that it would be necessary for him to reinforce the PFA staff immediately. Local peopie are quite capable of carrying out farm inspections. I hope he will not continue to use the old system whereby the only qualification needed was the approval of the local Liberal organization. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that there are not too many Liberals left in this area, and those who are left will probably not be qualified to say who is, and who is not, fit to inspect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand an hon. member wishes to ask a question.


Len Marchand: Yes,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. I have heard him speak about farming as a way of life, and I agree with part of what he has said. But is he suggesting that this way of life should be subsidized?


Stanley James Korchinski: I am saying that these people were told by government economists that they ought to expand, borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation and make their production efficient by using modern methods and machinery. So in a sense we are no longer talking about family farms but about economic units, if we want to be impersonal. Over the years the people have tried to make profitable units out of their holdings. Many farmers, in addition to growing corn-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him under the rules has expired.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnelt (Comox-Alberni):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I realize that he is just starting his speech and that the remarks he is making are introductory in nature. But if I remember well, earlier today a suggestion was made by the Chair that until we were in Committee of the Whole there should be no detailed discussion of items in the estimates, and as much as possible we should limit contributions to this debate to the principle, if there is a principle, of the bill before us.
I think it would not be in order to refer to individual items and to consider or debate them except in a very general way. I appreciate that the hon. member knows this just as well as I do, and I hope he will keep it in the back of his mind during his speech.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I appreciate the point Your Honour has raised, and I assure you that I am
March 24, 1970	COMMONS
not mentioning these figures with a view to discussing the merits or demerits of particular items involved, but rather to lay the ground work of what I hope will be the principle involved. If Your Honour will bear with me a little bit longer, I will complete the factual position of this situation as I see it.
I was going to point out that there is an item of roughly $1,200,000 to recoup the fisheries price support account to cover losses. That comes to something over $1,500,000, but from that is deducted items taken from Fisheries and Forestries votes Nos. 10 to 40 of the previous estimates amounting to $854,000, which means that all we are being asked for is $682,000.
My point in referring to these figures is that I feel an important principle is involved.
I do not know whether it is primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries, or the President of the Treasury Board-I suspect it is more the result of the actions of the latter-that we appear here to be involved in a situation where we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is something to which I strongly object.
It is all very well for the government to announce great programs to reimburse fishermen for loss because of pollution, or to announce grants to bolster the price that fishermen will receive for their fish through the support board, as if these were great programs and we were being asked to approve the funds to carry them out, but let us not blind ourselves to the fact that what appears to be happening is that in order to do this we are taking away from certain other very important aspects of public spending.
These are items referred to in the main estimates. The one that concerns me is vote No. 10 in the main estimates which has to do with fisheries management and development programs, including moneys for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including acquisition of land for the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission as required by article VIII of the convention, and payments to provinces or municipalities. The item goes on about details of the industrial development service, conservation and protect'on service, resource development service and inspection service.
My quarrel with what is happening here is that at a time when there is a crying need for expansion in the resource development aspect of the Department of Fisheries, the government is, willingly or unwillingly, taking from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and his
DEBATES	5435
Supplementary Estimates department moneys that Parliament in good faith appropriated to carry out certain purposes, particularly resource development, and is shifting that money to what may be worthy objects in themselves but certainly are not the objects for which we originally intended the money to be used when we voted it. As far as I am concerned, this is an important point at issue. If one were to examine the items in certain other departmental supplementary estimates, in the final supplementary Estimates B one could find that the same process appears to be happening.
The Minister of Fisheries was in British Columbia quite recently to speak to the annual convention of the largest organization of fishermen in that province. He was bandying figures around and talking about so many millions of dollars a year being spent on salmon spawning grounds, salmon hatching programs and this kind of thing. It is all very well to bandy these things around; it is all very well for the Minister of Fisheries to stand up at a convention in Vancouver expressing the hope that certain things will be done. But when we come back here, look at the fine print in the supplementary estimates and find that money that should have been spent this year on the expansion of salmon spawning facilities is, in fact, being diverted to a fisheries price support program, I think when we are asked to pass this bill or vote these supplementary estimates we should not be unaware that this is happening within the general policy restrictions which the government apparently has imposed on the department.
I do not know whether the President of the Treasury Board is going to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with some of the questions that have been raised today, but if he does I hope this will be one aspect of the proposal before us with which he is prepared to come to grips. As hon. members know, the standing committees of the House have been meeting and considering matters that have to do primarily with the estimates of the fiscal year that lies ahead. We have been hearing representations from various organizations. I have in mind the brief which was presented to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry by the Fisheries Council of Canada.
One of the points made in that brief was the importance and the value of investment in the resource-enhancing aspects of programs such as those of the Department of Fisheries. I raised some questions with them. Now, after looking at these supplementary estimates, I am glad I did. I asked them

