1970-03-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to appoint an Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses. This committee will be asked to undertake an independent and impartial review of the financial arrangements made for members of both chambers of Parliament, including the Speakers, ministers, and other members receiving additional emoluments for special duties. It will be asked to report any immediate changes it deems appropriate, as well as a procedure whereby future revisions may be undertaken from time to time.
The membership of the committee reflects experience from a number of different viewpoints in the community. The Chairman will be Mr. T. N. Beaupre, the President of Domtar Limited, and a former Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence Production. The other members will be Mr. Arthur Maloney, the former Member of Parliament for Toronto Parkdale, and Mr. Marc Lapointe of Montreal, who has been active on behalf of organized labour in industrial relations matters.
In recent years there has been a good deal of discussion of the question of the remuneration of elected officials. This is not a problem that has been limited to the Canadian Federal Parliament. In recent months the legislatures of both Ontario and Quebec have increased their indemnities. In the United Kingdom and the United States, however, legislative remuneration was revised only after independent commissions had examined conditions and all relevant considerations, and had reported.
The government believes that if any revision in the financial provisions is called for, such revision should be based upon an impartial analysis of conditions by persons outside elected ranks, experienced in levels of compensation in other sectors of the community. The people of Canada, no doubt, wish their representatives to be provided for in a manner that will enable them to devote themselves principally to public service. It is hoped that the report of this advisory committee will provide a better understanding of the financial arrangements necessary to a proper discharge of these duties.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief. I mention, of course, the fact that despite what may be done by a commission outside the House, in due course it is for the government to initiate and for Parliament to deal with any proposals which may be made. This, of course, is as it must be.
I for one have always regarded with some approval the system which has prevailed in the United States for some time where a commission of nine members, three appointed by the President, two each by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, by the Vice-President as presiding officer of the Senate, and by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from outside the ranks of the congressional group, examine in an objective way and without being subject to any accusations of self-interest, the whole issue of the salaries and other benefits which must be accorded to those involved in the democratic life of that country.
I think something of this nature is long overdue and so far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, it is the only way there can be any degree of acceptance throughout the country for a periodic review of the issues raised by the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although the President of the Privy Council let me know about an hour ago that he would be making this statement, there was not enough time for me to get a definitive decision on the part of all the members of our party. In other words, I wish to protect the position of any of our members who may wish to support this proposal. But I wish to make it clear, speaking
March 2. 1970
4206	COMMONS
Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses for myself and for all of my colleagues who are here today, that we thoroughly disapprove of this course of action-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -being taken at this time. I knew there would be unhappiness in the House over that kind of statement, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest there are times when we should pay some attention to our conscience.
As for the proposal that the question of the level of salaries of Members of Parliament should be decided by an outside or independent commission-yes, that is a good idea and we agree with it in principle. But it is one thing, Mr. Speaker, to propose an independent commission and to say to that commission, "any recommendation you make shall become effective only after the next election," and another thing entirely to ask that commission "to report any immediate changes it deems appropriate."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: hear some "hear, hears" approving the latter course, Mr. Speaker. But we do not approve. It is clear to us that this proposed committee is simply a ruse, a device, to get an increase in salary for Members of Parliament during the lifetime of this Parliament and we, Mr. Speaker, are definitely opposed to that being done.
I remind hon. members, if they need to be reminded, that we are living in a period when restraint is being preached day after day. It is being preached so far as workers are concerned and it is even being preached mildly to executives. Surely this is not the time for us to disregard that restraint and adopt a device that results in an increase in our own indemnities. I also remind hon. members that in this country today there are still many thousands of people living below the poverty line for whom we should be doing something rather than taking action on our own behalf.
The other point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that Parliament for many years has been on trial in the minds of the people of this country. It is on trial today. I do not think it will improve the image of Parliament in the minds of the people of this country for Parliament, at a time when others are being asked to tighten their belts and
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]

at a time when restraint is being preached, to set up a committee which will have the effect of increasing the pay of hon. members, and no doubt any proposal brought in would be for a substantial increase.
I suppose, since the appointment of this committee has been announced, it is too late to ask the government to rescind it, but I wish it would do so. I suppose it is too late to ask for a reversal of this course of action. But I plead with the government with respect to at least one point. It should make clear to the committee, to Parliament and the country that if any increases are agreed to they will not come into effect in this Parliament, but only after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief remarks to make on the announcement just made by the President of the Privy Council in connection with the appointment of a committee to look into parliamentary indemnities.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council to take this opportunity to have the committee also study the working conditions of the members of Parliament. It is now quite urgent to supply them with tools to enable them to give the people the service they expect from their representatives.
I hope the committee will not be sitting too long in order not to use up whatever allowances it might suggest.
I also wish that, in the near future, other bodies will be set up to study pensioners' security benefits, together with welfare and family allowances.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whiiby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-191, to amend the Broadcasting Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to enable the public of Canada to have access to details of expenditures with
March 2, 1970



respect to political broadcasts during election campaigns. It will enable the people to find out how much is spent on broadcasting advertising, lor whom it is spent and by whom. In my opinion such a provision should be a minimal requirement in a democracy.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-192, respecting the Federal Court of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-193, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
February 27-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That, in accordance with section 19 of an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, Chapter 54, Statutes of Canada, 1968-69, this House approves the appointment of Keith Spicer, Esquire, as Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Who are the directors of the Export Development Corporation, and what are their annual salaries?
2.	Who are the principal officers of the Export Development Corporation, and what are their annual salaries?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states that: 1. The directors of Export Development Corporation are: Mr. J. H. Warren, Chairman, Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. H. T. Aitken, President, Export Development Corporation. Mr. L. C. Audette, Chairman, Tariff Board. Mr. R. B. Bryce, Deputy Minister, Department of Finance. Mr. A. G. Kniewasser, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. J. C. Langley, Assistant Undersecretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Louis Rasminsky, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Mr. Maurice Strong, President, Canadian International Development Agency. Mr. A. F. Mayne, President, A. F. Mayne & Associates Limited. Mr. P. R. Sandwell, President, Sandwell & Co. Ltd. Mr. R. D. Southern, President, Atco Industries Ltd. Mr. P. H. Leman, President, Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd.
In the case of directors appointed from among persons employed in the Public Service of Canada, there are no salaries.
In the case of directors not appointed from among persons so employed, the remuneration is to be fixed by by-law, which, when approved, must be laid before Parliament.
2.	The principal officers of Export Development Corporation are: H. T. Aitken, President; T. Chase-Casgrain, Vice President; V. L. Chapin, Vice President; S. A. Gillies, Secretary.
In the case of the President, the salary is at the level of DM 1 within the range of $28,000-$33,000; in the case of the other officers it has not been customary for Parliament to require Crown corporations to give such information, which is of an internal management nature.

March 2, 1970
Questions


CIDER PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. Forlin: 1.	What has been the production of cider in Canada in each of the last five years?
2.	What have been the imports of cider into Canada in each of the last five years?
3.	What have been the exports of cider from Canada in each of the last five years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. In 1964, 1965 and 1966, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics published figures for shipments under the classification of "cider". However, this was later discovered to be in error and, in fact, included a combination of cider and apple juice.
Data on cider is confidential under the secrecy provision of the Statistics Act.
2.	No separate import statistics are available on cider.
3.	No separate export statistics are available on cider.


FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, OTTAWA-CARLETON
Mr. Coates: Have persons renting federaly subsidized houses in the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton been informed by the rental manager of the firm responsible for rentals that they must produce a 1968 T-4 slip for all working members of the family and a copy of their 1968 income tax return before the company in question will agree to re-leasing the premises in question?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Agreements between a federal-provincial partnership and a housing authority for rental housing projects financed under Section 35A of the National Housing Act, between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and a provincial government for subsidies for low rental housing projects under Section 35E of the National Housing Act, and between the Corporation and an entrepreneur sponsoring a low rental project mider Section 16, require periodic verification of the income of tenants in order that the low rental character of the project may be maintained. Any acceptable evidence of income may be supplied, such as a declaration from an employer, a statutory declaration, or a copy of the tenant's T-4 slip.
Tenants in federally subsidized rental projects under the administration of the Ottawa Housing Authority have been requested to

submit a copy of their 1968 T-4 slips in order that the Authority might verify their income. The Authority does not demand a copy of the 1968 income tax return but will accept it in lieu of the T-4 slip. There are no other federally subsidized rental projects in Ottawa.
Tenants in low income rental projects financed under Section 16 may submit any acceptable evidence they wish to support their application for continuous leases.


PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS ELIMINATED IN DESIGNATED REGIONS
Mr. McGrath: 1.	Of the positions eliminated in the Public Service following the government's austerity program, how many have been eliminated in regions designated under the Regional Development Incentives Act?
2.	How many positions have been eliminated in the designated regions in (a) Newfoundland (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Prince Edward Island (e) Eastern Quebec (f) Northwestern Quebec (g) Northern Ontario (h) Manitoba (i) Saskatchewan (j) Alberta (k) British Columbia?
3.	What is the unemployment rate in each of the regions listed for the month of November, seasonally adjusted and seasonally unadjusted, as closely as the rates for each region can be estimated from National Employment Service Districts?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. 680.
2.	(a) 53; (b) 163; (c) 112; (d) 16; (e) and (f) 74; (g) 44; (h) 195; (i) 8; (j) 12; (k) 11.
3.	Unemployment estimates are not available for geographic areas smaller than the provinces. The estimates that are available are as follows:
Unemployment Rates, Canada and Regions November, 1969
	Seasonally	Not Adjusted for
Region	Adjusted	SeasonalityCanada	5.1	4.4Atlantic Region	7.9	6.2Newfoundland	8.9Nova Scotia	4.7New Brunswick	6.3Prince Edward Island	5.3Quebec	7.4	6.3Ontario	3.4	2.7Prairie Region	3.2	3.1Manitoba	2.2Saskatchewan	3.8Alberta	3.2British Columbia	5.7	5.6
March 2, 1970


BOARD OF DIRECTORS, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Among the members of the Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Bank, how many are (a) English-speaking (b) French-speaking (c) bilingual?
2.	What are the salaries of the members of the Board of Directors?
3.	How many days of meetings did the directors hold during the past fiscal year?
4.	What is the amount of the loans made by the IDB in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	In addition to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, there are 12 directors appointed by the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Governor in Council. There are two of these Directors whose mother tongue is French.
2.	Section 5(3) of the Industrial Development Bank Act provides that "Directors other than the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are entitled to receive for attendance at meetings of the Board and meetings of the Executive Committee such fees as may be fixed by the by-laws of the Bank, but the aggregate amount of the fees paid to all Directors exclusive of expenses shall not exceed twenty thousand dollars in any fiscal year."
Pursuant to P.C. 1967-824, published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, May 13, 1967, the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, pursuant to Section 11 of the Industrial Development Bank Act, approved By-law 5 of the Industrial Development Bank made by the Board of Directors on April 3, 1967, as follows:
Questions
"Subject to the provisions of Section 5, subsection 3, of the Industrial Development Bank Act, the fee to be paid to a Director for attendance at Board meetings shall be $100 and the fee to be paid to the Director who is a member of the Executive Committee but not a member of the Executive Committee of the Bank of Canada for attendance at meetings of the Committee shall be $2,000 per annum plus $150 per meeting plus $50 for each day in excess of one day for which such Director is absent from his place of residence in order to attend a meeting of the Executive Committee."
No salary or fee is paid to the Governor, Deputy Governor, Deputy Minister of Finance or Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce by the Industrial Development Bank.
3.	The Board of Directors met seven times (7 days) in fiscal 1969.
4.	The Annual Report of the Industrial Development Bank for the year ended September 30th, 1969, sets out the number and amount of loan approvals by type of business, by size and by province on Pages 14 and 15.
Fiscal 1969
Number Amount
(a) Quebec	541	$34,607,000(b) Ontario	863	45,003,000


SALES OF GOODS TO U.S. UNDER DEFENCESHARING AGREEMENT
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the total sales of military and nonmilitary goods to the United States under the Defence-Sharing Agreement in 1987, 19S8, 1959?
2.	Do all exports to the United States of a military nature come under the Defence-Sharing Agreement and, if not, what was the value of exports of a military nature not under the Defence-Sharing Agreement in 1967, 1968, 1969?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.
1967	1968	1969
(Millions Cdn. $)
(i)	The value of military goods sold to
the U.S. under the Canada/U.S. Defence Production Sharing Program is	307.7	320.0	299.8
(ii)	The value of non-military goods sold to the U.S. under the Canada/U.S.
Defence Production Sharing Program is
nil
nil
nil
4210	COMMONS
Questions
2. (i) All exports which are classified as military qualify for inclusion under the production sharing program, (ii) The production sharing program does not include "off-the-self" general procurement, construction, basic raw materials, fuels, lubricants and services such as transportation/rentals.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What is the purpose and functions of the national advisory committee on petroleum attached to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	What criteria was used in the selection of members for this committee?
3.	Who are the members of the committee?
4.	Are there any consumer representatives on this committee and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1.	The purpose of the National Advisory Committee on Petroleum is to further broaden the range of consultation available to the Minister. The Committee's functions include assistance in developing factual appraisals of specific circumstances or advising on the validity of appraisals, bringing to bear on these matters accumulated experience in specific sections of the Canadian petroleum industry.
2.	Members were selected on the basis of their knowledge of the petroleum industry and their recognized standing as leaders in the industry.
3.	The members of the Committee are: E. C. Bovey, Harry Bridges, A. F. Campo, James Kerr, J. McAfee, D. E. Mitchell, A. R. Nielsen, L. J. Richards, G. E. Roark, and W. O. Twaits.
4.	There are no consumer representatives because this particular Committee has been established to provide the Minister with expert technical knowledge in respect to production, markets and transportation problems regarding the petroleum industry. The interest of consumers would be protected and considered in any policy decisions made by government.


PEI-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICARE
Mr. McQuaid: Apart from the usual cost-sharing, has the Government of Canada committed itself to assisting the Government of Prince Edward Island with the implementation of a medicare program?

DEBATES	March 2, 1970


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Apart from the usual cost-sharing, the Government of Canada has made no commitment to assist the Government of Prince Edward Island with the implementation of a medical care program, other than for the usual professional and consultative services available to all provinces.


FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PORTNEUF VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOLS
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the federal government's financial contribution to the schools offering vocational training that were built in Portneuf between 1961 and 1969 at the following placesAneienne-Lorette, Donnacona (2), Neufchatel, St-Emile, St-Raymond, Charlesbourg, Loretteville?
2.	In the same constituency, what will be the contribution in the case of approved and under study projects?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The actual federal contributions during the period of April 1, 1961 to January 30, 1970, which were paid towards the constructing and equipping of schools offering vocational training in An-cienne-Lorette, Donnacona (2), Neufchatel, St. Emile. St. Raymond, Charlesbourg (2) and Loretteville in Portneuf constituency amounted to $7,655,631.82.
2. In the same constituency it is estimated the federal government will contribute an additional $5,427,000 towards approved and under study projects.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of increasing the Canada Pension Plan so that rival pension plans will not be deemed necessary?


John Carr Munro: The Canada Pension Plan, when taken in association with the Old Age Security Act, was designed to provide a basic amount of protection for the contingencies of old age, disability and death. It is assumed that the Plan will be supplemented in various ways, for example, by occupational pension plans, registered retirement savings programs, and the various ways in which people may obtain additional protection. As indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the Government is reviewing all its social security programs and plans to issue a White Paper on Social Security.
March 2, 1970


METRO-TORONTO-REGIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICES
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Were all Regional Unemployment Insurance Offices in Metro-Toronto closed down and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was a new single Unemployment Insurance Office for Metro-Toronto located in the West End of the City at 2077 Dufferin Street and, if so, for what reason?
3.	How many incoming telephone calls is the switchboard at the Dufferin Street Office able to accommodate at the same time?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	The regional office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the Ontario region was not closed but transferred from Toronto to Belleville. This was done in the interest of economy and overall efficiency of the Commission.
2.	The Commission was required to temporarily relocate its Metro-Toronto office from 25 St. Clair Avenue to 2077 Dufferin Street. When suitable premises are ready, Metro-Toronto will be serviced by two offices, one to be located on Islington Avenue at the end of the Subway and the second at 25 St. Clair Avenue.
3.	There are 16 phones manned by 16 employees to handle incoming enquiries at 2077 Dufferin Street.


CHIBOUGAMAU-LAC ALBANEL, QUEBEC- ROADS TO RESOURCES
Mr. Laprise: Under the joint federal-provincial plan for the construction of access roads to natural resources (a) on what date was the Chibougamau-Lac Al-banel road completed (b) over what distance, in miles (c) how much did the road cost (d) what was the federal government's contribution?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: (a)	and (b): Three roads, or portions of roads, were constructed under the Roads to Resources Program, Quebec, two of these in the Chibougamau area:
(1) Lake Waconichi to Lake Albanel Road- this road is described in the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Quebec as follows: "The construction of 95 miles of new road from the southerly tip of Lake Waconichi to a point a few miles north of the 51st parallel on the eastern shore of Lake Albanel".
Questions
(2) Chapais-Desmaraisville Road-described in the agreement as follows: "The construction of a 30-mile section of the road from a point 14.6 miles east of Desmaraisville to a point approximately 27 miles west of Cha-pais".
Final payments under the Roads to Resources Program were made to the Province of Quebec in the fiscal year 1966-67. Progress records at that time indicate that approximately 179 miles of the originally planned 248 miles were completed. There is no record of progress beyond that date.
(c)	and (d): Under the Roads to Resources Agreements, the Government of Canada paid 50 per cent of approved construction costs up to a limit of $7.5 million per province. The Province contributed a like amount. In the Province of Quebec the Federal contribution to the Lake Waconichi and Lake Albanel Road was $3,619,952 and to the Chapais-Desmaraisville Road $1,494,685. Provincial costs beyond the expiry date of the agreement, if any, are not known. (The balance of the federal share under the Quebec Agreement was paid on construction of the Amos-Matagami Road-$2,385,363.)


PERMISSIBLE LEVEL OF DDT IN UNITED STATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the permissible level of DDT in United States grapes imported to Canada before and after January 1, 1970?
2.	In enforcing the standards of permissible DDT In imported U.S. grapes after January 1, 1970 (a) how frequently are tests being conducted (b) by whom (c) by what methods?
3.	What privately-owned laboratories conducted testing of foodstuffs for payment by the Government of Canada during 1968 and/or 1969?


John Carr Munro: 1. The permissible level of DDT on United States grapes before January 1, 1970, was seven parts per million. On January 1, 1970, the level was reduced to one part per million.
2.	(a) Only one lot of U.S. grapes has been assayed for DDT since January 1, 1970. No DDT was found, (b) The analysis was carried out in the Toronto Laboratories of the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, (c) A gas chromatographic method of analysis was used.
3.	No privately-owned laboratory carried out analyses of foodstuffs for payment on

March 2, 1970
Questions
behalf of the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, during 1968 or 1969.


PENITENTIARIES-FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME HEALTH PERSONNEL
Mr, Orlikow: How many of the psychologists, psychiatrists, *physicians and dentists employed by the federal government work full-tune at penitentiaries and, of those who work part-time, how many hours per week does each work in the penitentiaries?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Full- time	Part- time	Contract	TotalPsychologists	13	1	10	23Psychiatrists	7	15	23Physicians	10	1	9	20Dentists	6	3	5	14
Part-time Psychologists work 15 hours per week.
Part-time Psychiatrists work 15 hours per week.
Part-time Physicians work 15 hours per week.
Part-time Dentists work 15 hours per week.
Contract Personnel work four half days per week.


PENITENTIARIES-ROLE OF SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1 What role does the superintendent of a federal penal institution play in the selection and supervision of staff?
2.	What responsibility and authority does the superintendent have?
3.	What authority is delegated to lower levels by the superintendent?


George James McIlraith: 1. Since September 11, 1969, the authority for the selection of staff has rested with the Public Service Commission of Canada under the Public Service Employment Act. Wardens or Superintendents may be invited to sit as members of Selection Boards.
2. The institutional head is responsible for: (a) the whole of the organization, safety and security of his institution, including the correctional training of inmates confined therein, and (b) the discipline of the institutional staff and the training of staff in accordance with directives.
(Penitentiary Service Regulations!, Section
1.12 (D).
i 3. Unless otherwise provided by law, the institutional head may delegate to officers
[Mr. Munro.J
who are his immediate subordinates, authority over all matters of routine or of minor administration, but he shall give his personal attention to: (a) matters of general organization and policy; (b) important matters requiring his personal attention and decision, and; (c) the general control and supervision of the duties that he has allocated to his subordinates.
(Penitentiary Service Regulations, Section
1.12 (2)).


FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COST-SHARING PROGRAMS FOR HOMES FOR THE AGED
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
Have there been any submissions from provincial governments requesting federal government participation in cost-sharing programs for nursing home care of the aged and, if so (a) which provinces have made such requests (b) what has been the response of the federal government?


John Carr Munro: Under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government is able to share in the cost to the provinces and to municipalities in provinces, of care for needy persons in homes for special care. These include, among others, homes for the aged and nursing homes. All provinces have taken advantage of these provisions.


POST OFFICE-SPEEDING UP OF MAIL DELIVERIES IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Souiham: 1.	What progress has been made in speeding up mail deliveries across provincial boundaries in Western Canada?
2.	Is it the government's intention to establish a more stringent system of tying delivery services to the time of posting?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. Teams have been working in Western Canada to improve mail service generally across the country and indications are that considerable success has been achieved.
2. The Post Office Department expects to be in a position to be able to publish a list of posting times ensuring a high degree of probability of next day delivery in major cities.


RECEPTION PROCEDURE, KINGSTON PRISON FOR WOMEN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the reception procedure for inmates at the Prison for Women in Kingston?
March 2, 1970

2.	Where do they go after reception and how is this determined?
3.	(a) On what basis do inmates go to the new building (b) are new inmates, particularly first offenders, kept apart from inmates who have a long record?
4.	How are behaviour problems met?


George James McIlraith: 1.
The reception procedure requires that the inmate he:
(a)	Photographed and fingerprinted; and valuables, money, etc. are documented.
(b)	Assigned a cell in the reception area.
(c)	Assessed psychologically, i.e. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Maudsley Personality Inventory, Porteus Maze Test, and Revised Beta Examination.
(d)	Assessed by the psychiatrist.
(e)	Assessed by the supervisor of education to determine academic and vocational needs.
(f)	Assessed by the medical doctor to determine health and treatment that might be indicated.
(g)	Interviewed by the visiting and correspondence officer to determine with whom she wishes to correspond and to have visit.
(h)	Interviewed by the Assistant Superintendent (Supplies and Services) regarding clothing issues.
(i)	Interviewed by senior staff members regarding matters of institutional welfare.
(j)	Interviewed by guidance officer under the supervision of the social worker where a full scale case history is compiled.
(k)	Assessed by appropriate chaplain regarding religious matters.
The inmate then appears personally before a classification board. This board consists of the senior members of the inmate training staff. A training program designed to develop and rehabilitate the inmate is decided upon and placed in action. It is also decided at this board whether the inmate should be assigned to the new wing or elsewhere. This reception procedure takes place within the first week of admission.
2.	Following the orientation period, a training program designed to develop and rehabilitate the inmate is decided upon and the inmate is given a work training assignment accordingly. Living accommodation is also decided at this time. These decisions are made by the classification board in light of the orientation assessment set out in Part 1 above.
3.	(a) The criteria for accommodating in the new building is expressed in the following questions:
Questions
(i)	Is the inmate a first offender?
(ii)	Is she making, or is she likely to make a reasonable effort to reform and participate in a training program?
(iii)	What is her moral attitude to other inmates?
(iv)	Does she appear to be mature and responsible enough to live in an honour type of environment without interfering with or obstructing those inmates who are well motivated and interested in self improvement.
(b) Yes, so far as physical limitations of the institution permit.
4.	The inmate is seen individually in a counselling session where the problem and causative factors are discussed. In many cases the problem is resolved on this basis. However, in more serious cases, after counselling, the problem is referred to a psychiatrist.


PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Are the senior officials of the Solicitor General Department and prison staff at the Prison for Women at Kingston familiar with studies of psychological effects of solitary confinement?
2.	Are special efforts made to maintain close contact with inmates during their short stay in solitary confinement such as those used at Ontario Provincial Institutions for women?
3.	What provision is made at Kingston to help the person avoid the psychological effects of complete isolation?


George James McIlraith: 1.
Yes.
2.	Supervision and control is exercised as set out in answer to Part 10 of Question 1,134.
3.	The inmate at the Prison for Women is permitted to continue, or to take up, academic studies under educational staff supervision. Hobby craft and games (single person participation) are also available as is reading material.


MENTAL AND PHYSICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES, PRISON FOR WOMEN, KINGSTON
Mr. Orlikow: What treatment facilities are available for inmates who are ill (a) physically (b) mentally, at the Prison for Women at Kingston?


George James McIlraith: Complete and comprehensive treatment facilities are available for inmates who are either (a) physically ill or (b) mentally ill.

March 2, 1970
Questions
(a)	Medical and dental facilities are available through the Canadian Forces Hospital at Barriefield and through the Regional Dental Laboratory. Additionally, inmates may see voluntarily a general practitioner three times a week.
(b)	Mentally ill inmates are treated in accordance with Section 19 of the Penitentiary Act. If certified as mentally ill, patients are admitted to a mental hospital. Emotionally disturbed inmates, who are not certified as mentally ill, are handled by three part-time psychiatrists, a bilingual psychologist, and a classification officer.


USE OF HANDCUFFS, PRISON FOR WOMEN, KINGSTON
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Under what conditions are handcuffs used on inmates at the Prison for Women at Kingston?
2.	In each of the past three years, on how many occasions were handcuffs used on inmates, and in how many cases were handcuffs used on more than one occasion on any inmate?


George James McIlraith: 1.
None.
2.	Nil.


KINGSTON PRISON FOR WOMEN-CLOTHING WORN BY INMATES ON OUTSIDE TRIPS
Mr. Orlikow: What kind of clothing does an inmate at the Prison for Women at Kingston wear for trips outside of the building while still serving sentence,
i.e. to court, to see a child?


George James McIlraith: Inmates of the Prison for Women at Kingston, when on temporary absence from the institution whether for appearance in court, to see a child, or otherwise, are permitted to wear normal street attire. If, for any reason, their personal clothing is unsuitable appropriate street apparel is provided.


BAIL CRITERIA
Mr. Beaudoin: What criteria govern the setting of the amount of bail required in Canadian courts?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Criteria governing the setting of the actual amount of bail are not set out in legislation. The decision as to what is reasonable bail depends on the circumstances of each case, but a number of leading cases setting out the principles to be followed in regard to bail are considered in the recent case of Regina v. 
Moses, reported in the Criminal Reports, New Series, Volume 7, p. 277, and in the Annotation to that case at p. 282.


FRENCH LANGUAGE RADIO AND TV IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. McCleave: When is it anticipated that the French language radio and television service by CBC will be available in Nova Scotia?


Mr. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: The CBC informs me that French language television network service is currently available from the CBC's station CBFCT in Cheticamp. A new CBC station at Yarmouth will begin operations within the next few months and the corporation has plans for further television development at Halifax, Mulgrave and Sydney. CBC radio low power relay transmitters are located at Digby, Meteghan, Pomquet, Quinan, Wedge-port, Weymouth and Yarmouth. Others are planned for Arichat, Belle Cote and Cheticamp.


SAINT JOHN, N.B.-TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES
Mr. MacRae: Of the twelve employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Saint John who were given notice of termination of employment and have not been reassigned, what steps are being taken to find employment for these valuable employees of the government service?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As for all other employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who have been declared surplus across the country and who have not been found alternate employment as yet, the department itself with all its resources together with other agencies of the Government such as the Public Service Commission and the Canada Manpower Centres are actively and continuously engaged in seeking positions both within and outside the Public Service to which these employees could be appointed.


TOBACCO SUBSIDY-1960 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to tobacco producers during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No annual subsidy was paid during the period to tobacco producers, however, in 1967-68, a
March 2, 1970

grant was made to the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board in the amount of $141,865 in respect of commitments incurred pertaining to the sale or disposal of the 1961 Tobacco Crop.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-INCREASE IN FEES FOR PART-TIME MEDICAL STAFF IN SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: Is the part-time medical staff employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Saint John, New Brunswick, to receive an increase in fees on April 1, 1970 and, if so, of what percentage?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Fees for part-time medical staff at
Questions
Saint John, N.B. are currently under detailed study. The amount of fees to be paid effective April 1, 1970 will be determined on completion of the study. It is expected that a decision will be reached in the very near future.


SUBSIDY TO POTATO PRODUCERS-1960-1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to potato producers during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In so far as the Production and Marketing Program is concerned, payments made during the fiscal years 1959-60 to 1969-70 are as tabulated below:
Fiscal Year	Payments to Producers to Stabilize the Price of Potatoes	Potato Warehouse Construction Assistance	Contribution to Prince Edward Island due to fusarium rot*	Total1959-GO	$ 18,000	$ 18.0001960-61	100,000	100,0001961-62	
$ 401.554	203,000	$ 195,000	799,5541962-63	
619,289	25,000	644,2891963-64	104,000	104,0001964-65	nil	1965-66	nil	1966-67	67,000	67,0001967-68	
2,466,151	nil	2,466,1511968-69	
2,492,762	nil	2,492'7621969-70	
695,480	(to Jan. 31/70)	nil	695,480Total	
$ 6,675,236	$ 517,000	$ 195,000	* 7,387,236
. *Contributions to Prince Edward Island, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, of one-half of amounts paid by that Province to potato growers in respect of their 1960 crop as compensation for losses due to fusarium rot.


EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT ON ECONOMIC PLANNING
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	In its economic planning, does the government attempt to assess the cost to the economy of different amounts of unemployment and of different degrees of inflation and, if so, what techniques are used in calculating these costs?
2.	Does the government compare the cost of inflation and unemployment in deciding what fiscal and monetary policies to use?
3 What is the cost of having an additional one percent of the labour force unemployed?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	The Department of Finance maintains a continuing analysis of the economic situation and outlook with a view to assessing likely trends in the economy, including movements in prices and unemployment. A wide variety of techniques is used, including surveys, statistical and econometric analysis and qualitative appraisal. The results of these various studies are brought together in formulating judgments as to likely developments.
2.	In deciding upon fiscal and monetary policies, the government and the Bank of Canada consider many objectives such as those pertaining to economic growth, stability, regional disparities as well as employment and prices.
3.	It is not possible to give a definitive reply to this hypothetical question without detailing the underlying economic environment, including inter alia, the level and distribution of unemployment by region and occupation, movements of prices, the distribution of the national income, the phase of the business cycle, developments in capital markets and trends in savings and invest-

March 2, 1970
Orders for Returns
ment. There are available publicly a number of studies which relate changes in the rate of unemployment to changes in G.N.P. These studies have been based largely upon observations of past events, especially during periods of relative price stability. They show varying results depending on the time period chosen and other assumptions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	When was the Indian Consultation and Negotiation Group established and what are its terms of reference?
2.	What is the (a) name (b) position held by (c) salary paid to (d) length of service within the sections of the government service relating to Indian Affairs and (e) qualifications of each person within the said group?
Return tabled.


WHEAT-SUBSIDY, PRODUCTION, SALES AND ACREAGE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the total subsidy paid to wheat farmers in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba, in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What was the total production of wheat in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba, in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
3.	How many bushels of wheat were sold in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive and what was the average price per bushel received in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What was the total acreage of wheat in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba, in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
5.	What was the amount paid per acre as a subsidy not to grow wheat in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba, in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT SHIPS OVER 50 FEET LONG
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	What are the names of all ships over 50 ft. in length, their registered tonnage, construction date, present location and use, number of Deck Officers, number of Engine Room Officers and other personnel required to man vessels presently being operated by (a) the Department of Transport and Canadian Coast Guard (b) the Department of Fisheries and Forestry (c) the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (d) the RCMP (e) the Defence Research Board (f) any other government department operating vessels over 50 ft. in length?
2.	What has been the total annual operating cost of these ships by department for each of the last 3 years?

3.	Which departments, including the Department of National Defence, have vessels currently under construction, in advance planning stages and, scheduled for each of the next 5 years?
Return tabled.


CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Souiham: 1.	How many Post Offices were constructed or will be constructed in each of Canada's ten provinces in the year 1969?
2.	What are their locations by province?
3.	How many are slated for construction in 1970 and what are their locations by province?
Return tabled.


CBC EMERGENCY BROADCASTING FACILITIES
Mr. Harding: 1.	(a) What was the total cost to CBC for supplying emergency broadcasting facilities for each of the last five complete fiscal years (b) when was the service set up (c) and, what was the objective?
2.	Has EMO or any government department made any contribution to this cost and, if so, what was the amount paid for each of the above years?
3.	(a) Are all radio and television stations in Canada required by law to install the necessary equipment to receive any emergency signal so broadcast and, if not, on what basis is the signal received and broadcast by any station (b) how many stations in Canada are (i) equipped to receive it (ii) not equipped to receive it?
4.	(a) Do the emergency broadcasting facilities operate on a 24-hour continuous service and, if not, what is the schedule (b) what facilities are available in the event of an emergency in any of the off-periods (c) what method would be used to communicate with any area not served by the signal?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many federal correctional institutions are there in Canada?
2.	What are the names of the Wardens of each of these institutions and how long have they been in their positions?
3.	What, if any, are their professional qualifications?
Return tabled.


PENITENTIARIES-PRISONS FOR WOMEN
Mr. Orlikow: 1. What is the ratio of staff to inmates in (a) the "ideal" penal institution (b) the Prison for Women, Kingston, today (c) the Prison for Women, Nataqui, today?
March 2, 1970

2.	What is the "treatment of staff'' in the Prisons for Women today?
3.	What is the cost per inmate per annum, in the Prisons for Women?
4.	What are the salary ranges of staff in the Prisons for Women?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have two starred questions on the Order Paper, 1,265 and 1,270, having to do with the number of letters, telegrams and other communications criticizing or condemning the white paper in whole or in part which have been received by the Minister of Finance and by the Prime Minister since January 1, 1970. They have been on the Order Paper since February 18. I hope the matter will be looked into by the President of the Privy Council. There must be a machine that counts figures large enough to be able to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, we will make inquiries.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 GRAIN WHEAT-EFFECT OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM ON FARMERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the program announced by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board on February 27 and the immediate threat it poses to the livelihood of 190,000 prairie farmers, together with the failure of the government to develop programs to ensure a basic income for farmers in western Canada, such discussion being immediately necessary because no legislation is to be presented on the subject and farmers must make vital decisions within the next few weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. In saying this, I think I should mention that unfortunately the notice was misdirected and did not come to the attention of the Speaker except by a circuitous route, which perhaps delayed consideration of the
Inquiries oj the Ministry matter by the Chair. In any event, the Chair has had an opportunity to consider the proposal contained in the suggested motion.
I can tell the hon. member, and all hon. members, that this is a decision which is very difficult to take. I have considered all aspects of the matter and I am still wondering whether the motion should be put to the House or not. Hon. members know that under the provisions of paragraph 5 of Standing Order 26, the Chair must have regard to the probability of the subject being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means. I know how important this matter is to Canada in general and to the wheat growers and the economy of the west in particular. However, the Chair still has to take into account the question whether it is probable that this very subject might be brought before the House within a reasonable period of time.
I have never made it a rule that if there is to be a supply motion within a reasonable period of time this should necessarily be the vehicle for discussion of a matter referred to in a proposed motion under Standing Order 26. Nevertheless, this aspect cannot be entirely overlooked. There is also the fact that the budget will be brought down in the very near future, and this will provide a vehicle for consideration of this matter of urgent national importance. Even with this taken into account, I am still not convinced that the hon. member should not be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to proceed with the motion.
Standing Order 26(6) makes it possible for the Chair to delay a decision for a short while until later in the sitting. If hon. members would permit, I should like to reflect further on all aspects of this matter, particularly on whether there is a possibility of this urgent problem being brought before the House for debate within the next few days. Having taken these factors into account the Chair might make a decision, perhaps at five o'clock, on whether or not there should be a debate this evening on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. So the decision will be held in abeyance and made known to the House later this afternoon. Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Woolliams:: Before the oral question period begins may I raise a point of order. I am not making anything of the Prime Minis-

March 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry ter not being here today because I realize he is away on official business. But I would draw it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the function of the opposition is to ask questions of the executive.
According to the roster system, which I have never supported, six ministers who should be here are absent, and I will name them: The Solicitor General, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Secretary of State, and the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. It seems to me our questions will be somewhat superfluous today if we have to direct them to empty executive benches.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention the fact that more than half of the hon. gentlemen-or at least half-referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North are at the present time at the airport meeting Her Majesty the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POSSIBLE U.S. LIMITATION OF OIL IMPORTS- REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the present confusion that exists in regard to Canadian policy on continental energy resources and related issues, and in light of the suggestion that the United States may be preparing to use limitation of oil imports as a means of achieving the package agreement that it desires, is it the intention of the government to make a clear and unequivocal public statement as to its position in this regard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would deny the premise on which the question is based. As far as I know, any action taken by the United States will be related to its own oil policy. It could not possibly be used as a means of bringing pressure on Canada's energy policy as a whole. The Canadian government will make its decisions on its energy policy in light of Canada's own national interest.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Acting Prime Minister bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the need to have such statement made at once, in view of the conflicting statements made by members of the government and the

danger posed by failing to act promptly, as has been demonstrated in regard to Arctic sovereignty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect that from time to time the government will be announcing its energy policy. As the hon. gentleman knows, the President and the Prime Minister, when they met last year, talked about the desirability of having discussions with the United States. I am sure than my hon. friend will agree that this is still desirable.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister use his influence to determine whether the right hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources speaks for the government in connection with the sale of water to the United States?



OIL-STUDY OF PIPELINE FROM WESTERN TO EASTERN CANADA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has any thought been given to or study been made of the economics of a pipeline to move Canadian crude from western Canada to Canadian eastern markets in light of the possibility of serious oil pollution of our seashores by tankers loaded with pollutants disrupting our whole ecology?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, studies have been made from time to time both by private groups and by the government on the economics of a pipeline from western Canada to eastern Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I direct a further supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister give the House a report on motions at an early date on the opinion of the government so far as that study and research are concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if there is any occasion to change present government policy, an opportunity will be taken, of course, to make an announcement.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
March 2, 1970

to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement in Friday's New York Times to the effect that the Manhattan will be making a second trip through the Northwest Passage commencing April 1, may I ask the minister whether Humble Oil Company, or the United States government on its behalf, has asked the Canadian government for permission to go through the Northwest passage or has notified the Canadian government as to when this trip is contemplated? If so, what will be the approximate date?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that the Humble Oil Company has notified the Canadian government and we have given our acquiescence. I am not absolutely sure of the date or I would answer that part of the question, but I can easily obtain the information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government laid down any stipulations regarding what precautions the Manhattan must take to guard against the danger of pollution during its trip?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I ask the minister the nature of those stipulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these questions should be directed to the Minister of Transport when he is in the House. He can give a full account.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been making a variety of statements about sovereignty. I would ask him whether or not the representations that constitute, to use his own word, acquiescence by Canada are in writing? Was there a notice in writing setting forth the basis for the acquiescence, rather than consent, and will the minister table that communication?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think these questions should be directed to the Minister of Transport when he is here tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has been so generous with his views on this subject that I am wondering why he has suddenly become so taciturn.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer the question, but I am quite sure that the House as well as Your Honour would object if I were to go into the kind of dissertation that the right hon. gentleman is asking for.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, we would not object.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, though the answer I will get is obvious. Would the minister ask his colleague the Minister of Transport whether he would indicate to the House if acquiescence implies that we will again provide a full measure of icebreaking service?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at least I can inform the hon. gentleman, and also the right hon. gentleman who wants me to be somewhat more loquacious-


John George Diefenbaker: Not loquacious, but
forthcoming.