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates whether they had gone to the President of the Treasury Board and made this point. It is obvious that it is not enough simply for organizations of that kind to come before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, because we have to deal with matters that lie within the purview and the jurisdiction of the minister and the items put into a vote for the minister to spend.
I presume the Minister of Fisheries and his officials have had difficulty in making some decisions. At least, I hope they have had to wrestle with their souls about some of these matters. It is apparent they are forced into a position where they have to juggle money around and ask us to switch it back and forth from one program to another.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
So really when members of this House of Commons deal with the main estimates they cannot know whether they are dealing with a proposal to spend money in a certain direction or not. This is the inference I draw from the little story told by the items in this supplementary estimate for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. If I am placing a wrong interpretation on the situation, at some point perhaps the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will correct me. I find it difficult to reach any conclusion other than the one I have reached. We have a situation where $854,000 is taken out of two votes, one of which has to do with the forestry section of the department. I have taken the trouble to check this item. I know it has to do with a program involving a contribution to the province of Newfoundland for assistance in obtaining an inventory of the forest resources in connection with a land capability study. As I understand it, this program is near completion.
The main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, indicate that the forecast expenditure is slightly in excess of that provided in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1969-70. We were informed that when the 1970-71 period was completed, that program would be pretty well phased out. So, Mr. Speaker, I really do not think the money was taken out of vote No. 40 in respect of the forestry branch of the minister's department. It would seem that it is coming out of the heart of the expansion program with regard to our fishing resource, which is now so essential to the fishermen not only on the Pacific coast but on the Atlantic coast of Canada.

I wish to register as strongly as I can my objection to this type of tactic on the part of the government, because if it is considered necessary to meet a temporary situation in respect of a pollution kill of fish, or a temporary decline in fish prices which must be supported, I submit that those who are concerned with the logic and regularity of the resource development program will not any longer know where they stand or on what they can count. I think this is very germane to the principle of the bill before us if, as Your Honour has suggested, it really has a principle.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, with all the respect in the world, I shall attempt to find some way-and I am sure I can-to relate my remarks to the item which stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). The President of the Treasury Board must be the most distinguished member of the government with us this evening. He looks relaxed and in a good mood. I hope that having listened to me he will realize the concern some of us have about the estimates and the supplementary estimates that are before us.
I say to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, that the most damnable hoax ever perpetrated upon eastern Canadians in the last half century has been perpetrated in this House in the last four or five days. There has been no concern, no care and no consideration for the economic impact; no rationalization of the importance to industry, revenue and the potential to generate the means by which we in the Atlantic provinces can sustain ourselves, and an absolute abandonment of the desires and aspirations of the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick who hoped that this House would have the sense to develop Minas Basin tidal power. The hopes of the people in this regard have been dashed to the ground.
At the outset I should like to refer to the report and tell you, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about and what, for the sake of $30 million or $40 million a year, this government has thrown down the drain. A very distinguished former member of this House could say, "What's a million?". Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying, on behalf of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, what's $30 million or $40 million when dealing with the lives of two or three million people and offering them the wherewithal to get out from under the yoke of criticism from Ontario and Quebec to
March 24, 1970