Mitchell William Sharp: -that this was one of the matters that were taken into account in the exchanges that have taken place between the Minister of Transport and the owners of the Manhattan.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Humble Oil Company or the United States made an official request for the provision of icebreaker services?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have not, of course, had any direct communications with the United States government, which is not involved in this matter. The Humble Oil Company has asked whether icebreaking equipment would be made available.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. I should like to know what we have said. Would the minister answer my earlier question and indicate whether or not our answer was yes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think, in all fairness to my colleague the Minister of Transport, that these questions should be directed to him. He has direct responsibility for the matter. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is, of course, involved, but it is not my departmental responsibility to deal with Humble Oil Company.

March 2. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question.
During the demonstrations which took place on Parliament Hill over the week end an hon. member had to resort to boxing to protect a girl. Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiring into charges against a counter-demonstration group which allegedly was not Maoist but composed of paid agents of the American C.I.A.?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister. Since unemployment in metropolitan Toronto has risen 33 per cent during the past month, giving a clear indication of the kind of figures that we may expect from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: -when it reports in a few days, would the Acting Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what steps the government is planning to take to stimulate the economy so that large-scale unemployment does not develop in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. gentleman knows there will shortly be an occasion to discuss this and many other aspects of government economic policy when the budget is brought down.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the people of Toronto and Canada do not wish to wait for niceties to take place so these questions may be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member may ask a supplementary but I do not think he has a legitimate point of order.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the widespread confusion and delay that has occurred in the unemployment insurance office in Toronto due to the very rapid rise in unemployment in metropolitan Toronto, can the minister advise the House what steps have been taken to eliminate this confusion and delay which has caused a great deal of confusion and hardship for those who have applied for unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's original question asked whether a statement would be made in reply to the question. I should think that if a statement is made the information sought in the supplementary question would be supplied.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on motions at the first opportunity giving an answer to my question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will read the question tomorrow to make sure it is not as confusing as it sounds, Mr. Speaker. I would be more than happy to do that and bring these statistics forward. I can answer now by saying that the rapidly growing population of Toronto has put quite a tremendous workload on the Toronto office and as a result we are opening two supplementary offices.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I explained the question in detail to the minister before he entered the House and he knew exactly what I wanted in the answer, so this is impertinence on his part which is unfortunately taking up the time of the House.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the increase in unemployment in the Toronto area to which the hon. member has referred, and the long delays and large queues that have accumulated there, is the minister considering special measures, including making a larger staff available as well as interpreters so these people will not be inconvenienced as they are at the present time?
March 2, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is a repetition of the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The minister may want to reply to both questions at the same time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will follow your advice and will provide the hon. gentleman who first raised the question with details at the first opportunity on motions, perhaps as early as this Thursday.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-UNILATERAL ACTION

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture in view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board is not here today. The other day it was reported that the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States had lauded the wheat acreage reduction proposal announced by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. At the same time there was no indication that a similar reduction of their wheat acreage is contemplated for this year. In view of the apparent lack of consultation before the action was taken by the Canadian government, is it the intention of the government unilaterally to reduce our wheat acreage in the same manner as we endeavoured to hold up the International Grains Arrangement prices unilaterally?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would be unable to accept any of the arguments advanced by the hon. member. We in this government do not require prior agreement or acquiescence by the United States government, nor do they by us, in matters of this kind. The fact is that the United States announced some weeks ago that it was going to reduce its wheat acreage by 15 per cent. Indeed, I believe it reduced its wheat acreage from 1968 to 1969, through its land bank policy, by about a similar amount. This, of course, had been discussed in a general way with United States officials not only recently but as long ago as 10 or 12 months.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that United States farmers are still going to grow 45 million bushels of wheat and we are trying to reduce our crop to four to five million acres, is this not a sign that Canada is giving to the world that Canada intends to withdraw from the international wheat market?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, it is not, because we will have 950 million bushels of wheat in our inventory at the end of this selling season which will supply us with requirements of at least 50 or 60 per cent over our highest sales for next year.


George Harris Hees: Could the Minister of Agriculture explain to the House, if Canada is doing so well compared with the United States, why their sales have only dropped 6 per cent and ours have dropped 31 per cent?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Those figures are not correct.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Those figures are absolutely correct.



REVISION OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports that the United States representatives are seeking a revision of the provisions of the International Grains Arrangement within the provisions of GATT, because of dumping by other nations of their grain on world markets, have Canadian representatives made similar representations?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of discussions and the Minister without Portfolio has reported to the House and to the public in respect of finding ways of retaining as much of the present International Grains Arrangement as possible and, indeed, in regard to a revised agreement to take the place of the present one when it expires, I think in about a year.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House what immediate action is being taken in respect of the International Grains Arrangement which is not functioning? We know it is not going to carry on forever, but what is being done now?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All that can be done with regard to this type of agreement, and that is to attempt to have the other parties who are signatories to the agreement live up to the conditions and for us to do that too, as we interpret those conditions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned

March 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry the fact that there are some nations which are not maintaining their pledge to the International Grains Arrangement. Is Canada doing so at the present time? Is it committing breaches of the agreement? Would the minister also say to what countries he referred in saying there were some which were not living up to the terms of the agreement now?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact and a matter of general knowledge that all countries are selling grain now below the minimum set out in the IGA, and Canada is one of them, but the fact is that Canada was not the first one to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: The order in which a crime is committed really does not make it excusable.



WHEAT-ADJUSTMENT OF PROGRAM FOR FARMERS WHO HAVE ALREADY REDUCED ACREAGE

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture make some adjustments in the recently announced program for reducing the wheat surplus so as to deal more fairly with those farmers who voluntarily decreased their wheat acreage and increased their summerfallow and forage crop acreage in 1968 and 1969? I ask this because in many respects the program is good-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member can ask a question but he should not explain why he is asking it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there will be provisions in the regulations for those farmers who substantially reduced their wheat acreage and increased their summerfallow acreage in 1969.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was asking whether the minister was also considering making adequate provisions for those who increased their forage crop acreage last year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That has not been taken into consideration at this point in time because the major thrust of the program is to reduce the inventory of wheat in Canada.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAMCEILING ON PRICE OF GRASS SEED

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture has discussed with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the

fact that the government is paying $10 per acre on forage crops and whether there is to be a ceiling price set on the price of grass seed which is now being purchased mainly by speculators in western Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry but I do not understand the purport of the hon. member's question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I should rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Is there any thought of setting a ceiling price on grass seed in view of the fact that it will be in such demand as a result of the government's program regarding forage crops? Is there any policy to set a ceiling on the price of grass seed so it will not get into the hands of speculators?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member probably knows better than I that we have no jurisdiction to set either floor or ceiling prices on goods that someone else sells, whether that product is grass seed or anything else.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of that fact, did the government, the Minister of Agriculture and others take into consideration that the price of grass seed will reach an all-time high in western Canada and that this will be paid for out of the pockets of the taxpayers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not my view of what will happen. We have made a survey of how much grass and legume or other forage seed will be available this year, and we expect there is probably enough to seed close to two million acres. But there are other factors as well that are influencing the price of grass seed. One of them was the very severe frost in the middle of June last year that killed many of the grass seed crops.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be argumentative-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -but in view of the fact that there is a shortage of grass seed for the reasons given, is the government not aware that the price of grass seed will be so high that farmers, even under the government's plan, will not be able to afford to sow grass?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No one is forcing farmers to grow grass under this program. This is a voluntary program, and if a farmer is able to obtain grass seed at what he considers to be a reasonable price, we will pay him $4 an acre if he seeds that land to grass. However, nobody will be forced to do that.
March 2. 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it $4 a pound or $4 an acre?



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR BACKGROUND STUDIES

John Stratford Burton: I should like to ask the minister whether he would
consider making some of the background studies carried out prior to the government's announcement of policy on Friday available to members and other interested people in order to contribute to a better informed debate on this entire issue and so that we might understand how it is possible to avoid the high increase in the price of forage crop seed to which reference was just made by the hon. member for Calgary North?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are no background studies to which reference could be made in those terms. What we did was to have the officers in the department make inquiries among the people who are handling seed and who have stocks of seed, such as the wheat pools and the other companies that are in this business, to ascertain as nearly as possible how much stock there was in Canada.


John Stratford Burton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the minister. I was only citing the forage seed situation as an example. My inquiry had to do with making available some of the general and comprehensive studies that I presume were carried out on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order but rather one of debate. I will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie in a moment. I understand he has a supplementary question to ask. However, I believe the Acting Prime Minister wants the floor for just a moment by way of parenthesis.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FOREIGN MINISTER OF THAILAND

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw Your Honour's attention and the attention of members of the House to the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished world statesman, the foreign minister of Thailand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO FARMERS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker I would like to pursue a line of questioning started earlier this afternoon and ask the Minister of Agriculture the following question. In view of the fact that some concern has been expressed by provincial departments of agriculture regarding inadequate supplies of grass seed, a fact which the minister substantiated this afternoon, would he now revise his statement to the effect that the government is quite prepared to pay as high as $140 million to the farmers, since this will not be true because the available seed supplies are only sufficient for two million acres of grass?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not true at all. If you take the 22 million acres that were seeded to wheat last year and multiply that figure by $6 per acre and if all of it goes to summerfallow, that will be $132 million, and if you take the two million acres at the $4 per acre we are offering for forage crops, you will find that the $8 million and the $132 million come to $140 million, or precisely the figure.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the wild oats the
government is going to sow?


Stanley James Korchinski: I wonder whether in all these calculations the government has taken into account the widows and the prematurely retired people who depend upon the one-third share which they normally receive from farm rental? In view of the fact that the quota will be based on the acres taken out of production, will these people be given consideration?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I presume all those people who have a share in the crop will continue to receive their share of what is sold to the elevator system from the stocks that are already on hand. There is a problem, and everyone recognizes it, that the total of 950 million bushels of carryover is not evenly distributed among all farmers. That, of course, is a problem for the solution of which special regulations will have to be made, but to the extent that the sales in 197071 are taken into the elevator system the distribution will be made to all the interested parties as in the past.

March 2. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the serious concern regarding the possibility or impossibility of sufficient summer employment for university summer students, will the minister take an early opportunity to make a clear statement on any plans the government may have to assist in the creation of sufficient summer employment for university students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope that as soon as the present proposals have been finalized I will be able to indicate what we will be doing this summer. We are working on it and we hope to continue the program we conducted last summer which brought about good results. This year we have the added advantage of the fact that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is launching a vigorous program, "Operation Placement", in conjunction with the Canada Manpower Centres. I will report later when the whole program is brought together.


Robert Simpson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has received a request from the student-faculty committee of the University of Manitoba for financial assistance to assist them in providing summer employment for university students?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this information might be included in the statement which the minister will make to the House in due course.


Albert B. Douglas: Has the
minister been alerted to the fact that this summer on the Prairies a large army of inspectors will be required to check the farms and that this might provide suitable employment for university students?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which he might wish to answer before he makes his report to the House. Is it his intention to increase the staff at the manpower centres, particularly in communities where there are universities so that the availability of students can be coordinated with the employers' demands?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Last summer we increased the staff of the manpower centres by hiring students ourselves, and we hope this will be continued this summer.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION POLICY

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the reduction of acreage next spring.
Can he tell us whether he feels that this new step is a judicious social policy in the famished world?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the hon. member is asking the minister to state his views. I do not think that stated in those terms the question is in order.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he say whether a decision has been reached to make representations in Washington opposing the scheduled underground nuclear tests in the Aleutians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Your Honour may remember that I answered similar questions last week. We are awaiting the results of the first test before we decide whether we will make any representations other than, of course, the general representations we make to all powers, the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans, to cease and desist from underground tests generally.


TRANSFER OF NERVE GAS FROM OKINAWA TO UNITED STATES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that word has just come that the Governor of the
State of Oregon is making further representations to President Nixon regarding the transfer of nerve gas from Okinawa, is the Canadian government making any representations regarding the dangers involved in this transfer passing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have
March 2, 1970

already expressed our concern to the American government and we have asked them, as the hon. gentleman knows, for further information about the precautions being taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the government requested that the American authorities first detoxify this nerve gas before transferring it, which is the kind of request made by the Governor of Oregon?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have expressed our concern, and this is one of the reasons we want to know whether all necessary precautions have been taken. But I repeat what I said before to the hon. gentleman. This nerve gas is not going to be passing either through our territory or our territorial waters. The Governor of Oregon, of course, can protest against the movement of nerve gas within the United States. We can only make representations on the basis of our extra-territorial position.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And proximity.


Mitchell William Sharp: And proximity.


ROSTER SYSTEM-ABSENCE OF MINISTERS
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this question refers to the original question of privilege about the roster system. I fully agree with the answer given by the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the absence of cabinet ministers for the purpose of meeting Her Majesty. But my question to the President of the Treasury Board is: Are the Minister of Communications and the Minister of National Health and Welfare among those ministers meeting Her Majesty?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member was referring to me when he used the term "President of the Treasury Board", and I would say my information-


Gerald William Baldwin: He was just guessing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, he does a lot of guessing. My information is that they are not meeting Her Majesty.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a further question of privilege. Since the Minister of Justice is in the House, and the two ministers referred to earlier are not meeting Her Majesty, then the answer given previously by the President of the Privy Council is absolutely false.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would point out, and perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Justice can confirm this, that the ministers in question, the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, and also the Leader of the Opposition, all met Her Majesty the Queen, and the answer was not false.


Donald MacInnis: Further on the question of privilege, that leaves out-


Mitchell William Sharp: Come off it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, on the same question of privilege involving the roster system. The minister mentioned that over half of the ministers were meeting Her Majesty. He has already admitted that the Minister of Communications and the Minister of National Health and Welfare were not among those who went there, and he indicated that three ministers were. The fact that the Minister of Communications, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Secretary of State were not there makes his original answer false.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Fundy-Royal.


Donald MacInnis: On a further question or privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would doubt whether there was an original question of privilege. Order. The hon. member rises now and seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: My question of privilege stems from the remark made by the Acting Prime Minister from his seat. I would once again ask for a ruling from the Chair in respect of the roster system and the predetermined absence of ministers from this House which can destroy the value of the question period by removing the urgency from the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Fundy-Royal.




Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

March 2, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the fear that the ground fighting and bombing in Laos may lead to the spreading of the war in Southeast Asia, will the minister state whether he has received any reports from the Canadian delegation to the ICC? Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take a chance and ask a supplementary now. Is the Canadian government going to do anything about reconsidering its position on scaling down the Canadian delegation to the ICC, in view of the dangerous situation in Southeast Asia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I might start the answer from the last part of the question put by the hon. member, we still have a delegation in functioning order. Unfortunately, as he probably knows, the International Control Commission has not been able to function, to investigate problems such as those that have arisen recently, because the Pathet Lao will not allow the International Control Commission to operate. We have not been able to get agreement, even among the members of the Commission, as to the right of the Commission itself to investigate.


Mr. Fairweather:: Then, as a supplementary question, and it is a legitimate supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Laos has asked for the convening of a conference on the style of the last Geneva Conference, and that Canada was one of the countries participating in it at that time, are we taking any initiatives in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the matter would of course have to be undertaken on the initiative of the two co-chairmen powers, Britain and the Soviet Union. If there is agreement in principle that such a conference be held, and that it shows a promise of yielding helpful results, Canada, as a member of the 1961-62 Geneva Conference on Laos, would be prepared to participate.


INQUIRY AS TO WHITE PAPER ON POLICY TOWARD PACIFIC NATIONS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When does he expect to put before the House a white paper proposing, as he suggested over the weekend, a revised policy toward the Pacific nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these papers, as I have said a number of times, are under

preparation. I have said it is our intention to table a general paper, and perhaps some of the supplementary papers, by the end of this session. One of the papers now in preparation relates to Pacific affairs.


POLLUTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing seriousness of air pollution in Canada as shown in the recent report from Montreal where sulphur dioxide pollution has become a major health hazard, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if legislation to deal with the entire problem of air pollution will be introduced at this session?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that irrational and uninformed elements of animal societies are picketing Canadian embassies against our Canadian seal fishery, can the minister say what effort has been made by his department to clarify Canada's position and to inform these societies of the facts which are not now known?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when
representations of this kind are made to us we give, I hope, a clear indication of Canadian government policy, and so does the Minister of Fisheries who is equally concerned that this particular resource should be used humanely as well as intelligently.


John Howard Lundrigan: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that the Fisheries Committee made a unanimous recommendation almost a year ago, that the government should take initiatives to correct the misim-pression which is abroad about Canada's seal fishery, will the minister agree to take some new initiatives in order to set the record straight internationally about Canada's role in one aspect of its economy?
March 2, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had this matter very much before us recently because we are concerned that Canada's image abroad may be affected by the misinformation that is spread. I hope my hon. friend will support the government's effort in rationalizing our information services by the establishment of Information Canada.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can ask a further supplementary, or maybe reword the question. My question is simply this: will the government take some new initiatives through films and information services in order to clarify Canada's role with respect to the seal fishery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Nystrom:: My question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege. I think the minister, by his remark about Information Canada, has certainly given the impression to the House that this is a very frivolous matter. But we have at the present moment in New York the bleeding hearts society or some such bloody group making representations and picketing our Canadian embassy. We are getting a terribly bad image abroad and I want to ensure that our Canadian image will be corrected. I think the minister has an obligation to this House to correct the impression he just left that this is a frivolous matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I take the problem very seriously indeed and share the concern of the hon. member. I suggest the reference to Information Canada should not be taken as a frivolous answer.


An hon. Member:: Just the minister.




Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canada sold approximately $300 million worth of weapons and defence materials to the United States in 1969, is the
Official Languages Act
Canadian government now considering putting an end to this complicity in the Viet Nam war by stopping these sales?