the effect that they are saddled with the burden of subsidies for the Atlantic provinces?
I want to be serious because we are dealing with public money, and I hope I can keep in order with what I wish to say tonight. For two years I have been asking about the feasibility study. Your Honour knows my concern about it. God knows, it has been my dream for 20 years that I would see these tides harnessed, and I shall not rest until they are. I shall read one short paragraph from page 14 of the report:
In the United States the total requirements of the six New England States in 1965 were 41,782 million KWH of energy with a peak demand of 8,586 MW. The requirements are forecast to increase to 111,000 million KWH and over 22,000 MW by 1980, and to approximately 210,000 million KWH and 41,000 MW in 1990.
The foregoing predictions indicate the tremendous increases in generating capacity for which planning must be carried out in the northeastern region of the continent. Also evident is the fact that, from the standpoint of magnitude of requirement, there is a market for the disposal of large quantities of energy from any conceivable size of electric power development.
In this world there is only one source of energy which can meet that type of requirement, and we happen to have it in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It seems to me the government of Canada has adopted a shockingly short-term view in its decision not to proceed with the exploitation of the tremendous potential energy of the Bay of Fundy and Minas Basin tidal power. For over two years many of us have been anxiously awaiting this report. We have been concerned about the economic well-being of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We are concerned about the future of these provinces and about people continuing to say in a snide, offhand way, "Oh, hell; it is just the Maritimes, give them a few dollars and they will carry on."


An hon. Member:: They say the same about the west, too.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, but where the hell would we be without the wheat of western Canada? It is time we realized that a country of this kind demands of each one of us a particular price. Nobody in the Maritimes complained about the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and we had few editorials on the subject. Not too many years ago I stood in this House and said it was a good thing we developed the St. Lawrence Seaway-and I come from the port of Halifax.
Supplementary Estimates [DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I was saying that what is important is the development of the country and national unity, not the narrow-minded views of people who are afraid to spend a few dollars. Capital does not mean anything any more, in terms of developing a country like Canada. The cost of money is very, very important. I hope that I can keep my remarks in order when talking about the cost of money.
All of us who have read these reports and have been interested in the studies that have been carried out are aware of the ramifications and complexities of a project of this magnitude. We know it is literally a billion dollar project. The report suggests that the cost will be $700 million. What will the airport in Quebec cost? What will the airport northeast of Montreal do for the city of Montreal and its environs in the social, cultural and industrial context? It is another drop in the bucket. I suggest that to those of us in the Atlantic provinces this project might be the salvation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the context of confederation. I do not say that loosely, nor do I say it unadvisedly.
I say that the decision not to go ahead with the project because, as the report indicates, the cost of money is too high, is shortsighted. As the report says, the cost per kilowatt hour is beyond the range of industry to absorb. We are not unmindful of that. We know that an industry must have cheap power to keep it competitive with other industries. We know we cannot have power that will cost one mill or two mills more than power produced thermally or by some other means.
What we are talking about is the cost of being Canadian-and I want to pay that price. I do not know whether the rest of the members in the House want to pay it. I was prepared to pay it in terms of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Now I ask the rest of Canada to at least have second thoughts about the decision of the government not to go ahead with the development of this power.
As I said, this is one of the government's most shortsighted conclusions because it overlooks three major factors. The first is the potentiality of tidal power to meet energy requirements free of consequential pollution and at a constant, fixed cost once the capital requirement has been met. It would be pollution-free and constant in terms of the cost factor of annual operations. No other form of production of electrical energy provides that. Tidal power does provide it because it is

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates constant, it is renewable and we could use it four times a day. Four times a day, 135 billion cubic feet of water moves in and out of the bay. All we have to do is to utilize the optimum effect and subsidize the cost of money.
There seems to be concern for the cost of capital during the period of construction, which is predicted to be nine years. I will bet you a dollar that I could find a dozen conglomerates or consortiums in this field that would guarantee they would have an operation in six to seven years, not nine years. I guarantee that I could walk out of this House and in 48 hours bring to the Prime Minister's office two dozen Canadian businessmen who would be prepared to go out and raise the money which the government of Canada does not want to put up.
We are not asking for the capital. This type of project would require co-operation from all levels of government as well as the private sector. It is a massive project. I ask the House, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the government to consider the very simple proposition, within the concept of regional economic expansion and within what I know is a sincere desire on the part of the government to overcome disparity, to make Canada a whole unit in which each part feels as strong as the others-because truth is never what it is; more often it is what it seems to be. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government if they would not reconsider the blunt statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday not to go ahead with this project.
I have mentioned the power that will be required in this section of Canada and the northeastern United States by 1980 and by 1990. No amount of thermal energy or nuclear energy will meet that demand unless we pay the price in terms of pollution, and not only pollution of our air in terms of coaldust and oil getting into the atmosphere but other forms of pollution. I ask the President of the Treasury Board where we will bury uranium in 1985, the uranium that they use to boil water to generate electricity in nuclear plants.
The U.S.A. are now down to two small areas, one in the mid-southwest and one in Alaska, where they can put away uranium which has a half life of 5,000 years, or whatever it is. I am not sure what it is today. I do not want it in Nova Scotia. Does the President of the Treasury Board want it in his backyard? I bet him a buck that he does not,

yet here we are thoughtlessly casting aside another source of power because we are afraid of the cost of money.
The price of the power per kilowatt hour will bring it beyond competitive range. How shortsighted we are: I ask the President of the Treasury Board how many hours he has spent talking about pollution at cabinet meetings. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is one of the finest men in this country but, good God, how can he stand up after hours and hours of conversation about pollution and say, "Let us build more thermal power plants. Let us pollute more air"? What are we talking about?
The short-range project is fine, because we will need more energy and more electrical power before we can tie into an international or national grid the power of the tides of the Bay of Fundy. Let us not bog down in the concept that we can simply shelve it until the interest rate comes down to 5 per cent. I pray God I should live so long, but I do not think it will ever be that low again. How can it? There is no hope for it since the Bank Act revision.
We cannot continue this type of philosophy. The report says that the construction will take nine years in its optimum arrangement, to utilize the tides going both ways. I am not sure what engineering principles are involved, but they say it will cost $724 million plus. Basing it on the 1968 rate of 7 per cent, it will be "X" dollars and it will put the mill price per kilowatt hour at "X" level. Even if, realistically speaking, the interest rate today is 10 per cent and will continue to be that over the nine-year period, which I indicated will not be that long, and even if the cost is so high, in order to bring it down to a competitive level some sacrifice will be required of all Canadians.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The government talks about the need for Canadians to make sacrifices. How long have we been paying for the St. Lawrence Seaway? It still cannot pay its debt out of operational cash flow. I suggested in this House three, four or maybe five years ago that we should extend the write-off period for the St. Lawrence Seaway to 75 years, in the hope that operational cash flow might begin to meet its debt retirement obligations.
I am suggesting that for a period of six or seven years we should subsidize the cost of money to enable us to reach a competitive level. Let us pay that simple price as Canadi-
March 24, 1970