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That in accordance with section 19 of an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, chapter 54, Statutes of Canada, 1968-69, this House approves the appointment of Keith Spicer, Esquire as Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation of the background of the motion perhaps I might read into the record the relevant provisions of section 19 of the Official Languages Act adopted by Parliament in the last session. Subsection (1) of section 19 provides and I quote:
(1)	There shall be a Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, hereinafter in this act called the Commissioner.
Next is the most germane clause. Subsection (2):
(2)	The Commissioner shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
Subsection (3) provides:
(3)	Subject to this section, the Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a term of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in Council at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The purpose of the motion therefore, Mr. Speaker, is to comply with the requirement of the Official Languages Act and to request the approval of the House, as the approval of the other place will be requested, to the appointment of Mr. Spicer to this position under the Great Seal of Canada.
Mr. Spicer is a native of the city of Toronto, having been born there in 1934 and having been educated in the elementary and secondary schools of that city. In terms of post secondary education he holds: 1. Diplome d'etudes de civilisation frangaise, Sorbonne, Universite de Paris, 1955; 2. B.A. in Modern

March 2, 1970
Official Languages Act
Languages and Literatures, University of Toronto, 1956; 3. Diplome de l'lnstitut d'E-tudes Politiques, Universite de Paris, 1958; 4. Ph. D. in Political Science, University of Toronto, 1962. He has been in the academic profession having taught at the University of Ottawa for four years; the University of Toronto for three years, where he had been in the position of Associate Professor and is now Special Lecturer on French Canada; was visiting professor for one term at Dartmouth College in the United States and this year is visiting Associate Professor of Political Science at .Glendon College, York University.
In addition to his academic occupations Mr. Spicer was active as Organizing Secretary of Canadian Overseas Volunteers in 1960-61, an organization which members will recall was one of the constituent organizations of what has since become Canadian University Students Overseas, or CUSO; in the summer of 1964 Mr. Spicer served as Staff Researcher on the Armed Forces, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism; in the years 1964-65 he was known in this building as the Special Assistant to our late colleague, the Honourable Guy Favreau, then minister of justice and subsequently president of the privy council; during the years 1966 to 1969 he served as an editorial writer with the Toronto Globe and Mail and during that time had some leave of absence for academic purposes. Then, between the years 1961-69 he served as a commentator on the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcasting in French in the International Service of that corporation in 1968-69.
In terms of publications Mr. Spicer has published frequently on the question of external aid. In the spring of 1961 he published in the International Journal an article on "The Administration of Canadian Colombo Plan Aid"; in June, 1962, in Volume 5 of Canadian Public Administration he published "Quelques problemes des experts techniques Canadians a l'etranger", and in the International Journal in the winter of 1969-70 there appeared his article entitled "Clubmanship upstaged: Canada's 20 years in the Colombo Plan". Those who have studied Canada's foreign aid program will recall Professor Spicer's monograph which was the subject of his doctorial thesis, "A Samaritan State?- External Aid in Canada's Foreign Policy," published in 1966.
Mr. Spicer is married to a former native of France and has a family of three children. In the opinion of the government he would be

an apt representative of English Canada, with extensive studies in French language and French culture, to carry out the very important function which this Parliament has assigned to the Commissioner of Official Languages. On that basis, the government has put forward this proposal, that his nomination might be approved.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher (Fundy-Royal) Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a very important consideration of a very important appointment, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the official opposition about the appointment of Dr. Keith Spicer. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) told us, the nominee has a most impressive academic record. I am sure that, coupled with this record, are the essential qualities of sensitivity and open-mindedness which will be so necessary for carrying out this worth-while task for Canada. I hope that the Commissioner designate will heed the need for a very early reassurance to the public servants who have been deeply troubled about their future because of what I might categorize as the rather ill-considered and flip statements made by certain people.
For 103 years, Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged in an experiment in nationhood called federalism. The years have been punctuated on occasion by stridency and shrillness uttered by negative men whose vision of what Canada can be is obscured. Fortunately, other men have understood the stresses and tensions of our evolution. We must reinforce the original and imaginative concept of confederation to fix today's period of profound readjustment. Northrop Frye has reminded us that nations have followed their uncreated ideal. I believe this is very true of this country. He says this at Page 122 of his book:
The Canada to which we really do owe loyalty is the Canada that we have failed to create ... I should like to suggest that our identity, like the real identity of all nations, is the one that we have failed to achieve. It is expressed in our culture, but not attained in our life, just as Blake's new Jerusalem to be built in England's green and pleasant land is no less a genuine ideal for not having been built there. What there is left of the Canadian nation may well be destroyed by the kind of sectarian bickering which is so much more interesting to many people than genuine human life. But, as we enter a second century contemplating a world where power and success express themselves so much in stentorian lying, hypnotized leadership, and panic-stricken suppression of freedom and criticism, the uncreated identity of Canada may be after all not so bad a heritage to take with us.
March 2, 1S70

I sincerely hope, and I say this on behalf of my Party, that Professor Keith, Spicer will help to bring reality closer to the ideal.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, even though I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Spicer briefly, it is impossible for me to say exactly what his qualifications are for this particular position; but I am, as are my colleagues, prepared to accept the judgment of those who chose him. He is certainly a man of great culture and, what perhaps is more important, he possesses a great sense of humour which he will probably need in performing his duties.
It has taken us more than a century to do what perhaps ought to have been done on the first day of Canada's birth, establish the notion that bilingualism is part of our national culture and national being. When the Commissioner approaches his job of making bilingualism a reality in federal institutions and the various language districts to be set up under the Act, I am sure he will remember that it has taken us a century to come this far, that during the course of the century a great many anomalies, injustices and disparities in language among groups in Canada have developed, and that those disparities and anomalies cannot be erased over night. He must remember that setting the record straight and overcoming the difficulties and conflicts which have arisen in the course of a century will require a great deal of patience, diplomacy and sensitivity, because his work will touch on the lives, security and confidence of a good many Canadians.
If he remembers that, Dr. Spicer will have an opportunity of making bilingualism in Canada a living thing and there will be no bitterness or recrimination from any section of the country. On the other hand he can act, as I hope he will not, like a bull in a china shop by trying to make things accord to his view very quickly and thereby produce a great deal of resentment and bitterness which will take another century to erase. I therefore urge, as I have in past debates on this Bill, that Dr. Spicer, whom I do not know very well, display a sensitive, open-minded, patient and diplomatic approach to the problems he will encounter.
He has considerable powers under the Act, not as great as some hon. members have suggested, but very great nonetheless. He will be the recipient of many complaints from people who think that English or French has been ignored and by people in the federal public service who think that our emphasis on lan-
Textile Labelling Act
.guage at this late date in our history has placed them in a position of disadvantage in relation to their promotion, transfer or advancement in their careers. He will receive a good many complaints from people who have a real grievance and, I suspect, even more complaints from people who have no grievance at all but who are either deliberately or unconsciously out to create mischief. It will be a measure of his greatness as a human being and not merely as one who is a recipient of a doctorate if, at this time when Canadians are aware of the conflicts and divisions within their society, he will approach all these complaints fairly and perform his duties with an unremitting determination to face Canada's present and future difficulties and build the foundations of greater unity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
,[Translation]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-20, an Act respecting the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) for giving me the opportunity of introducing this bill in the House. I hope I shall be equal to the task.
It is a privilege and pleasure for me today to present Bill S-20, entitled an Act respecting the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles. Of the many problems consumers face in making an informed choice in the market place, none is more complex than the problem of selecting between textiles. Not only are consumers concerned with the fibres being used in textile articles, but they are also concerned with the care of such products, the availability of adequate sizing, and other important facts such as wearing qualities, including serviceability. A pre-requisite to judging these factors is to know the fibres from which the cloth and textile products are made.

March 2, 1970
Textile Labelling Act
However, the activities of the department have not been restricted to this one objective. As members know, a sizing program for children's clothing has been introduced, and it should revolutionize the sizing of children's garments. As a logical extension of that program, and one which consumers have requested, is the initiation of work to provide a size system for women's clothing.
In the matter of care labelling, I hope shortly to announce a system which will greatly assist consumers in the care of garments. However, as I have indicated, the complete success of such programs requires the creation of a viable system for the identification of fibres and this bill will provide the cornerstone.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In terms of these objectives, I am certain that passage of this bill will be welcomed by all consumers in Canada. It is particularly gratifying to be associated with legislative action designed to alleviate some of the problems and frustrations faced by everyone in today's market-place.
I believe we will all agree that the most deserving beneficiaries of this bill will be the women of this country who largely bear the responsibility for purchasing the family requirements in clothing and other household articles. While we may be reluctant to acknowledge the fact, I think that the majority of the male members of the House might privately confess that a great deal of reliance is placed upon the knowledge and instincts of their wives when it comes to the selection of quality in their clothing requirements.
I am delighted to recognize the initiative shown by the member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) in bringing forth a private member's bill relating to mandatory labelling of textiles. The text of his bill indicates a parallel concern regarding the plight of the purchaser of textile articles and I am certain that he will find that the provisions of the present bill are in accord with his own objective.
The Canadian textile industry generally supports a move to bring more order to the manner in which both imports and domestically produced articles are labelled. Deficiencies in labelling are prevelant in both categories, to the detriment of the more conscientious firms who endeavour to maintain a high level of informative labelling. Since the requirements for mandatory labelling called for in this Act apply equally to
[Mr. Lanelois.l
imports and domestic production, this inequity will be removed and all will compete on the same terms.
It is evident from the provisions of the bill that retailers will derive protection comparable to that supplied to the consumer by the requirement that the label be applied by the supplier of the finished article. Although the mandatory labelling is geared mainly to the consumer's needs, the implementation of the regulations under this Act will help the retailer and manufacturer to minimize complaints and returns.
Textile fibres, and the textiles and clothing made from them, rank as one of the three major essentials of man. We all are consumers of textiles and it is estimated that each of the memibers present in the House is wearing at the moment approximately 4 to 5 pounds of consumer textile products of the kind which will be subject to the proposed legislation. In 1969, Canadians used in excess of 700 million pounds or approximately 33.5 pounds per capita and it is estimated that the total value of products subject to the provisions of this Act is approximately $1.4 billion annually.
In recent years, the industrial progress and technical advancements which have been achieved in the chemical and textile fields have brought immeasurable benefits to consumers. In providing a much broader range on man-made and synthetic fibres, these advancements have improved our way of life through the introduction of many modern innovations from wash-and-wear clothing to indoor-outdoor carpeting.
However, these developments have been accompanied by a proliferation in textile terms and fibre trade names which has vastly complicated the task of the consumer in making intelligent selections of fabrics and proper assessments of fibre properties on today's market.
The consumer has always been familiar with the generic names of the natural fibres, e.g. wool, cotton, linen and silk, and has not had much difficulty in learning the inherent properties of those fibres which determine the performance and care of these products. I mentioned previously the remarkable technological developments in man-made fibres. Such evolution is the main reason why the share of the natural fibers on the market has dropped from 82 per cent in 1950 to 64 per cent in 1968; a substantial amount of these natural fibres was offered under the form of blends with artificial fibres. The evolution of
March 2. 1970



the textile industry in the direction of multifibre and multi-process sophistication has placed the average shopper in an awkward position.
The price of progress has been that the consumer is confronted and often confused in the maze of man-made fibres. As a matter of fact, they are offered for sale under a multitude of trade names-Arnel, Antron, Avisco, Avril, Nylex, Nypel, Nytelle, Fortrel, Verel and Qiana. This list can easily be expanded since there are over 2,000 trade names for man-made fibres known in the textile trade. The use of some trade names may be helpful since some are now household words, but many more are not.
The present regulations in this field prohibit mislabelling and protect the consumer from fraud to this extent, but there remains a major gap where no information is offered. The only legislation with respect to the labelling of fibre content is the Regulations respecting the Labelling of Textile Materials (P.C. 1955-1515) and Regulations respecting the Labelling of Hosiery (P.C.	1962-1239) as
amended by P.C. 1964-517, both passed pursuant to Section 5 of the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act.
Labelling of the products is not mandatory under the provisions of the existing regulations. They are based on the approach that a dealer does not have to label his product at all, but if he does, the labelling must be accurate in accordance with the regulations. Another inadequacy is that the use of the natural, chemical, technical or trade name whether such name is a registered trade name or not is permitted. While there are manufacturers who do label informatively, this generally happens only when there is a competitive advantage in doing so. In many cases those articles which are labelled do not bear the percentage for fibre blends and designations of man-made fibres are often by trade names.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As I have indicated, the proposed bill is a response to the requests and needs of not only the consumers, but also of the manufacturers and retailers of textile articles. By providing this legislation, the government is assuming a leading role in ensuring the right of the consumer to be informed of the material composition of textile products which he purchases. The buyer who has difficulty in identifying fibres by the feel of the fabric offered at the retail level, will be greatly assisted by this legislation. The Act will also guard the consumer against unfair and deceptive trade 21701-57
Textile Labelling Act
practices. The vendor or the dealer, as defined in the Act, will be required to provide the information which will help the buyer to make a knowledgeable purchasing decision. Mandatory labelling will increase the effectiveness of the consumer's choice by informing him more fully about quality, and consequently about performance and care. The provisions relate not only to wearing apparel, but also to yard goods, upholstery, wigs, carpets, floor covering, sleeping bags, draperies and other household textile items.
One of the main provisions of the new legislation is that fibre designation shall be by generic names. Possibly some of the more knowledgeable purchasers are aware that fibres sold under various trade names such as Dacron, Terylene, or Fortrel are actually of the same chemical composition and are generically named Polyester. But I wonder how many of them would recognize as the same generic Polyester fibre, those that are now sold on the Canadian market under such names as Avlin, Diolen, Encron, Forcel, Kodel, Nycron, Talan, Teijan, Tergal, Teritol, Terlenka, Tetoron and Trevira. The advantages and simplicity in the proposed use of the single generic name Polyester are obvious. The generic names for man-made fibres which will be defined in the regulations are acrylic, modacrylic, polyester, rayon, acetate, saran, azlon, nytril, nylon, rubber, spandex, vinal, olefin, vinyon, metallic, glass and anidex. The requirement for use of generic names will not prohibit the use of fibre trade names in which the owners have a large investment and a great deal of pride. The regulations will provide for the non-deceptive use of fibre trade names provided that they are accompanied by the generic name of the fibre.
While some of the proposed generic names may be unfamiliar to many consumers at this time, it will be much easier for the consumer to become familiar with the characteristics of 17 generic fibres than it has been to cope with hundreds of trade names in the past. It is recognized that there will have to be an intensive educational effort to familiarize the buying public with the significance of the generic names, and my department will meet its responsibilities in this respect.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should mention that the consumer textile market and the textile technology in Canada are very similar to those in the United States.
Because of the large volume of trade occurring between the two countries, it is desirable that the regulations adopted in Canada be

March 2, 1970
Textile Labelling Act
consistent with those of the United States. This will be largely achieved by adopting in Canada the same generic names for fibre classification. All man-made fibres marketed now under a multitude of trade names may be classified within one of 17 generic groups which will be defined in the regulations under this Act. Each group covers a class of fibres differing significantly from those in the other groups in chemical composition as well as in certain other characteristics such as washabil-ity, resistance to light and serviceability.
The provisions of the bill now before us will require mandatory labelling of prescribed consumer textile articles to disclose by generic names all fibres constituting five per cent or more of the total fibre content. In addition, the disclosure will be expressed in terms of percentage for each constituent fibre. Further provisions prohibit any false, misleading or deceptive representations being used in association with any textile fibre product by means of a label or advertisement.
Other basic provisions embodied in the bill relate to offences, penalties and disposition of article upon conviction; powers for enforcement by inspection, seizure and analytical evidence; and authority for Governor in Council to make regulations relating mainly to the technical and operative areas. This structure will provide the flexibility required to keep the regulations up-to-date with technological advancements and provide the consumer with meaningful information and protection.
I have no doubt that this Bill will considerably narrow the communication gap existing now between the consumer and the manufacturer of textile products, and that it will provide for a more orderly, informed and efficient marketplace. I trust that the objective of the government in this complex field and the bill which provides the means of achieving it will commend themselves to the House.
That this is perhaps not an idle hope is indicated by the private bill on this subject standing in the name of the member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and the general and particular interest indicated by members of all parties to see that the consumer maintains his rightful place in the market.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lan-glois) for the efficiency and competence with which he discharged his duties and gave us the information he had received. However, I

must also deplore the fact that the minister responsible for that measure is again absent from the House.
It would seem that the ministers are now delegating to subordinates the duties which fall to them. This is an undeniable proof of the ministers' contempt for the House since they give us the impression that they find it boring here. I think this is deplorable.
Mr. Speaker, during his remarks the Parliamentary Secretary said that the bill intended to control the labelling, sale and imports of products.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
About the first aim, he spoke at length. About the second one, that is to say sales, he spoke also but we would have liked very much to hear him talk about imports. Indeed, textile imports into Canada have increased and are still increasing, which has for consequence to deprive of their jobs Canadian workers who certainly deserve more attention from the government.
As I listened to the hon. member who spoke before me, I felt as it the textile industry had just been born. I had indeed the feeling that he was laying the foundations for a new industry in Canada. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the textile industry is one of the oldest in Canada. It is steadily losing ground nowadays because of the apathy, lack of interest and scorn of this government.
Mr. Speaker, you may feel that I am out of order, but when we are talking about imports, we cannot be limited to what is happening in Canada. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely necessary to ask where they come from and what are their evil effects. As a member representing a riding where the textile industry is of vital importance, I can only bitterly and severely criticise the Liberal members. They are responsible for the stagnation in which the textile industry finds itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he will agree that the bill under consideration deals only with the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles, in order to inform the public about the quality of the products he is buying, and does not deal with the textile trade, either domestic or foreign.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I will not have a polemic with you. However, I should be granted at least the same latitude as my hon. friend.
March 2, 1970



Since I must limit the scope of my remarks as much as possible, I would first tell the House and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, that this measure is a smoke screen. Actually, the government does not wish to make known openly its inertia, its lack of foresight and also its intention not to do anything to help the Canadian workers.
The textile industry is one of the oldest in Canada and deserves better attention and protection from the government. Labelling has fooled a great number of Canadians. Importers and some foreign manufacturers took advantage of it and managed to label their products so as to cheat the Canadian buyers.
Several times in the past I have drawn the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to anomalies in and violations of the law and it seems that this has been to no purpose. It was acknowledged that there was dumping, that Canadian workers were handicapped by it. It took too long to make the necessary inquiries. It only extended the time to the prejudice of the Canadian workers who lost their jobs because of too many imported goods.
I wish to point out that there are too many textile products entering the country. I could not repeat that often enough, because some of my former fellow workers have lost their job on that account, and this government has failed in its duty.
Here are a few remarks made by companies involved in the import market. They manufacture fibres and sweaters and they ask for more protection from the government.
I shall quote a few of them:
Fibre and sweater manufacturers gave the Tariff Board a very dismal picture of the situation and spoke as late as yesterday of sales lost to imports from countries where manufacturing costs are very low.
Further on it is said:
The Canadian Chemical Producers Association has stated that the steady increase in imports of knitted garments has had an unfortunate consequence on the Canadian synthetic fibre industry.
Another party concerned says, and I quote:
Dupont of Canada Ltd., which operates the only plant in Canada producing such fibres, stated before the inquiry commission that imports from Asian countries had caused the share of the Canadian market to drop to 19 per cent in 1969, as against 75 per cent in 1965.
What is the result of this? Those 2 million pounds, comprising sweaters, have become 10i million pounds, and most of the increase benefited foreign importers.
21701-57J
Textile Labelling Act
Mr. Speaker, this government should have taken the necessary measures long ago. On many occasions, I myself asked questions to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and he had promised to conduct an inquiry and table the relevant report in the House in December last. We are still waiting for the conclusions of the study and, in the meantime, many Canadian workers are losing their jobs.
The government cannot plead ignorance in this matter. We of the opposition parties have warned it on numerous occasions. Those involved in the textile industry have time and again informed the government that action in this field was mandatory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret, once more, to interrupt the hon. member, but he will certainly agree that his speech has no relation whatsoever to the bill now before us, which deals with labelling-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that because of inaccurate labelling-you were premature, whereas if you had waited a few moments more you would have known what I was going to say-people involved in the textile industry have informed the government that something should be done. The government has always postponed action from week to week, to the detriment of Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, although this legislative measure is far from perfect, although it is but a huge smoke-screen to make us forget the inertia of the government, we welcome it. We hope it will improve somewhat the lot of those who have been associated with the textile industry throughout their lives. I wish the parliamentary secretary all the success he hopes to achieve, for the government as well as the department certainly need it.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speeches of the two previous speakers.
I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Langlois) on his well written speech, on its delivery, and on his ability to cover the whole subject of textiles.
I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) for his efforts towards helping the textile workers.
I should very much like to continue my speech in French, but I cannot do so for two reasons: first of all, the English minority must

March 2, 1970
Textile Labelling Act
be heard in this debate; and also, I am unable to express myself as clearly and forcefully as I believe I can in English.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for regulations governing the sale, labelling, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles. Products that come under the bill will include such textile articles as clothing, fabrics sold in the piece, sheets and other household articles. The legislation would apply whether these items are made in Canada or imported from elsewhere.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, there are very many trade names for these manmade fibres and the labelling of textile articles is going to be a difficult and complicated matter. The bill will prohibit a dealer from selling, importing or advertising a prescribed consumer textile unless it is labelled according to its textile fibre content and in accordance with the regulations under the bill. Other provisions will prohibit misleading, deceptive and false statements being used in the sale, importation or advertising of textiles. There are penalties. A dealer violating the bill's requirements will be liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 and a person violating the provisions or regulations of the act will be liable to a maximum fine of $3,000, imprisonment for up to a year or both. What the bill does is provide that labels show on a prescribed article the generic name of each textile fibre comprising 5 per cent or more of the total fibre weight of the article.
The Parliamentary Secretary indicated when he spoke that this bill was also supported by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), who has a similar private bill on the Order Paper. As far as that hon. member's bill goes I know he is very definitely concerned about these consumer problems and the bill is to be commended, up to a point, as is this measure. However neither one of them in my opinion goes far enough. This is not merely my opinion, but is the opinion of the one Canada-wide consumer organization, the Consumers' Association of Canada.
Like the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), I am sorry that the minister did not show sufficient concern for the feelings of the consumers either to be here today or to explain why he could not. I think there must

be some very good reason why he is not here to listen to the discussion on this bill. I wish he had stated it before he left. I think it is important that he should be here. I also think it is a little unfortunate that he had to choose the beginning of consumer week, which today is, to introduce this bill, since it is very definitely accepted as only a half-way measure by the Consumers' Association of Canada.
Indeed, I want to give you some points expressed in a release issued on February 20 when the Consumers' Association of Canada was made aware of the contents of this bill. They expressed great dissatisfaction with the textile labelling bill which was given first reading in the House of Commons. This release states in part:
The bill is a "halfway measure" said Dr. H. Edward English, Acting CAC president. "While it seems to cover many problems encountered by consumers and will at least give basic fibre content information, consumers will not know how to clean textile articles they purchase," Dr. English continued.
That is the end of that quote, but not the end of the release which continues:
The nation-wide consumer organization originally asked textile manufacturers to state fibre content and care instructions on all textile items. When the industry took no action, CAC asked the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for legislation.
I am sorry to say that the CAC turned in vain to the government for the whole of what they wanted. They are getting labelling on fibre content but this bill does not require labelling instructions for the care and cleaning of textiles once they have been purchased.
Anyone who has looked after clothing or household articles knows it is of utmost importance, with all the variety of fibres in the articles of clothing and for the household that we are buying, to know the method of cleaning and caring for them that is required. Unfortunately, while the minister has included fibre content in this bill in respect of labelling, he has turned a deaf ear to the pleadings of the CAC that there should be labelling as to care and cleaning of the textile. So, it is not with any great degree of satisfaction that the CAC or the consumers across this country welcome this measure. We will, of course, support it and we will try to make it better when the bill is before the committee, but this is very definitely a half loaf; I am not sure that it is not the small half of the loaf at that. I know that this is an Irishism and that each half should be the same, but there is such a thing as a smaller half, and this may be the small half we are getting.
March 2. 1970