ans. Let us do it and not be too concerned about what we are doing. Let us look at it in terms of the subsidies that have been poured into the Atlantic region, particularly Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in years past, and which will have to be poured into it in future years until we build the market that will attract manufacturing industries.
Once the project is built, let us subsidize the cost of money over and above the competitive level, up to the point where the price per kilowatt here is competitive. In other words, let us tap the American market. Let us benefit the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with massive, cheap energy the like of which has not been conceived in Canada previously. Mr. Speaker, where have you ever seen a report dealing so casually with billions of kilowatt hours? You have not seen any other and you will not see any other, because this situation exists nowhere in North America except the Bay of Fundy. We are shortsighted in not going ahead with this project. We are doing ourselves and Canada a disservice. The failure to go ahead with it now does not mean we will not have to go ahead with it in the future. We will have to go ahead with it in the future. We will have to go ahead with the development within the next decade, because we do not have any other sources of energy.
I have talked about pollution. If we do not think pollution is important, the message has not got through from the government down to the grass roots. It got through to me, Mr. Speaker, and I am aware of it. I do my laundry at home, and I do not buy the type of detergent about which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) talks; I buy the other stuff that does not have a pollutant in it. Much as we need electric energy, I cannot conceive of supporting any project that would spread pollution. I say that we should consider the stable cost factor that is represented by Minas Basin tidal power.
I quote recommendation No. 5, which is to be found at page 22 of the board's report, as follows:
The board recommends further that additional detailed studies be authorized when (a) the interest rate on money drops sufficiently to suggest the possibility of an economic tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy-
In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, when is that going to be? Who is kidding whom? These 22 pages were designed to justify a no. I think that the whole 2J feet thickness of study papers and working papers should be
Supplementary Estimates referred to an independent, outside agency or body for review, particularly as they apply to the cost of money. I continue the quotation:
- (b) a major breakthrough in construction costs or in the cost of generating equipment suggests the possibility of designing an economic tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy-
We can wait forever for the sun to shine on Ottawa and the temperature to be 70 degrees all year. That is a bland comment. How will we evolve cheaper methods of developing tidal power unless we get into the business of designing equipment to capitalize on tidal power?


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


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a chain of events which has taken place in the last few weeks and which has had a profound effect on the town of Elliot Lake in my riding. I have just returned from a series of urgent meetings with people who are involved in that community-the town council, the leaders of the labour unions, the businessmen's associations and the other people.
A few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the government had become aware that there were negotiations taking place between the Roman Corporation and the Hudson's Bay Company to sell the controlling interest in Denison Mines to that company, and he indicated that the government would move to block this sale, if necessary with retroactive legislation, because the Hudson's Bay Company was controlled by American interests.
A subsequent meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr. Roman seemed to end on a very amicable note with Mr. Roman indicating that the Prime Minister's approach was fair. At the same time there seemed to be an indication in statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) that arrangements could be worked out which would allow the government's policy on foreign ownership to be maintained and yet allow Mr. Roman to make his sale. However, last Thursday night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced the details of the government's rules for foreign ownership and indicated that Canadian mining companies would have to have Canadian ownership of 66 per cent, with no individual foreign owner holding more than 10 per cent.

March 24, 1970
Supplementary Estimates
Last Friday morning Mr. Roman held a press conference in Toronto. I would like to read the news report which came out of that conference, as follows:
Denison Mines Ltd. may consider closing Its huge uranium mine at Elliot Lake, Ontario, for three or four years if additional financial resources cannot be negotiated soon.
The chairman of Denison Mines, Stephen B. Roman, told a Toronto news conference today "without additional resources management definitely has to give consideration to closing the mines."
Mr. Roman had originally called the news conference to announce details of a sale of about one quarter of Denison stock to a U.S. controlled corporation.
He used it instead to comment on government restrictions announced last night, that apparently would block the deal.
Mr. Roman said he could not comment on his next step until the government's action had been thoroughly studied. He said many points were left open in the statement by Energy Minister, J. J. Greene, and he added "if possible I definitely will go through with the deal."
This news hit the town of Elliot Lake like a bombshell. Mr. Speaker, this town has been through some very bad years. When the American options to purchase uranium were not picked up in the early sixties, the town went from a boom to a bust situation. We had homes and businesses closed and fortunes lost. Fortunately, the government had introduced a stockpiling program in 1963 and a further one in 1965 which, incidentally, will be terminated on June 30 of this year.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In 1966 things started to pick up. Businesses reopened, homes started to sell and building commenced. During this period the government has poured upward of $100 million into the stockpiling program, which was utilized by the Denison Corporation. Though this program ends on June 30, Mr. Roman has indicated that he has enough uranium on hand to meet all his contractual commitments for the next three years and that he could close the mine and still meet his commitments for this period.
This may well be true, Mr. Speaker, but I say Mr. Roman has a responsibility to the town as well as to his board of directors. The town has been responsible for good things in his life, and he should now act responsibly toward the community. At the same time, I think the federal government has a responsibility to keep the mine open. They have already poured millions into the stockpiling program and if they allow the mine to close

they will be faced with a terrific welfare expense, as well as moving expenses for the miners for the next three years.
All indications are that world demand for uranium will greatly increase and that the mine will have to remain open. Indeed, Denison Mines closed a contract in the last couple of months with Japanese interests for something like $300 million. I say the government has a responsibility to take whatever action is necessary to see that this mine is kept operating and that the miners do not suffer hardship and unemployment.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments left at my disposal I should like to confine my remarks to the supplementary estimates before the House, with particular reference to those dealing with agriculture which represent approximately half the total estimates.
I should like to divide my remarks into two headings. First, the method by which this scheme is being introduced and, second, the principle behind the issue. First let us deal with the method. In common with many members, regardless on which side of the House they may sit, I do not like to see legislation brought in by means of estimates. The practice of making statutory changes by way of appropriation acts based on supplementary estimates is no way to bring in legislation. The importance of the disbursement of money to farmers as an incentive not to grow wheat is important enough for a piece of legislation or a bill to be introduced in this House.
Dealing with the method, let us look at the estimates and see what is said. This money is to establish a reserve of:
$100 million from which payments may be made in the fiscal year 1970-71 for wheat acreage reduction of $6 per acre.
I do not find any mention of $10 an acre for seeding into grass.
-in respect of such acreage as may be further prescribed by the Governor in Council-
Of course, the Governor in Council can prescribe whatever they like; Members of Parliament have no control over the matter.
-in accordance with the terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council to farmers-
It goes on to say, prescribed by the executive or Order in Council. I am saying that this amount of money should have been granted by means of legislation. Another thing I object to is that on the front page it says that these estimates are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970. That is the end of this month.
March 24. 1970