I have been led to believe that the Canadian government Care Specifications Board has already prepared specifications for the care and cleaning of textiles. These could have been included in this legislation, had the minister been prepared to do so. I should like to know why he did not. If these specifications for care are ready, why are they not included in this bill? If they are not ready, why could this measure not have been put aside for a little while until they were finally prepared and included?
I think these are very important questions and I am coming to a possible answer in a moment. This is what the consumers of Canada want in this legislation. They want legislation to provide labelling of the fibre content and also legislation to provide labelling for the care and cleaning of textiles. As I say, they are only getting a small half of their request.
According to the association, what the CAC would like is a series of simple symbols which would indicate at a glance how a material should be cared for as far as ironing, bleaching, hand washing or machine washing is concerned. Surely, that is not too much to ask. They want to know what they should do in order to look after and have looking well what they have bought. They want to know how material should be cared for as far as ironing, bleaching, hand washing and machine washing is concerned.
Let me ask again why the government is demurring? Why is it not doing this since we-I say we because I am a member of the Consumers' Association of Canada-have requested this? I have already suggested one possible reason. The one reason I have suggested is that perhaps these specifications for care and cleaning are not yet ready. That is not a valid reason because this bill could have been delayed for a little while.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest there is another reason. When you go over this bill, you are rather inclined to believe that in drafting it the minister was far too concerned with the opinion of the textile manufacturers rather than with that of the consumers of this country. I think that this realization recalls the warning which I gave in this House over and over again when this department was being set up, that if you put consumer and corporate affairs within the same department you would have a built-in conflict of interest and the consumer would get the short end of the stick. I believe that
Textile Labelling Act
this bill is showing up such a conflict of interest; it is considering the convenience of the manufacturers rather than that of the customers and housewives, who are the consumers all across this country.
The proof of this I believe is that the minister has made it abundantly clear that he is not in favour of making compulsory regulations to be observed by the manufacturers. He wants to do as he does with his Prices and Incomes Commission, bank heavily on moral suasion. I do not believe that in this day and age of complication, moral suasion will suffice. I am afraid that if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) were to have his way, he would go down to the corner of Wellington and O'Connor, rip out the traffic lights, and say,, "Let us have moral suasion to direct the traffic across the street. Everybody should restrain themselves, and moral suasion will direct pedestrians and cars alike". Perhaps the pedestrian might have the theoretical right of way, but the other fellow would have the truck, and it would not do much good to be right if you were dead.
In the matter of the labelling of textiles and other consumer problems, we have come to the stage where not the textile manufacturers, who are only a relatively small section of the community, but the consumers, that is all of us, should be given the right of way- although not all the right of way either. That is where the stop lights come in. If you instal traffic lights, then both the consumers and the manufacturers will have rights which will be regulated. I am all for the consumers; other people are all for the textile manufacturers. If we had compulsory regulations and compulsory labelling throughout, not only for fibre content but also for care of the product, we would know in what respects the consumer had rights and to what extent we had to respect the rights of the manufacturers. If this labelling is left to the voluntary co-operation of the manufacturers, they will either not do it or they will do it so halfheartedly that the consumer will not have the protection of proper labelling.
What I am suggesting is a system of traffic lights-a green light, a red light and an amber light in between to prevent collisions. This is what we need, and this is why I want to see proper regulations under this legislation. We should not leave labelling up to the manufacturer, as the minister wants to do.
I do not want to make a great production of this. I want to say that the Consumers' Association of Canada has been urging this type of

March 2, 1970
Textile Labelling Act
protection for many years. I should like to read their resolution on this subject which emanated from their latest convention which was held not long ago. The following resolution came to them from the Ontario Branch of the CAC and the Prince Edward Island Women's Institute. It was passed by the CAC. It reads as follows:
Whereas the multiplicity of textile fibres and trade names and methods of fabric construction and finish makes intelligent purchase of textile products almost impossible, and Whereas the above factors make care, laundering and dry cleaning of textile products increasingly difficult for both the consumer and the dry cleaner and,
Whereas sound information is seldom available at the time of purchase, therefore Be it resolved that CAC request the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to establish regulations-
That is not moral suasion.
-requiring that textile products be labelled with the generic name of the fibre or fibres, trade name and basic care information and that the label be permanently affixed, in a readily accessible place, to the product or its container.
That was passed by the CAC, which is the only Canada-wide consumer organization. Unfortunately, it does not have the membership it should have, and I for one would like to see it many times its present strength. Just this morning, in a television program here in Ottawa, I heard the minister say that he would like to have many Ralph Naders in Canada to protect the interests of the consumer and to bring pressure on his department to do things that needed doing. I suggest to him that he begin at home with the Consumers' Association of Canada. When they make a reasonable request he should consider it and turn a deaf ear to the textile manufacturers, realizing that this matter affects many more people than they and that he is legislating for the majority of the Canadian people Who are the consumers of this country. I urge that he either withdraw this bill or amend it in committee to add to it the labelling, care and cleaning of textiles. I will serve notice right now that if he does not bring in such amendments in the committee, then I will.
We do not have any Ralph Naders in Canada unfortunately, but in the meantime I will settle for a good CAC that will put pressure on the minister for something that we need and that is worthwhile. So we shall support this bill up to the point where we can come up with something to improve it. I guess we will have to pass it anyway, but like the CAC we will not be happy with it unless the
IMrs. Maclnnis.]
changes that are required, and that have been requested for so many years, are made.
, [Translation]


Romuald Rodrigue: Mr. Speaker, while the bill we are now considering does not suggest any answer likely to settle the conflict now prevailing in the textile industry, it still has some good points. I regret, however, it was not brought before the House a few years earlier.
When we consider, for instance, imports into Canada from 1964 to 1967, we realize that we have lost a significant part of the textile market.
Our industries have lost a rather substantial percentage of the market. The bill now before us will somehow help us to make up for the errors of the past and to compensate for the losses incurred in favour of countries that take advantage of circumstances to export to Canada without any valid reason.
Obviously, it is rather important to control the labelling, sale and advertising of consumer textile products. I am not a textile expert. When I happen to visit a store where such products are displayed, many times I simply try to find out from where the materials come without knowing exactly what they are made of.
The bill now under consideration, if the government does everything in its power to enforce compliance with its provisions, will be to the advantage not only of the consumers but also of the Canadian workers who rely upon the textile industry for their living.
No doubt the time had come for the introduction of a similar bill simply because every day and every week changes occur in the manufacturing methods of the textile industry.
This industry perhaps develops faster than many others in the world. Changes occur very rapidly. Therefore, it has become very difficult for the consumer to be in a position to know the exact quality of the product offered to him.
Often, consumers are offered low-quality products at the price of first-quality products. Our own textile industry is somewhat affected by competing countries where salaries are much lower than in ours.
I hope that the inspectors appointed by the government to enforce compliance with this legislation will make rather frequent checks so that the law is enforced and all producers, mainly those in the Canadian textile industry, are protected as they should be.
March 2, 1970

As regards volunteers, I believe the government has resorted tor too long to its policy of non interference, especially as far as the textile industry is concerned. Today we have to cope with rather acute problems. It is about time for the government to take rigid measures so as to ensure the respect of our own laws on the part of the countries who are exporting their products to this country.
We must realize the importance of the part played by foreign countries on the Canadian market. Allow me to quote a few statistics for 1966. During that year, we received from foreign countries for $19.32 per head of textile products, as against $10.89 in the United Kingdom, $6.07 in the United States and $4.95 in the Common Market countries.
That means that we always resorted in the past to a volunteer policy with regard to the importation of textile products. As for the foreigners who came to Canada to sell their own products, we also let them free to advertise as they pleased. It was about time we had a law like this one with regulations concerning advertising, labelling, analysis and anything that concerns the sale of textile products.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Even if this legislation does not settle the problems now facing the textile industry, I think that in the long run, it will actually bring a valid, though incomplete, solution, and I hope that before long the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will announce, as he said, a new bill to establish a comprehensive policy regarding the Canadian textile industry, particularly that of Quebec, because over 85,000 workers are drawing their main income from this industry, not to mention some 100,000 workers in the ready-to-wear industry.
I think it is most important to introduce such bills in the House in order to protect our textile industry which is, I think, the third largest in Canada.
Therefore, I hope that before long measures such as this one will be adopted so that our textile industry can hold the rank to which it is entitled in Canada.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has introduced this particular bill. Some time ago, back in October, 1968, I myself presented a private member's
Textile Labelling Act
bill which attempted to do in five lines what the minister is attempting to do in 12 pages. But I think that essentially the purposes of the two are the same, and that we will get from this bill correct labelling of fibre content.
Correct labelling is very important, Mr. Speaker, but the trouble is that even correct fibre labelling will not necessarily solve one problem, which happens to be the education of consumers with respect to the properties of all the weird and wonderful names of fibres. So, while this is a step in the right direction, with this particular legislation we are far from being out of the woods.
Like other hon. members who have spoken, it is my hope that this legislation will be followed, either by amendments in committee or perhaps by further legislation, if that is the better way of doing it, which would expand the area of consumer protection. I do not wish to bore the House with long lists of names of fabrics which happen to be quite unintelligible to me, and I am sure as well to other hon. members, and knowing whether or not these fibres are in garments is of no value to the consumer. But this information is of value to the dry cleaners and other persons handling garments in a professional way, because they have the expertise to understand the purposes of this labelling.
But I would mention a couple of areas where we must deal with some problems when this bill is in committee, or else by the introduction of subsequent legislation. The first has already been referred to in this House. It is the question of handling instructions. For example, if you know that a particular garment is half nylon and half wool you might not know how it should be treated when you are washing or dry-cleaning it. The purpose of a further system of labelling would be to indicate the ironing temperature that the housewife should use when ironing the garment. It would indicate the water temperature for both machine washing and hand washing.
I have in mind the system used in Europe and in England whereby through symbols the housewife, and even someone completely uneducated in these matters, such as a bachelor like myself, will know how garments should be treated. I have a Swedish label here which I wish I could table as an example. It gives the wool and artificial fibre content, and the temperature at which the garment should be ironed. It tells you that it should be steam ironed, and it tells you it should be dry

March 2. 1970
Textile Labelling Act
cleaned. It has a little X on it which indicates that it should not be washed.
The shirt I have on, which is an English shirt, has a label on the tail which says, "machine washing-warm-minimum 40 degrees Centigrade; hand washing-warm-40 degrees Centigrade-do not rub-spin-do not hand wring." It also gives the bleaching instructions and the ironing instructions. That is the label on the tail of my shirt, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that it is not a Stanfield product.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It is the wrong colour.


David Anderson: Perhaps we could adopt a similar system in Canada, so that when you buy longjohns from the family concern of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), or otherwise, you will know exactly how to treat them to avoid the embarrassing situation of having your longjohns shrink on you. This is something which must be included in future legislation or, as I have suggested, in amendments proposed to this bill in committee. Indeed, it was the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who suggested that this would be the way of dealing with it. Perhaps the minister, when he comes before the committee, willl be able to explain why he has not done so at this time, and I hope he will be able to satisfy the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Now, I wish to refer to one other point which is not mentioned in the bill, but which is a critical matter. It has to do with the flammability of fabrics. Last year in the United States there were approximately 1,500 to 3,000 deaths caused by garments catching fire. We can assume that in Canada the number of deaths per 10,000 population would be higher because of our different climatic conditions. It is extremely important that children's clothing in particular be treated so that they are less flammable than normally. Perhaps this is not so important for natural wool, which has a good resistance to fire, but most of the new fabrics coming out are based on petroleum products or wood products and are highly inflammable. It is important that some system of testing be established so that garments can be tested for flammability and this could be marked on the garment itself.
I do not want to belabour the point but in the Vancouver Sun of November 6, there is

an item headed, "Fire Kills Resident in Sr. Citizens' Home in Nanaimo," and I quote:
A fire department spokesman said the preliminary investigation indicated that the woman's clothing caught fire when she came in contact with a hotplate.
The day following, in the Victoria newspaper under the headline, "Hands, Tummy Scorched Blouse Smoking Mess" there was a description of an accident which took place in a high school in my riding. A girl suffered bums as a result of her blouse catching fire in the cooking class at school when her garment happened to be near a hotplate. This is the sort of thing, especially where children are concerned, that we should be able to do something about with a system of labelling. Perhaps some fabrics should be banned outright if they do not meet certain criteria, particularly artificial fabrics. On some ships such as the Queen Elizabeth II, almost all the furnishings are of wool because of this problem of the flammability of artificial fabrics. Perhaps this problem is not too well publicized in Canada, but perhaps the minister, by legislation or by advertising campaigns, could make people aware of it. In my opinion, this bill should be amended or the minister should bring in another bill similar to the United States act which is 15 USC 1191, 67 Stat. 111. This is the American Flammable Fabrics Act which has the same purpose, that of attempting to reduce danger to the consumer who might innocently buy a garment or fabric with a high flammability level.
Only if we can get a decent system of labelling in this country, with the flammability of materials marked on the garment, will the consumer be able to determine which fabrics are most desirable. This is particularly important in respect of children's garments where the buyer of the garment may not be as concerned about the problem as an adult would be.
With these provisions and reservations, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the bill which the minister's Parliamentary Secretary so ably brought in and presented to us. I hope that in committee some of these other factors will be looked into and that amendments to this particular legislation or future legislation will deal with the points I have raised this afternoon.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few brief words on this bill concerning the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of textiles. First of all, however, I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the
March 2, 1970

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the able way in which he introduced this legislation. This may be the first time he has introduced legislation and I think it is rather unfortunate that he did not have a better bill to introduce.
My remarks are going to be along the line of asking, why take the time of this House and time of the committee to introduce a 'half way measure bill', an ad hoc piece of legislation which does not give consumers what they want, nor does those things which the textile industry wants? For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government brought in this half way measure. Indeed, I feel like asking the government to withdraw this bill and bring in another that would give the consumer what he wants, namely, labelling to indicate the way in which the material should be cleaned; its safety features; how it should be pressed or ironed, etc. I cannot do better than refer to what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) said when he gave all the reasons why this bill Was ineffective and why it was a half-way measure. I cannot understand why the government did not complete the bill. There are some useful things in the bill, but before I describe those let us take a look at the practical application of it.
Here is a bill asking the industry to make, print or produce labels that will be attached or fastened to the various pieces of fabric. The industry, therefore, as soon as this bill is passed and implemented, has to have labels manufactured or printed. Now, the industry may order a year's supply of labels on which would be printed the percentages of the various fibres, etc. Then, the government may introduce another bill dealing with the aspects of cleaning, safety features and all the other symbols that the consumer wants. This would mean that the industry would have to scrap the original labels and buy new ones. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we could get together on this thing and save the manufacturer some money in the cost and preparation of labels.
These are the practical aspects about which we should be thinking, Mr. Speaker. Let us not deal only with theory. I hope this bill will be studied in detail in committee, and I should like to ask a few questions that may be answered there. The trade finds it difficult to understand this piece of legislation as it nows exists. For instance, the percentage of textile fibre; is it the percentage of textile fibre or is it the percentage of the total weight of the product? And who is going to 21701-58
Textile Labelling Act
pay the fine if a garment is not labelled according to the terms of the legislation? Is it the manufacturer or the person selling it? And if it happens to be an imported article, will the importer have to pay the fine?
I could not help but note that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) was called to order when talking about importation. If we allow the importation of textiles to continue we may not need to worry about a bill to cover labelling; they will all be labelled in the United States or some other part of the world. Then, does the label have to be sewn on the garment or could the manufacturer put the textile product in a polythene bag and put the printing on the bag? Will that suffice? The bill does not spell this out too clearly. If the bill becomes law, I hope manufacturers will be given an opportunity to use up their old labels, before having to purchase new ones.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Of course, the matter of inspection will create tremendous problems and many inspectors will be required. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke about symbols, about the cleaning and washing of fabric, and certainly illustrated his point that great confusion may result in the industry, and among consumers, particularly when generic names are introduced on labels. I submit that the confusion then will be greater even than now. This matter ought to be considered when the bill goes to committee. I realize that the 2,000 odd brand names of manmade fibres created in this great technological age have brought problems to the consumer, who finds it much more difficult to choose now than he did when he had only wool, cotton, linen and silk from which to choose.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I fault this bill for being a half way, ad hoc, incomplete kind of measure which is a waste of the time of the House and of the committee. I am in favour of sending the bill back to the department with the request that they bring in a complete, up to date bill which will give the Consumers' Association what it has asked for and the general public the protection and information they requested.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief.
I simply have a few questions to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Langlois).

March 2. 1970
Textile Labelling Act
I would like to know who actually made this proposal and who will be mostly affected by the bill? I am asking this simply because, as other members, in particular the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), I am interested in knowing what effect the bill will have on the textile industry which is facing numerous problems.
It has even been mentioned that an industry in my riding which has 700 or 800 employees might be closed.
I am surely not against the protection of consumers. I think that most consumers have a right to be protected and to know what they are buying and wearing. They are nevertheless interested in those problems, since they are the ones who spend money to buy textile products.
The industry has a great number of employees and this is why I would like to know who is the sponsor of this bill and what will be its effect on the textile industry. The committee will perhaps provide an answer if the parliamentary secretary is unable to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I must advise the hon. members that if the parliamentary secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to thank heartily the hon. members who participated in the debate in order to enlighten us on this bill, in particular the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), as well as some others who had such pleasant things to say about me. Indeed, the hon. members no doubt realized that I was making my debut in the house. So they were kind enough to allow the government to have the motion for second reading of bill S-20 passed this afternoon.
Already I dread any possible further attempt on my part, when the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) will be in the house, ready to take me on.


Mr. Alexander:: Wait until next time.


Paul Langlois: I would like to make some comments further to the remarks I just heard.
First of all, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) complained about the absence of the minister who, in his opinion,
[Mr. Comeau.l
should have been here to pilot the bilL I understand quite well the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who realizes perhaps much better than I do that the minister could have given a far better performance. However, the minister had asked me to pilot this bill in the House, and I think that in our parliamentary system, it is desirable, if not necessary, that at times some duties be entrusted to parliamentary secretaries.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe dwelled at length on the fact that Bill S-20 does not provide any regulations with regard to textile imports. That is not surprising since it was not submitted to the House for the purpose of regulating imports but rather for that of regulating the labelling of textile products.
His comments should, I believe, be addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is well aware of the problems of the textile industry. However, the latter will be informed of the representations of the hon. member.
I would like to point out, however, that, indirectly, Bill S-20 can surely help the textile industry of Canada, since the textile content of imports will be controlled. So, Canadian producers and dealers in textile products, whether such products are made in Canada or imported, will at least be speaking the same language with regard to quality, or to quantity as far as the textile components of the products they are selling are concerned.
c (4:50 p.m.)
After hearing the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, I had the pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I congratulate her. I commend her especially because she is keenly interested in the cause of Canadian consumers. When she says that there is no Ralph Nader in Canada, I say to her that at least the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is doing the job most satisfactorily, I think.
She said at a certain moment that she would pass from the language of Moliere to that of Shakespeare because according to her it is in the latter that she can best express herself. I think that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is too modest. She could very well have made all her speech, without any text, in the language of Moliere. I congratulate her and I thank her for the courtesy she showed by talking quite a while in French.
March 2, 1970

As to her main concern about the bill-and I allude to the comments from the Canadian Consumers' Association-I shall point out to the hon. member that even though Bill S-20 does not deal with a maintenance programme for textile products, as the minister will certainly be happy to state in the Standing Committee of the House, it contains provisions about a Care Program which will not be part of the legislation. It is a program which will be based on voluntary work. We hope that the Canadian textile industry will take part in this program which will certainly be profitable to all and in particular to consumers.
About the Canadian Consumers' Association, we have been pretty much surprised by the press release, published on February 20, about Bill S-20. We had had very full discussions with the members of this Association who had been commissioned for this purpose. As a matter of fact, Mrs. C. Woodside and Mrs. J. Tessier have had discussions with the officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They seemed very satisfied with what Bill S-20 would contain. In this connection, they wrote to us that we could rely on their sincere support.
One of them, Mrs. Woodside, discussed with the official of the department the issue of Care Labelling. She is even a member of this committee on Care Labelling. She is very much aware of the situation and we know her views on the matter. If, at present, the bill does not deal with Care Labelling, it is on account of technical difficulties that the minister will be pleased to set forth during meetings of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, which, I suppose, will consider this bill clause by clause.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that before a care program was established, it was primordial to introduce a bill that would make it compulsory for manufacturers to reveal the textile fibre content of the article, because it is impossible to have one without the other and it was of great importance to begin with Bill S-20 and then set up, as we propose to do, a Care labelling program.
According to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), that bill should have been introduced several years ago. I do not object to the hon. member for Beauce saying so. This may be true. There are many things that perhaps should have been done several years ago. However, I should like to point out to him that it is never too late to mend. It would 21701-58*
Wheat Acreage Reduction be better to pass Bill S-20 now than in five years' time.
As far as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) is concerned, I am sure he will attend the hearings of the committee responsible for that bill. In addition, the minister will be in a position to answer the questions he so rightly asked.
As regards the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), who simply suggests that we shelve this bill and come up with a more complete one, I think that my earlier remarks on the subject, in connection with his specific questions as to what would happen to a manufacturer who would have a year's supply of labels are also applicable. The last clause of the bill reads as follows:
This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
The minister and the officials of the department know that some adjustments will have to be made in this industry, and this only after a certain amount of consultation. The department will have to elaborate regulations with the agreement of representatives of the textile industry which on the whole is favorable to Bill-S-20.
It is nearly time for private members' business. So I would like to conclude with a word to the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) who has asked who initiated this bill.
It seems to me that the initiative came from the consumer associations which have been calling for a bill such as Bill S-20 for several years.
I thank the hon. members for their co-operation on the occasion of the motion for second reading of Bill S-20.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the calling of private members' business, I wish to refer to the motion proposed by the hon.
March 2, 1970

Conference on Education Uniformity member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) earlier today under the provisions of Standing Order 26. I begged the indulgence of hon. members to give the Chair a further opportunity to look into the matter and to reach a decision.
I have given the motion and the subject matter of the proposed motion much consideration since then. The doubts which I had at the time are still very much in my mind. These doubts referred particularly to the requirement of Standing Order 26, that the motion should not be granted if there is a probable opportunity for the consideration of the subject matter of the motion by the House. At the same time, I had to take into account the very serious nature of the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and the obvious interest of all members of the House. I felt if I had a reasonable doubt, that should be resolved in favour of the private member proposing the motion.
Although I still have some doubts, and although I believe there may be opportunities within a reasonable time for consideration of the subject matter, namely supply motions and, more particularly, the budget debate, in view of my doubt I resolve-this in favour of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and suggest there should be a debate on this matter when the House resumes its work at eight o'clock this evening. Has the hon. member leave to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Louis-Roland Comeau: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Canada should consider the advisability of taking the initiative in securing the collaboration of the provinces in the convening of a national conference on uniform standards in primary and secondary education.

He said: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me make this clear: I do realize that education is a provincial responsibility under our present constitution and I do not believe the federal government should become involved in education to a greater extent than at present. Section 93 of the British North America Act clearly defines the rights of the provinces in the field of education. This situation has resulted, however, in the development of ten educational systems, each claiming to be of superior quality. I believe we have good provincial educational systems, but what concerns me most is that each province in Canada has	determined its	standardindependently	and evaluated	its own
processes.

That is why I introduced the motion we are debating today. The problem of education is important enough indeed to be discussed in the House, especially if we intend to coordinate the ideas and the education programs of the various provinces.
The motion advocates the organization of a national conference to establish uniform standards in all provinces concerning the education of our children.
This means that a student will not be handicapped when, for instance, his parents are forced to move to another province. As stated in the Winter 1968 issue of The Canadian Public Administration, interprovincial cooperation in the field of education has improved over the years.
Officials of various departments have met from time to time, but this co-operation is not quite enough to solve the problems of education on a national scale.
I am interested in this subject because many Canadians move from one province to another in the course of a year.

According to the annual statistical report published by the departmental services offices of the Department of National Health and Welfare covering 1968-69, 53,503 families moved within Canada in that year. On an average there are two children to a family, so more than 100,000 boys and girls moved from one province to another during the past year. I submit that this is a substantial figure and if I were permitted to hazard a guess I would estimate that at least half these students encountered a loss of credits in some way or another as a result of travelling from one province to the next. It is obvious that
March 2, 1970

this would have occurred. I encountered this difficulty myself as a young student attending three universities; each time one goes to a new university one encounters a new system of credits, and some credits are lost because each province looks upon its own system as being the best. Each province is proud of its system of education, and rightly so. As I suggested earlier, the provinces are doing a fairly good job in educating our children, at least in my opinion. We have a good educational system. My concern is that there is insufficient co-ordination or co-operation between the provinces in this field.
Some hon. members might object to the government of Canada taking the initiative in the calling of a national conference on education, which is what this resolution asks. However, no province has seen fit to take the initiative in the past. We know that the premiers meet in Ottawa every now and then, that the ministers of finance are called to Ottawa every so often and that various provincial ministers of other departments come to Ottawa from time to time to discuss matters with their counterparts. So the way is already prepared, as it were, for a national conference on education. There have been some meetings between education ministers in the past, but I do not feel they discussed this particular subject sufficiently or, at least, to my satisfaction. This could certainly be a topic of discussion for once, particularly since we are in the process of drawing up a new constitution, and education is involved in these considerations. Again, I am not suggesting that the source of authority be changed from provincial to federal. Rather, I have in mind that we should co-operate in order to avoid the time of our students being wasted through no fault of their own.
It has been said that home ownership in Ottawa lasts on an average for seven years. This figure may be wrong, but it gives us an idea of the mobility of Canadians. From the fact that 56,000 families moved from one province to another in a single year, it can readily be seen that Canadians are quite mobile. Mobility is the trend today, particularly among young families. They move. They visit other parts of the country. For my part,
I find it shameful that some provinces should not recognize the educational standards of others. I might add that even within a province standards sometimes vary.
I do not wish to speak at length on this motion. I recognize that others wish to say a few words. I know that other hon. members
Conference on Education Uniformity have written theses or papers on this subject; they have told me of their desire to speak on the motion.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the contents of the courses offered by the provinces. I think that the variety of courses is all the better for Canada. I do not think that the same textbooks should be used throughout Canada or that the same courses in geography or mathematics should be given everywhere. But while taking variety into account, the educational level should be similar and this is what is most important. It is not necessary that in all the provinces, the textbooks and the courses in physics and chemistry or in any other branch be similar, but it is essential that the level be the same, because the particular Characteristics of each province's programs are surely valuable. I know that in certain areas in Canada, there are some courses available which do not interest other provinces, but I think that courses of equal level should be recognized as such throughout Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

The level of education could be set by conducting standardization tests. Various tests are given students today. For example, most of the students entering universities in Canada and the United States are subjected to uniform testing to establish their level of education. I suggest this could also be done not only at the secondary level of education but also at the elementary level, perhaps after grade six, at junior high and, of course, at senior high. This testing could be administered by the school system, and efforts could be co-ordinated with the various provinces. If a standardization test were applied after the primary or elementary level of education all across Canada, it could serve as a guide when families moved from one province to another.
I am not saying that all the various provinces should use the same manual or textbooks, but rather that the students who have taken various courses should be given full credit for them. Most of the time what happens is that the students take what is really a backward step in their education when moving to another province. This is because each province feels, and rightly so, that its education system is better than its neighbours.
4244	COMMONS
Conference on Education Uniformity
I realize that education is a provincial matter. All I am asking for in this motion is for a conference on education to be called by the federal government, particularly at a time when we are debating our constitution, in order to standardize education across Canada in a better fashion than has been the case in the past.
It might be argued that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the matter of education. However, in light of the money that is disbursed by the federal government for educational purposes, one soon realizes that the federal government must concern itself with education, and I think is so concerned. The federal government should work toward establishing standards for school children, which would be of great assistance to those who travel.
As I say, Canada is a young country. Many members of the armed forces are called upon to travel from province to province within the school year. All kinds of people have to travel, young and old. This is why I feel that the matter should be debated, and why I bring it to the floor of the House of Commons. I advocate the holding of a national conference to determine ways and means of providing standards of education for Canadian school children.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the persistent complaints about Canadian education is the lack of uniformity among the ten provincial school systems. This dissatisfaction is mentioned most often by those who speak on behalf of pupils involved in interprovincial transfer. Educational systems and standards do vary from province to province, and students who transfer are likely to find such differences as grade organization, program offerings, course content, matriculation requirements and the opportunity for second language study.
Having said that, like the hon. member opposite I, too, should like to draw attention to the fact that we are on very delicate ground here from the constitutional point of (view. As we are all aware, this is an area highly cherished by the provinces, and which unquestionably under section 93 of the Act does fall within their sphere of responsibility.
The hon. member commented on the holding of a national conference to deal with this matter. I believe that early in his remarks he indicated that the provincial ministers are very well aware of the problems raised in his motion, that they have taken steps over the
IMr. Comeau.]
DEBATES	March 2, 1970
past four years to grapple with these problems.
In 1967 there was established a standing council of provincial ministers of education with a permanent secretariat. Under their aegis various meetings have been convened, bringing together representatives of the various provincial departments to consider mutual problems and to try and resolve them.
What is meant by uniform standards? I assume that the hon. member is asking for uniform standards in curriculum at grade level. If he is, then I suggest his thoughts are running contrary to present thoughts on education. The whole question of uniformity and standardization in education is a particularly current topic in view of the increasing emphasis being given by reformers in the educational system on the needs of the individual student.
The Hall-Denis report "Living and Learning", recently published in Ontario, is symptomatic of this trend. If I may quote from the report:
The curriculum must provide a greater array of! learning experiences than heretofore. Classes must be more mobile, within and beyond the local environment, and the rigid position of education must yield to a flexibility capable of meeting new needs.
And again:
Our schools often expect the child ... to be stuffed or programmed like a computer ... Recently, however, there has been in many schools a transition from this outdated approach toward a child-centred program in which every effort is made to fit the learning opportunity to the potential, tempo, and level of understanding of the individual child.
.. .the ultimate responsibility for making decisions concerning pupils belongs to the teacher, who must have the competence and authority to do so. Principals and their staffs need relative autonomy in matters of curriculum planning.
These are but a few of the progressive, liberal concepts of education presently being advocated. It is clear that the very notions of uniformity and standardization represent an anathema to the reform-minded educator. Basically the system is trying to promote innovation, flexibility, greater teacher freedom in the curriculum, and more local responsibility. I think that all who are involved in education view this as a trend that they consider desirable and which they are most anxious to encourage.
In past years, ministers of education of the four western provinces had close co-operation on these matters, and it was relatively easy for them to establish some inter-provincial guidelines when schools were functioning by
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
grade promotion and relatively rigidly structured programs. However, over the last two or three years, with the new trends in education based on the thoughts to which I have referred, they have found it much more difficult to make arrangements to cope with today's demands.
This is not to suggest that children of families that move from province to province do not face educational problems. However, I should like to say that I do not think that those problems are as great or grave, from the numerical point of view, as the hon. member has indicated. Unfortunately my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), had to be in his riding today. He was most disappointed since this was an area, and I think this is what the hon. member for Southwestern Nova (Mr. Comeau) made reference to, in which he prepared a paper for one of his courses at university. He did quite a considerable amount of research which would indicate that the figures from the Department of National Health and Welfare, which were based upon family allowance transfers, did quite greatly exaggerate the number of transfers which would affect students in school. As he pointed out, a great many of these transfers are made during the summer months when disruption was much less than it would be during the school year.
e (5:20 p.m.)
As I remarked earlier, the provinces are aware of this problem and are struggling with it. The most feasible and desirable solution it would seem can be found at the local level by providing counselling services for these transfer students and by arranging programs for them that fit their background and educational experience. This solution was not possible before because each province tended, as I have indicated, to have these rigidly standardized programs, differing from province to province. The flexibility of the provincial curriculum and the removal of uniform standards in the provinces will allow schools to respond to individual student needs. Thus, the ironic solution to the problem might well be less uniformity rather than more uniformity.
Furthermore, one might argue for uniform standards with good intentions, but the end result might be less than satisfactory and lead to rigidity and stultification of our educational system. Any attempt to direct national curriculum and administrative procedures would have a detrimental effect on the incentive and initiative at the local level. A fellow maritim-er of the hon. member who made this motion,
DEBATES	4245
Conference on Education Uniformity Dr. Frank MacKinnon, the principal of the Prince of Wales College in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island-


Mr. Stanfield:: He used to be.


J. Judd Buchanan: He used to be. In dealing with this subject in his book which has received a great deal of publicity, he suggested that then experimentation, competition, criticism and inventiveness would decline and the educational systems would lose the spirit and flexibility which are so vital to education. R. A. Butler, former Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, in dealing with this area suggested:
The influence of the state in our daily lives has grown greatly in the past century. Not all of these accessions of power are to be deplored. On the contrary most are to be welcomed.
But there is a danger against which we have to guard. The danger is that the state should become all powerful and the people merely unidentifiable units. We must not allow our children to become like peas in a pod or units In vast educational factories where their individuality would be lost.
He goes on to state:
In the name of sanity and all educational experience do not let us make the mistake of backing uniformity before everything else.
In conclusion I should like to suggest that this motion has the effect of making more rigid and stratifying our structure, when really the solution and outcome should be more freedom at the individual and municipal level, giving the teacher more power to develop and design programs which fit in with these students who move from province to province.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have the rare experience in this House of having to follow a Liberal speaker and being almost 100 per cent in agreement with him. 1 too, in one sense, am filling in for a member of the NDP, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who has prepared a fair amount of material on this subject which is and has been of interest to him for some time. Since he is busy working in his constituency today, I am going to offer a few words and thoughts on this important resolution before us. Incidentally, I have no way of knowing how much of what I am going to say would correspond to the kind of argument that might have been presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I shall no doubt hear when he gets back.
It seems to me the central question is not a constitutional one. I think it is quite proper,
4246	COMMONS
Conference on Education Uniformity as the resolution is worded, for the federal government within the general peace, order and good government clause of the constitution to initiate conferences with the provinces on this subject and to propose that the question of uniform standards be addressed and considered. I do not think there is a serious constitutional argument against that.
The real question seems to me to involve the desire to have uniform standards of education. It was not long ago that I think most enlightened opinion in Canada, indeed in the western industrialized world, was to the effect that it was desirable in a state to have common standards throughout so the people could progress according to their age through the educational system, no matter where they happened to live in the country under consideration.
It has been recognized for a number of years by individuals, and more recently by some of the provincial governments within Canada, that uniformity is not a very desirable thing to stress in education. Indeed, it is a very bad thing to stress when we are seriously concerned with the development of creative and responsible human beings. Human beings are not identical in ability, talent or interests. So that the kind of educational system we should have in Canada, or anywhere else as far as that is concerned, is one which would maximize the state's efforts to bring out what is unique in every individual and maximize the efforts of our teaching institutions to be flexible in their approach to children rather than to impose a rigid structure on whole groups simply because they are at the same chronological age level.
Therefore, the argument that was offered by the member for Southwestern Nova (Mr. Comeau) for uniformity as a desirable objective, is not a good one in principle, and seems therefore, to be unacceptable. Let me go back a bit. One of the points he stressed was that something like 100,000 children could be affected by being set back a year or ahead a year as a result of moving from one province to another. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he really thinks that is such a serious question now. Since in terms of past experience-not too distant in the past-this could well constitute one tenth or one eighth of a youngster's total education time, at one time it was an issue. At the present time, it is quite clear that younger people are spending a much greater proportion of their lives in our educational system. So in quantitative

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
terms, they are not going to be affected proportionately that much.


An hon. Member:: Try to tell them that.


John Edward Broadbent: My colleague says I should try to tell the children that. It seems to me that strictly speaking this is his job or the job of anyone else who has children. What should be impressed seriously upon children is the fact that what is important in education is providing conditions for children to develop into creative, responsible and contented human beings. We should get away from this whole damn quantitative aspect of seeing education as limited to 12 years, 18 years or 20 years, rather than as a lifetime process. I am not that concerned that for a number of children this will mean they will have to spend another year in our educational system as a result of moving from one province to another.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The much more serious question is the uniformity one. I think the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan), who has just preceded me, presented the argument briefly but well. He said that our educational system should not concentrate so much on uniformity within our federal state, or even uniformity within our provinces, but rather on breaking down the rigid patterns and approaching each child as much as possible in terms of the allocation of resources and treating him as a unique human being. It is not even necessary to keep to a strict grade system.
If it were argued that what we should have are relatively frequent national conferences on education at which all the provinces come together to discuss education at the elementary and secondary school levels, then I, for one, would be in favour of this kind of development. However, what they should be discussing is not the imposition of a uniform standard from one coast to the other but what each province is doing; what is new in Nova Scotia; what is new in British Columbia, and what interesting pedagogical techniques are being introduced here or there. They should be discussing what new courses are being introduced, for example, in Alberta, that should now be introduced in Ontario. It seems to me that a conference organized on a national basis under the auspices of the federal government which seeks to bring responsible people from the provinces together to discuss this matter could indeed be very useful. It could facilitate genuine improvements in education from one coast to the other but would
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
not, and indeed should not in my view, facilitate the imposition of uniform standards.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) for introducing the very important subject contained in the resolution for our consideration. It seems to me that our educational system has always been one of the most serious matters in the whole realm of public affairs. Already in this session I expressed in the debate on the constitution my view that one of the sacred cows in our constitution, and our whole political philosophy, is the belief that education must be controlled completely by the provinces. I am of the opinion that the complex educational structure which we have in this country is not either sufficient or adequate to meet the needs of modern Canada. It might have been adequate and sufficient in a previous age when people in this country lived in one province, or indeed in one place in a province, for practically all their lives, but it is not suitable for the kind of mobile population we now have.
It can be taken for granted that many, if not most, people in this country will make one or more major moves during the course of their adult lives, taking their children with them from one part of the country to another. These moves are important to our citizens in terms of the advancement of their careers and the development of their capacity in whatever line of activity they are following. They should also be important not only for the adults but for the children, because the mobility that we have in this country gives us an opportunity to show our people and our children all parts of Canada. However, far too often the result of one of these major moves of the family is not to enhance the education and broaden the horizons of the children but to confront them with grave, if not insoluble problems.
I favour conferences on education. I am not so sure that we should strive to have a lockstep, uniform curriculum in Canada, but I doubt very much if that was really in the mind of the sponsor of this motion. He is shaking his head, so I can tell that it was not. He is concerned I think, as I am, with the children who are confronted daily with the result of the present absurd educational system which we have in Canada. I was shocked to hear the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) ask: "What does it matter if a child loses one tenth, one
DEBATES	4247
Conference on Education Uniformity eighth, or whatever percentage of his educational years by reason of a major move?" He said that quantitatively it does not make much difference. I find this kind of thinking hard to understand, especially when it comes from a person with the kind of child oriented type of philosophy which is dominant in Ontario at present. This is what this discussion is all about. It is about the effect of this absurd system of education, not on parents, educators or teachers, but on children. The results are frequently serious and sometimes catastrophic.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am not sure that I clearly understood the hon. member's reference to me, and if I did not it may be because he did not understand my point. I think it is a serious point. It is precisely because I am concerned with the effect which our educational system has on our children that I was arguing that what is desirable is a very flexible system from one province to another. Then, if a child moves from Saskatchewan to Ontario, and the system of education is child oriented and flexible, he could readily adapt to the new program. The system of education should not be a rigid, uniform system where a child moves from one grade 6 to another grade 6.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I welcome the clarification but I understood the hon. member to say that if a child was in difficulty, one patted him on the head and said, "Too bad, little boy, but after all this represents only one tenth or one eighth of your educational life and you will have to learn to live with it". This is not my point. My point is that the present system is hard on children, and this is the reason for doing something about it.
My constituency is made up in large part of public servants and members of the armed forces, and I doubt very much if there is any other group in Canada which is compelled to move more in the course of their careers than members of the public service and of the armed forces. I have found on inquiry that it is not uncommon for a family, the father of which serves in the armed forces to make six, eight or ten moves of a major kind during the father's service life.
I have discussed this problem with many of my constituents. I found during the election campaign when going from door to door, as all of us did at that time, inviting the opinions of people on public matters, that many times people said to me the major problem they saw in Canadian politics was the fact
March 2, 1970
4248	COMMONS
Conference on Education Uniformity that the educational system was incoherent and not uniform. Let me give some examples.
I think it is typical of the present situation that a family which moves from one province to another finds that at least one of the children loses a school year. There are problems in the subject matter of courses. Some provinces teach the new math and some teach the old math. In some provinces one period in history is taught in grade four, while in another province the same period in history is taught in grade six, and a child who moves may miss that period completely.