We are asked to approve $100 million for this purpose, but the money is to be spent in the year 1970-71. This is an extremely bad practice.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: It is bad practice to be passing money this year which will be spent next year although it appears in this year's estimates. It should appear in next year's estimates, not last year's. It is a very bad precedent and a bad method that the government has chosen to have this $100 million appropriated.
While on the matter of estimates under agriculture, I see that there are three $1 votes here. This is a very dangerous way to pass estimates. Hon. members do not know what that $1 is for, and there is nothing here to explain it. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am definitely opposed to the way the government has chosen to get this $100 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Let us talk about the principle of giving $100 million to the farmers to sit and do nothing. This does not meet with my approval at all, and for the life of me I cannot see why an agricultural country such as Canada should have to do such a thing. By the time the money is administered and an army of people are hired to see that the program is conducted according to the regulations, about $200 million of government money will have been spent. Would it not have been better to buy $200 million worth of wheat from western farmers and ship it to starving people in other parts of the world?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: Surely, that would have made more sense than to pay farmers not to produce it. Also, our image throughout the world would not have suffered. Just this morning I heard of a missionary recently returned from India where there are thousands of hungry and starving people. He said that the news is getting to them that Canada is paying its farmers not to produce wheat, and he asks, "How can I go back to India and face these people, as a Canadian?"
This is a paradoxical situation. We have spent millions and millions of dollars on the Department of Agriculture, we have had experimental farms, we have a department of agriculture in every province, agricultural colleges all over the country, we pay civil servants, research people and others to produce a policy of foresight and vision so that
Supplementary Estimates we will not find ourselves in this position in Canada. What do we find? We find that beef in Canada is at its highest price since the war days. We know children are going to bed in Canada without having had a good meal of red-blooded, high-protein meat. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? It is because the price of beef is so high that the average family cannot afford to buy it for its children.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There are piles of wheat in western Canada and we do not know what to do with it, yet beef is so highly priced that few can afford to buy it. How foolish can we be? What have all the departmental researchers been doing? Why did they not provide us with a policy that would have averted this situation? Why was no foresight displayed? We live in an agricultural country but import every year about nine pounds of meat per capita. We import lamb, mutton, pork and even beef from other countries of the world, yet at the same time wheat is piling up in Canada. Is that not a strange paradox for this country?
I know some will say that this government should have adopted certain policies. Perhaps that is so, to a certain extent. I think the researchers of the various departments should have told us what policies to adopt in order to avoid our present situation. To anyone who says that the government ought to be the guiding star in presenting policies, I say, "If Alvin Hamilton had been minister of agriculture during these past years, farmers in western Canada would not have been growing so much wheat. They would have seeded to pastures and carrying on a cow-calf program. As a result, more cattle would have been produced and hopefully the price of beef would be low enough for every Canadian to afford it.
Now the government is asking this House to vote $100 million and get it out of this mess. Instead of introducing this measure as a vote in the estimates, the government ought to have introduced a bill which hon. members could debate. That way we might all understand what is to happen in western Canada. As I said before, these estimates apply to 1969-70 but the money will be spent in the period 1970-71.
I shall finish on this note, Mr. Speaker. Some of the best research people live in our country. If they put their minds to it, they can work wonders. Surely, wheat in this country can be used for purposes other than animal and human consumption. For all I know, it might be possible to make silk stock-
5442	COMMONS DEBATES	March 24. 1970
Supplementary Estimates ings out of wheat. During the last war the Germans ran their tanks and armour from the product of the lowly potato. Alcohol was distilled from the potato and was ultimately used to drive their vehicles. Yet in this country we sit on mountains of wheat and cannot find a use for it. We tell our farmers not to grow more wheat. How foolish can we be?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That this House do concur in Interim Supply, as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $1,916,293,691.67 being the aggregate of:
(a)	Three-twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st of March, 1971, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament- $1,857,452,800.00.
(b)	An	additional	six-twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Finance item 20, Indian Affairs and Northern Development loans, investments and advances item L85, (Schedule A) of the said estimates -$5,016,500.00.
(c)	An	additional	four-twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Industry, Trade and Commerce item 25, (Schedule B) of the said estimates-$1,176,000.00.
(d)	An	additional	three-twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Consumer and Corporate Affairs item 25, Transport items 20 and 30, (Schedule C) of the said estimates-$10,211,250.00.
(e)	An	additional	two-twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Energy, Mines and Resources item 35, National Health and Welfare item 50, Secretary of State items 15, 25 and 75, Treasury Board item 25, Veterans Affairs item 45, (Schedule D) of the said estimates-$20,431,666.67.
(f)	An additional one-twelfth of Agriculture Items 10 and 40, Energy, Mines and Resources loans, investments and advancements item L50, Finance item 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development item 65, Privy Council item 1, Solicitor General item 25, Supply and Services item 10,
(Schedule E) of the said estimates-$22,005,475.00. be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1971.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr.	Drury	thereupon	moved	that	Bill
C-201, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr.	Drury	thereupon	moved	that	Bill
C-201, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do not have a copy of the bill. We cannot speak to it, but if we had a copy of it, we could look at it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
e (9:50 p.m.)

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the business tomorrow will be Government Order No. 77, Bill C-192, an act respecting the Federal Court of Canada. Having made that announcement, perhaps we could call it ten o'clock.
At 9.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 25, 1970