John Edward Broadbent: What if they are all backward?


Duncan Gordon Blair: They are probably your
supporters.


John Edward Broadbent: What part of the province do you come from?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Duncan Gordon Blair: If the children are confronted with these major problems, and I suggest for the consideration of hon. members that indeed these problems are aggravated nowadays rather than minimized by reason of the fact that the educational process has been loosened up. There are more options, and more attention is paid to the individual needs of students in one province than in another.
I think some hon. members are very familiar with the problem of teenagers. The disruption in the life of a teenager being moved from one school to another is very grievous. But it becomes, as I have found, almost intolerable when it is coupled with what the child feels is lack of academic accomplishment. I remember one lady describing to me what happened to her family when they came to Ottawa. The children had been doing well, but in their new and strange environment two of her sons had lost a year. They seemed to lose all sense of accomplishment and initiative, and became drop-outs.
Our total educational system should be devised to give an incentive to children to continue their education, and not to create these artificial barriers against the attainment of proper education. The universities in the different provinces have accommodated themselves mostly to the requirements of their individual provinces. Sometimes it has happened that families have moved at a time when children were ready to go to university. They might have qualified to enter a university in the province they left, but were not 

qualified to enter a university in the province to which they went.
I say that the problem is one of the youth and of the children. These are the people we should be thinking about. There are enough pressures of one kind or another on young people today, pressures of all sorts and conditions created by our materialistic society and the temptations which are presented to young people. But this added pressure of a differential educational system in this country is one under which young people frequently crumble. It is no mark of credit to our society and our country that that kind of disconnected, incoherent, disorderly educational system operates across Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is great merit in the government of Canada taking steps to organize national discussions which will lead to some kind of better rationalization of our educational systems, and which will have the effect of thinking not about the administrators, not about the teachers, not about the school boards, not about the position of this department of education or that department of education, but rather about the children of Canada who certainly are the sufferers under the present system.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) on two aspects of his remarks; first, his sincerity, and second, I believe he has put his finger on the essence of the problem, and that is the Canadian educational system as it affects the children. Therein is the only area of discussion.
I think that the motion introduced by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has really two aspects to it. The first aspect is that of the federal government taking some initiative in the field of education, which in itself could touch off a lengthy and worthwhile debate. The second aspect is the specific question of the convening of a conference to try and establish some general, broad areas of agreement among the provinces, or at least some uniformity up to a point in the field of education.
I listened to the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan) and to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I was a little bit disappointed because I think what both hon. members did was to define the motion as it is before us in order to justify what is a very popular stand. It is very popular today for educators to talk about freedom
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
of choice, the freedom of choice of the student with respect to the curriculum, so that in the classroom students may progress at an individual rate. This has been very popular for the last decade and there is no argument there. But it all depends on how you define uniform standards.
In the few minutes we have listened to this debate it has been obvious that there is a great dilemma between those people who advocate a certain uniform standard across the nation and those people who argue that there should be completely individual instruction, that there should not be uniformity provincially or even at the community level. The consideration of the individual should extend to the classroom level, where the curriculum is to be a very specific thing and is to exist for the child alone. Somewhere between those two extremes lies a meaningful approach to the problem of education in Canada.
I do not think anyone will disagree that there is no way a nation can lay down uniform standards for what actually will take place in an individual classroom. I do not think the hon. member for South Western Nova even suggested or even thought that would be a desirable aim of the Canadian educational system. Certainly, the classroom curriculum, the actual teaching in the classroom, has to be geared to the individual. The five foot high-jump concept in education has to go. The classroom curriculum has to be geared to each individual considering his unique environment, his unique hereditary background, and the summation of the qualities making up his individualism. All this demands that he be given an individual curriculum, but certainly this is not the intent of the motion. The intent of the motion, as I see it, it to give some credence to the widely accepted belief that across the Canadian nation, just as in the United States, there is a need for laying down some uniform standards.
Here I speak of uniformity of standards with respect to general philosophy or general principles, which will ease the tremendous burden borne by thousands of families who have become mobile as a result of the developed society in which we are living, as compared with the society of our grandfather's day. I can really sympathize with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton when I realize the kind of constituency he has. Even in the town of Gander, which has a population of only 9,000 people, we experience a tremendous movement of people. Every year
DEBATES	4249
Conference on Education Uniformity between 100 and 150 new families move into the town. They come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and in such a circumstance there is a need for uniform educational standards. But again, it really depends on how you define "curriculum". The professional experts in Canada define curriculum in a very broad sense-what are your goals, objectives and aims, and all of these components are taken into consideration when deciding the curriculum.
If you look across Canada today you see we have ten different approaches to the curriculum question. If you study the underlying philosophy, aims and objectives of each individual province with respect to education you will find that they are all different. British Columbia, for instance, places a great deal of emphasis on streaming. What we traditionally used to call grade 8 is now called level 8, because the teachers have not found another name for "grade" which is an unpopular term. When pupils reach level 8, they move out into various streams and eventually each stream leads to a particular objective orientated toward university on the one hand or trade on the other.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Other provinces, and I can think of Alberta, place much more emphasis on a general approach to education; they emphasize the general rather than the specific. Other provinces believe that until the student reaches the end of secondary school he should not be involved in anything that could be classified as a specific job or occupational orientation. In other words, up to grade 12 we speak only of general education; that is the basic aim and it is a very general foundational kind of approach. Still other provinces have greatly emphasized religious training. I can think of a province which emphasizes the denominational system of education almost to the detriment of other aspects of the total development of the child. We can take Quebec and Newfoundland as examples.
In Canada we can come to terms on the general, underlying philosophy of education, and that is what actually happens in the classroom. We can, therefore, have some standardization of approach. Certainly the hon. member for South Western Nova never meant to leave the impression, nor did he say, that the conference he referred to in his motion should specify what type of textbooks should be used in a particular grade level or what marks should be expected in an examination or any such standardized procedures. I
4250	COMMONS DEBATES	March 2. 1970
Conference on Education Uniformity think a number of hon. members, and one in particular, has gone out of his way to shift the emphasis of the resolution to suit his own purpose, and perhaps he has clouded the issue.
I support this kind of resolution because I am aware of the extent of the mobility of our population in Canada today, and it will become increasingly mobile. Since I have had a family I have been in 13 different environments, from the extreme west coast to the extreme east coast and in between. I am not, however, nearly as mobile-prone as some public servants and members of the armed services.
In Newfoundland, for example, 10,000 people leave the province every year. We just have grade 11 there, no grade 12, so when students arrive in Ontario the problem is how they are going to identify with grade 12. Do you take a grade 10 student and make him grade 11? They have found, for example, that in many cases grade 10 standards are equivalent to grade 11 because of the more diversified approach to the four years of secondary school in Ontario. Ours is a more academic approach, and consequently our students are as capable at the end of grade 10 as is the average Ontario student at the end of grade 11. You can believe that, it is not one for Ripley's.
What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the converse is also true. In Nova Scotia, for example, you need grade 12 to get into university but in Newfoundland you only need Grade 11, so a special provision has been made to allow our grade 11 students to enter first year university in Nova Scotia. If they are smart and bright enough, they can overcome the slight deficiency in the academic background, but at least they are accepted. However, I am sure Nova Scotia is not going to continue this approach.
There are many areas of standardization in the field of education, Mr. Speaker, such as reading, mathematics, university expectations qualifications and the general broad principles of education, which could be accepted across the whole Canadian nation. I should like to go one step further than the hon. member for South Western Nova and suggest that it is time the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland-in fact all the provinces of Canada and the federal government-get off their high horses as to the constitutional rights regarding education. Let us face the fact that education today, the development of human resources, is a most important area in which the government should be involved.

Let us start talking about the individual, the development of the youngster and try to set some national goals and expectations and perhaps aim at the establishment of a national ministry of education one day.
Right now the federal government is going through the back door. It is involved in education through about 17 different government departments. At the same time, if a question is asked in this House about education of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or anybody else, the answer is that it is a provincial responsibility. I think this is a good resolution and I should like to see other members introduce other resolutions in order to open up the area of education for discussion, and for some specific action.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have supported the mover of the motion. I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest and would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). The constituency I represent is similar to his in character. For the period that I have been a member of this House I have had a series of complaints from families of members of the armed forces and the public service relating to the difficulties of their children in the educational system as a result of numerous moves.
I listened to the statistics quoted by the mover of the motion on the subject of mobility in Canada, and I was a little puzzled. If I recall, he said 53,000 families moved interpro-vincially every year and he cited the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare as his source. This seems to me to be underestimated. I listened to the member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who said that 10,000 people leave the province of Newfoundland each year. I know that in the city of Ottawa hydro records show that one in four families move in every 12-month period, a 25 per cent annual mobility. This does not mean they all leave the city of Ottawa, of course. There is a very high rate of mobility in urban centres, especially those populated by members of the armed services and public servants, employees of national corporations and so on.
Let us ask the parents of these families what they think of the educational system of Canada. The mover of the motion said that of ten provinces, each province believes its own system to be the best in the country. But let us look, for example, at the report
March 2, 1970

prepared by the bilingualism and bicultur-alism commission on the teaching of history in Canada. It shows ten provinces teaching ten different versions of our own history, which one could hardly recognize from one province to another even within the same language group. The differences in the versions between one official language group and the other are even more striking. We should be able to assume that the provinces, in their conferences dealing with the subject matter, are prepared to arrive at some common understanding as the basis on which to teach such an elementary thing as the history of our own country. However, they have failed to achieve even this minimum standard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair to resume the same at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) moved:
That this House do now adjourn.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me necessary to have a discussion of this nature in light of the announcement made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) responsible for the Wheat Board-a statement that was supported and concurred in by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson)-which could very well indicate that there is to be a new departure for farming in western Canada and which certainly indicates that there are to be marked and radical changes in the pattern of farming in that part of the country.
When someone in authority suggests that it is advisable to take 22 million acres of land
Wheat Acreage Reduction out of wheat production in one year in western Canada, and when you consider that last year the total acreage seeded for wheat was 24.5 million acres, I think one can grasp the concept and sweep of this proposed policy. I do not know what would be said if someone were to suggest a similar policy for the steel industry of Ontario, for the automobile industry of Ontario or for the corn growing industry of Ontario. Of course, industries in other provinces could serve as examples. Certainly you would know that there was to be a major disruption in the industrial heartland of Canada if such announcements were made.
When we discuss these kinds of changes in wheat farming, we are talking about the basis of the farming economy in western Canada because we are talking about the agricultural heartland of western Canada. Let us make no mistake; let us be under no illusion: that is what we are talking about. That farming economy has as its base the production of cereal crops. No matter whether farmers are producing beef or hogs-and these remarks apply to all but the small proportion of farmers who are in ranching-cereals are used in the entire feeder operation.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If the proposal is successful to its ultimate degree and the proposed number of acres are taken out of production, I shall be profoundly disturbed and dismayed because, Mr. Speaker, if we succeed in taking so many acres out of wheat production, and experience a crop year in Saskatchewan or western Canada generally like the one of 1961, we will all face nothing less than a major disaster.
That little wheat plant may not stand very tall, but the by-products of the wheat plant, together with barley and oats, provide much of the roughage for the beef cattle kept in western Canada. This House must be made aware of the vast shifts in production that can take place within that region. In 1961 we harvested 260 million bushels of wheat in western Canada and in 1968 we harvested 807 million bushels. That is a vast difference. If you look through the figures in the Wheat Board report you will note that we had a comparatively high production in the period 1964 to 1968. In the last four years we have harvested exceptionally large crops. This is in part responsible for the large carryover which we now have. Also responsible is the failure of our marketing policies to keep pace with production.
4252	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction
In this respect the government and those responsible are justified in being concerned about the continual build-up of stocks and the fact that the stocks have not been moving. If they had said to the western farmers that over the next two, three or four years there would be a gradual program of adjustment, possibly it would have been considered, although the marketing factor would still require top priority. This is not what they did; they talked of this reduction in one year and they are using two means to achieve it. The farmer is being offered $6 an acre if he takes his land out of wheat, or $10 an acre if he will plant forage crops. But there is the catch. Behind the carrot is a stick. It is a pretty big stick that goes along with that carrot. The farmer is being told: If you do not reduce your acreage, if you do not get in line with government policy and wisdom and with the savvy and know-how that exists in the halls of the experts in Ottawa, you will not be able to deliver over and above a certain amount of wheat.
I will not go into the technicalities and the particular acreages involved. In a general way, the farmer was told that if he had so many acres in summer fallow last year, he could deliver wheat on 25 per cent of it: that, plus what he put in summer fallow this year, plus his forage crop acreage, would be his delivery quota. This is the stick: if he does not go along with government policy, he will have a backlog of wheat which he will not be able to deliver.
This plan inevitably envisages a tremendous increase in summer fallow in western Canada. It carries within it the risk of severe soil erosion and damage in the Prairie region, not only wind erosion but water erosion. There is a proposal that as of July 15 farmers can sow some cover crops, but anyone who has farmed as long as I have in Saskatchewan knows that if you have any alternative you do not leave summer fallow bare until July 15. If you do, you have rocks in your head.
These are the faults I find with this program, Mr. Speaker. It does not take into account the necessary protection of our resources it does not take into account the protection of the farmers. In one swipe it knocks out the privileges of the unit delivery quota of the small farmer. This quota is important and is needed by the small farmer; however, it is to be his no longer.
There is talk of what is to be done with our marketing program. The effectiveness of our marketing has not been good. There is not

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
enough said in these proposals about what is going to be done to correct that situation. The Economic Council urges action to increase Canada's wheat sales. A recent report states:
Mr. Hudson studied the competitive position of Canadian Wheat in 23 selected wheat markets, and says there is a variety of reasons for the deterioration of Canada's share.
These include lack of uniformity in the protein content of Canadian wheat shipments, a lack of flexibility in pricing, insuflieient market development work-
This is a severe condemnation of what has been done in the way of marketing Canada's wheat in the last few years. I could go back to the minutes which I have. In 1961 the Western Grains Standards Committee pointed out that we were weak in markets because of not using protein grading. When the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board was in London he had meetings, following which there was a statement in the press that buyers in London said protein grading in our wheat was not up to the standard of other wheat they were buying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I do so with great apology to the hon. member who I am interrupting, but it is a matter of some urgency. I feel it is important to make the statement now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the Prime Minister is seeking permission to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the House for allowing me to revert to motions.
Last week the government of Canada learned that a substantial ownership interest in Canada's largest uranium mining company might be passing into non-Canadian hands. The government cannot delay making its position clear because it is understood the transaction may be close to completion.
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
Our reservations about this change of control of Canadian uranium resources are such that if necessary the government will introduce an amendment to the Atomic Energy Control Act, to take effect as of today, to prevent such a transaction. I have delayed this announcement until after the closing of the stock markets today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 GRAIN WHEAT-EFFECT OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM ON FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gleave that this House do now adjourn.
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have left I want to point out some other effects of this policy. Australia increased its sales up to December by 32.9 million bushels, Argentina by 1.4 million bushels and the United States by 12 million bushels. Our sales dropped by 37.4 million bushels. These are the figures: they tell the story of the western farmer.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I note the statement of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in this respect. He believes that as a result of the proposed tremendous reduction in acreage he will be able to approach the other wheat producers and that they will fall in with this pattern. This is nonsense. It may be some countries will do so. I do not know what the United States will do. They are cheering us on, but why not? I am always willing to cheer the little guy on when he is fighting-he may even win-as long as the blows do not come my way. But do hon. members suppose that the U.S.S.R. will reduce its wheat production? They would be insane if they did. This is an example of nineteenth century economics being applied to Canada in the year 1970. It is laissez-faire economics, as out of date today as the horse and buggy.
Some people imagine that we shall be able to persuade other countries to reduce wheat acreage to a corresponding extent. But the western wheat grower will be the No. 1. mark in such a deal. He will pay the shot. It is time realistic policies were followed. We can accept a gradual reduction over a number of
DEBATES	4253
Wheat Acreage Reduction years if that is necessary, but before we are asked to accept a reduction of the size proposed we want to know what producers in other countries intend to do. Nothing can be gained from speculating, and that is all we are doing now. We cannot dump the whole burden on the shoulders of the farmers. Certainly the Canadian taxpayer is ready to put some money into this plan, but a far heavier price will be paid by the farmers.
I would be pleased if the minister could assure us that he had received commitments from the U.S.S.R., France, Argentina, Australia and the other great wheat producers to lower their acreages. But in that case, Mr. Speaker, there would be no need to consider a reduction of 22 million acres: it would not take a reduction of that size to bring world supplies into balance, if that is our objective.
It seems to me the sole objective should be the need to provide food for the people of the world who do not have it, something which has not been considered at all in this program. For these reasons I urge the government to reconsider its views and modify certain aspects of this program before it is too late and before too much damage is done. No one knows what the result will be in 1971 when Canadians will be literally reaping the harvest of what hon. members opposite did in 1970.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to say a few words in this debate tonight. As far as the agricultural policies of the government are concerned, I have in the past been somewhat critical. I want to say right away that I feel the government has taken a very wise step, having regard to the position in which it finds itself.


An hon. Member:: Backwards.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I do not agree that the position in which it has found itself could not have been avoided. On the other hand, considering the huge stocks of wheat and other grains which are piled up in western Canada, 1 think the government has shown good faith to the western farmers and has at least tried to bring forward a solution which will help them to a large extent.
As one who lives in eastern Canada, I am not familiar with all the problems of farming in the west. On the other hand, I did have the opportunity to go out west last year while I was a member of the Agriculture Committee and spoke with many farmers in the three western provinces. I know they are in dire
4254	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction financial straits; they do not know Which way to turn.
I should like to congratulate the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the government for their readiness to put forward a considerable amount of money to help the situation as it now stands. On the other hand, I agree in many respects with what was said by the previous speaker. The answer to this whole problem is not to take millions of acres out of production, but to get out and sell wheat. It is certainly not good enough for Canadian citizens, supposedly full of vim, vigour and vitality, to let the rest of the wheat marketing world go out and sell wheat while we sit at home and fail to sell the quantities we should.
In the past year or so since I came to this House-and I wish to speak most respectfully of boards such as the Canadian Wheat Board-I have talked to many farmers who have told me about the terrible position they found themselves in before the Wheat Board came into being. I am sure that in the past the board has done a remarkable job. Nevertheless, considering the way in which the Wheat Board has tried to dispose of our grain across the world I think that as far as its members are concerned we should buy them five pairs of trousers for every suit each of them wears, because they must wear out those trousers sitting on their fannies.
They cannot sell wheat sitting around the board room in Winnipeg, or wherever it is they meet. The way to sell wheat is to get out in the world where people are hungry and have the money with which to buy it. If, perchance, somebody cuts the price, we should also cut the price. We must not wait for six months; we must do it five minutes later. This is something we have not done. Neither this government nor the one before it had enough "go" to get off their chairs-


Mr. Benjamin:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I hope that in the circumstances it will be a friendly one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When the hon. member says we should go ahead and meet competition by cutting prices, is he saying that prices should be reduced at the cost of the farmers or that the government of Canada should make up the difference?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is a very fair question. We could not have farmers going out of busi-

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
ness because of low prices. On the other hand, I would point out that the eastern dairy farmers subsidize their own commodities from 6 cents a pound to the 20 cents they are normally paid. This is the standard procedure. As an easterner, I say candidly that the hon. member's question is an embarrassing one inasmuch as I have not done enough research on the subject.
I suggest, though, that if the farmers of western Canada are businessmen, and I believe they are, they would be quite willing to dispose of their wheat at a lower price rather than have it lying around for two or three years while they pay 10 per cent interest on borrowed money. I say this with the best intentions. The Yanks would not get ahead of me, that is one thing. They might get ahead as far as arming the world is concerned, but when it comes to selling wheat we should be able to sell it as well as they can. We speak the same language. I am not willing to accept the fact that we cannot sell as well as they can. I have said these things before.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In the agricultural committee of the House of Commons the other day there were some gentlemen from the office of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). Something was said about the proposed sale of wheat to Rou-mania. The minister, quite rightly in my opinion, in answer to a question from a member of the opposition suggested that this would have been a silly sale, that the Roumanians would perhaps have bought the wheat at a low price and resold it on world markets. I asked the officials about this matter and they told me that as a matter of fact we now had two people in eastern Europe selling wheat.
For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, why only two people in eastern Europe trying to sell wheat, when we have a billion bushels to sell? There should be 50 people in eastern Europe trying to sell wheat. As far as I am concerned, having two people there is not good enough. We need drive and initiative. You cannot sell wheat by sitting in an office in Ottawa; you have to get out to countries like Poland, Russia and China. We should have salesmen there all the time. That is the way business is done and the way in which it should be done in this case.
I do not know anything about growing wheat but I was fortunate enough to learn to be able to read. I suggest that all that any-
March 2, 1970

body in Canada has to do to find out why the Canadian Wheat Board is unsuccessful in selling wheat is to read the reports. The Wheat Board sold wheat to about 130 countries a couple of years ago. The following year they sold wheat to only 32 countries, or something of that order. We sold 17 million bushels of flour and wheat to Cuba two years ago, yet not one official of the Wheat Board went to Cuba the following year to see whether the wheat and flour were good, whether the transportation facilities were adequate, and whether the price-the Russians were paying for it-was O.K. All the Wheat Board said was that they did not want to interfere with the Russians.
A week ago tonight there were some people in Cuba selling Holstein cattle and they had dinner with Castro. These people were from Woodstock. My hon. friend knows one of the men in question. This is how you sell cattle. It is also how you sell wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: We sell wheat not only in Cuba but all over the world. I am annoyed When I hear that Argentina outsells us, that the United States outsells us. The United States does not sell wheat to communist nations. Were it not for the fact that we sell wheat to Russia, China, Cuba, Poland, Rou-mania and other countries, you might say that we would have to go out of wheat production in the west for the next ten years.
In my opinion the Canadian Wheat Board has not made the necessary efforts to dispose of our wheat. If somebody cuts the price of wheat by one cent a bushel, the Wheat Board does not send a telegram to Ottawa but just writes a letter requesting permission to cut the price by two cents in order to meet the competitition. It must take about two weeks for the letter to get to Ottawa because before we get an opportunity to sell the wheat, France or some other country has entered the picture. Accepting the situation as it is now, in my opinion as an easterner the government has at least made a good effort. It has at least shown it is trying to do something for western farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I have been insulted before, Mr. Speaker, and by experts; but hon. members to my left do not bother me one bit because I do not regard them as experts. My point is that I think the average farmer in the

Wheat Acreage Reduction west will agree that at long last the government is at least trying to help them.
I should like to issue a challenge to the two ministers who are chatting together on the other side of the House. I say as an easterner that I wholeheartedly agree with pumping $100 million into the western farm economy in an attempt to save the wheat industry of the west. If any of our city friends or these paper people who write Cinderella stories at the drop of a hat are critical about giving the western farmers this huge sum of money- and it is a huge sum-let them remember that wheat and grain are the main staples of the agricultural industry of western Canada, and we as Canadians cannot let western Canada fall.
Therefore, I want it to be abundantly clear that I am in favour of this money going into western Canada. But to government ministers I say let us not forget that there are other segments of the agriculture industry in Canada, and one of them is the dairy industry. I hope my western friends will bide with me when I say that if we can pump $100 million into the western economy, if this sum can be pulled out of the air-it is not in the budget at the moment and it is not in the book in which the minister cut $10 million off the milk subsidy-the minister can pull another $10 million out of the air to help the milk farmers of Ontario and Quebec.
Agricultural assistance is not just a oneway street. I hope that those members who come from Ontario and Quebec who are not here tonight will at least read what I have said, even though they may not agree with me. To our cabinet members from Quebec and Ontario I say, "Stick up for the people back home". We are sticking up for the western farmers tonight. Let us also stick up for the milk producers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and for the western Canadian producers whose milk we buy.
Nobody has told us where the $100 million is coming from. I know where it is coming from: 41 per cent of it is coming from the province of Ontario, and that is a fact. I say to ministers from Ontario and Quebec that in helping the western farmers they must remember there are also a lot of farmers in the rural areas of their own provinces. Instead of sitting in their seats, let these ministers fight for those farmers.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, members of this House have previously sat through tirades of the sort we have just witnessed from the hon. member for
4256	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction Bruce (Mr. Whicher), and we know that his speech was a red herring designed to divert our attention from the problem before us. I suggest this is the reason he was put up to speak before any member of the ministry was given the opportunity.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member does not have to rise on a question of privilege, and I ask him kindly to resume his seat. The hon. member has no right to make that kind of statement; he must make his own speech.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member has a question of privilege but I do know this: the dairy industry in the east may have received $115 million, but let nobody tell me that the western farmers are receiving $100 million, because they are not. I tell you this, and I have tried to point it out in the House. The press can point it out and make it appear as though it amounts to $100 million or $140 million. Perhaps you can believe this if you lie down under a tree and dream, if you can find a tree in southern Saskatchewan. If you believe this you must have something missing from your head. If you believe it, you are wrong. These people are not going to sit down and do nothing. Anybody who had summer fallow last year will put a crop in this year.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The minister can suggest that these people have to put a crop in or the land will blow away. I suggest that it might blow away so far as the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) is concerned; it might blow away from my area. When he suggests that they must have a cover crop, let me tell him that they do not need a cover crop. In any event, this is one of the stipulations he is making. We have enough wild oats in our country to know that this is actually the case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: You can laugh all you want, but because we have more rainfall in our country, we have weeds and it is not a "Ha, ha" matter. In our area it costs $12 an acre to have summer fallow. The minister offers $6 an acre. He is not offering us anything as an inducement. I should like you to try and grow any kind of grass in some of this country. I suggest if you do not get rain

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
you will still be trying seven years from now. The minister has another think coming if he thinks that anybody who had summer fallow last year is not going to put in a crop this year.
If the minister thinks for one moment that any person, including those who have to rent the land out to somebody else because of misfortune and so on, does not need a quota in order to sell the crop, he is mistaken. If he thinks for one moment that the old age pensioner does not need that the $300 or $400 that might come from one-third crop sharing, he is wrong. If he thinks for one moment that the man who was hailed out last year-these conditions do exist-does not need a quota in order to sell a crop this year, he is mistaken. These people did not receive a cent from the sale of crops last year.
The minister is saying that if the farmer did not get a crop to sell last year, he does not get a crop this year either. In other words, he is telling us that if God did not give us a crop last year, we do not get a crop this year because he is greater than God and is following in his footsteps. I tell the minister he is putting these people out of business in the wrong way.


An hon. Member:: In the right way.


Stanley James Korchinski: There is a right way, and a wrong way. If the minister had come back and said he was in Australia and they had agreed to a reduction in wheat acreage, we might understand. The minister went to Britain. What did he find out there? They told him to go back home. When I asked him about this, Mr. Speaker called me to order because it is not the practice to ask a minister to report on what happened during a visit. I did that with a purpose in mind; I wanted to know what he really accomplished over there. He came back and told us he had nothing to report. Britain is going into the European Common Market and we are going to lose that market to France which will, with subsidies, sell to Britain.
What did the minister report to the Canadian farmer? Did he say France was going to reduce its acreage? He went to the United States following questions I raised earlier. I do not care who raised the question, but the point is he came back without any kind of report except that the United States intends to cut down on wheat to the extent of 25 per cent. Why did he not fly to Australia or in any other direction and bring back a report?
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
I can get fairly excited about this kind of problem and I have a justifiable reason for doing so. Back home you cannot tell everyone to lie down and do nothing. Could you tell insurance men to quit going into the business? Could the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) justify his policy when he was out west? What does the farmer do for the other six months of the year? I ask him, what does the insurance man do when he is not selling insurance? It takes him about two minutes to sell it and two hours to write it up. You talk about production! I know about the men who go out on the land from five o'clock in the morning until 12 o'clock at night during the rush season-and that is not the only time I have been farming. When the time comes I have to go out and look after the seed. I tell you-


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: Don't get excited.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, will you give the dog a bone? We have a justifiable reason for complaining when we are told to cut off our production. Has the government ever told the people of Quebec who produced 80 million of the 90 million pounds of surplus butter to cut off production? There has been talk of a reduction of 10 million acres, but you must still consider the 150 million surplus.
I know the people who live in the constituency of the hon. member for Bruce. I was in his constituency. Let me say to the world, to all Canadians and all Members of Parliament: We would like the opportunity to buy a tractor, which would not cost $20,000-as suggested by the Prime Minister-but $6,000 if we were allowed to purchase those manufactured by Japan, Czechoslovakia, Russia and other countries. Perhaps we could afford to buy one even with a dollar a bushel for our wheat. I do not know but, by God, I think we could try.
You tell us on the one hand to cut down on Che production of food, and on the other hand to get out and produce. I think you must admit that something is wrong. I have had the opportunity of travelling far enough in this world to find out that some people struggle in the rice paddies and in the mud in India in order to eke out a living. If these people have to wallow in the mud there has to be some-
DEBATES	4257
Wheat Acreage Reduction thing wrong in our thinking. We should have tractors to do that work rather than men struggling with bullocks and everything else in 120 degree temperatures. Somewhere along the line we have to work out new ideas.
Perhaps you think in my disgust I am asking too much. Do you expect me to wait for the United States to take over these markets? Do you expect me to wait for the French to take over the markets? This is what they are doing. Japan is ready, and Britain has committed itself. Is this the policy the government is going to follow? This government told the potash industry to cut down 40 per cent on its production, but it tells the farmers to cut down 100 per cent. The government is telling, not only the farmers but other business men they have not a chance, *they are finished. If we follow that stupid dictate the government has given the farmers, impossible as it may seem, the farmers have no choice but to diversify.
I had to break up my operations into three branches-the one-third summer fallow I had last year, one-third in crop I might have put in, and the other in the summer fallow I would have this year anyhow. I say to the government I am going to take its money this summer for the crop I might have put in, and I am going to put it in anyway. I have a few cattle on my place. Long before this government came along I knew I would have to diversify. This is what we have all done but in order to feed cattle I have to grow some oats, barley, wheat for straw and all those things. How am I going to get these things if you deny me a quota? I must diversify, but the government has not worked out any policy. The minister rushed into it because he was excited about it and had to come up with something. He consulted no one.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
When I said the other day in the House that all the consultations were based on what the Wheat Board could do, and that too many laws are passed in this House with no idea as to what is the proper way of administering them, I meant it because I as a farmer will be the one who is sacrificed at the altar. The government never consulted anyone and they have never given the Agriculture Committee the opportunity to do so.
I know that some members of the committee, such as the hon. member for Bruce, speak sincerely sometimes, and that the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Lind) speaks hon-
March 2. 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction estly. I do not mind saying it in the House because this is the kind of thinking that must be behind the decisions that are made.
The government backed by bureaucracy is thinking only about one thing, that is, how they can make a living for themselves and offer only a guaranteed supplement.


An hon. Member:: That is capitalism.


Stanley James Korchinski: That is the worst form of bureaucracy. It is communism. My dear friend here is long on theory and short on practice. I wish some hon. members here had an opportunity to talk to the people who have to make that decision. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that many farmers decided last year, without the assistance of the government, to reduce their production by 15 per cent. No incentive was given them by the government. They know themselves what they will have to do. But I do not know what will happen next year. I do know that in 1961 I had no crop at all and in 1963 I had trouble with rust, flood and so on, and there was only one good crop year in six years. Does the government think I will take a chance not to put in a crop the one year which might prove to be successful?
What drives me from accepting the government's incentive is the fact that I cannot depend on this government to pull me through during periods when I am up against difficulty. So far they have in desperation come up with some sort of plan. All I can say is, thank God they have come out of their shell because at least from here on we know what they are thinking. They are telling us to get out of business.
An interesting riddle was told me the other day. What is the quickest way of creating a desert out of some of the richest land in the world? The answer is, a Liberal government program. I would have enjoyed the humour except that I myself was involved. I like to think that I can contribute something by paying my taxes. I like to think that we can produce enough food on our farms not only for ourselves but for the rest of the world. It is surprising for the government, in this day and age when a population explosion is taking place and we see on television programs about there being too many people in the world, to be so bankrupt of ideas that it has to tell us to stop growing wheat. There are 188,000 farmers in Canada and they are blamed for causing the ills of this world of millions and millions of people. You have to stretch a country mile to make me believe

that, because we have done our share in feeding the hungry.
As I have pointed out, the government is trying to sacrifice the farmers. Perhaps we should sacrifice the machinery industry, which is not Canadian anyway. Which is better? Perhaps the government is sacrificing the wrong people. I say to the government, and particularly to the minister form Saskatchewan, that I think he has made a valiant effort to redeem himself and his government but he is not fooling me because the summer fallow will create the same problems that we had before. Anybody who knows something about the patterns of summer fallow will understand me and realize that this is not a solution to our problems. Perhaps it is a temporary stopgap and it may bring some relief to the farmers and get a few members to Liberal political meetings out in the west, but so far as the western farmer is concerned the government is a long way away from coming to a solution.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the motion before us, not because I am directly interested in the program announced by the minister but because his suggestions to the western provinces resemble all too much what we have had to put up with in other spheres in the eastern provinces. I feel for all the western wheat producers and I understand their anger on hearing about such a program.
I feel that is the best program ever put forward by a Liberal minister and I say it proves what the Liberals are capable of. During the war, the Liberal party paid people to burn goods while today, they are getting ready to pay the producer to stop producing. With programs like that you can imagine where Canada is heading for.
I was reading today in Le Soleil for March 2, about that wonderful program. I was absolutely astounded. This evening, I must bow to the evidence.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
One can read in Le Soleil the minister's statement to the effect that the government of Canada is suggesting that the wheat acreage of 24.5 million acres be reduced by 22 million acres in western Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am just speaking as a humanitarian and I cannot imagine that we have reached the point where we are going to refuse to seed 22 million acres of land to wheat especially when two-thirds of mankind are not eating three
March 2, 1970

meals a day yet. I do not wish any hardship on Canada; however, I am very much afraid that some day it will dearly pay for the lack of action of its leaders.
If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) as well as the other ministers concerned, namely the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) had done their job instead of travelling as tourists around the world like playboys, today the situation would be quite different. They have taken trips instead of trying to dispose of our dairy products and our wheat. We have a playboy government and we are going to pay for it. The same article, says, and I quote:
Under the law, 5,200 hungry Metis are forbidden to use the wheat given to them by farmers.
This is the case in Meadow Lake which I visited last summer. There I met poor farmers who could have used the wheat which was rotting in the fields. When I saw the sheaves of wheat, I could not believe my eyes. I went quite near to make sure that it was really true. The Metis told me: We cannot even get some to feed our families. Is there anything more shameful than that, Mr. Speaker?
They are not even able to change our financial system so that the production may reach at least the inhabitants of this country. That is shocking to say the least. Instead of adjusting our financial system to production, they are still trying to reduce the latter to the proportion of our financial system. There lies the great evil, Mr. Speaker.
The ministers, who cringe before high finance, will not face facts. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who worked with us in the past, knows the nature of the problem. But he is swallowed up in that crowd and does not see anything except that this divine financial system must be protected. According to the government, there is no way of modernising our financial system.
I took the floor tonight so that everybody will know about the shameful solution put forward by the government. We are told the implementation of that program, which will be in force for a year, will cost about $100 million to the taxpayers and will affect some 188,000 wheat producers who deliver their products to the Canadian Wheat Board, a government agency that acts as an outlet for wheat, oats and barley sown in the Prairie provinces as well as in some areas of British Columbia. So $100 million will be spent out of the taxpayers' money.
Wheat Acreage Reduction
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, the people of Quebec will also have to bear the cost of the proposed subsidy intended to discourage the western producers from producing. They are paid not to produce whereas in the East, the idea is to "strangle" the farmers to compel them to abandon their land. Here is now an excerpt from The Star and I quote:
The government will pay $6 per acre up to a maximum ol $6,000 to the farmers-
-who will have the guts to leave their land idle. And those who sow anything but wheat will get $10 per acre up to $10,000.
The department does not even realize the absurdity of the situation. Actually, it has always been more or less unaware of where it was going.
They are doing the same thing in Quebec where they say to the farmers: "Forget all about dairying and start producing meat, and hay." It is the same story in the West, to the extent that within two or three years, our surpluses will be just as high as those we have today with wheat and dairy products.
There is nothing wrong, do we say, in trying to destroy the production granted by Providence to Canada. What we should do is not burn and destroy but go on producing and take whatever steps to bring this production to the hungry.
I believe that out of the 264 members of the House we could manage a sufficient quorum to organize a rund table if the government would only agree sometimes to consult the opposition in order to set up a program of distribution, to feed at least the people in our own country and also the people abroad, thus enabling our farmers to market their production.
But far from it, the government, by means of what they dare call a program, will pay the farmers not to produce.
As I said, I believe this program to be the worst that a minister has ever dared to present to the House for a number of years. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the ministers who have not done their job.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board did not perform their task. This is why we are not able to sell our present surpluses.
If we gave $100 million to the farmers in order to help them, at least, to sell their wheat at 25 or 50 per cent of its price to the
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction people of Saskatchewan who are "crying" to get some, these $100 million would at least serve some purpose and would not be destructive.
I suggest merely that these $100 million be used to sell wheat at a discount in order to guarantee the western farmers a reasonable price.

Kon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to speak about the wheat reduction program which was announced in the House last Friday. I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to talk to my colleagues in this House and to hon. members, and perhaps particularly to address myself to hon. members from the provinces or the area of the Wheat Board designated region to which the program particularly applies. I address myself particularly to them because they should have a very good hard look at this program and try to understand it. They should not attempt to make a partisan issue of a matter as important as this.
It is, Mr. Speaker, of fundamental importance that the farmers of the designated region work together to examine their problems realistically and hard-headedly, and to solve them together with such help as the government of Canada can give them. In developing this program we have been acting on part of a long-term examination of every aspect of the agricultural or grains industry in western Canada.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We were faced with specific decisions about the crop in 1970. Work is going on upon every other facet of the industry because of the difficulties which the industry has faced. We have in this program a proposal for the crop in 1970. I want to examine this program and the theory behind it and urge hon. members to support it when they see what it can in fact accomplish.
In the process of developing this program we consulted with leaders of farm organizations in many long hours of deliberation. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) suggests that I should talk to some of the farmers who will have to make decisions. I am happy to report to him that I had the opportunity yesterday afternoon to speak to 600 of those farmers in his own constituency.

I was delighted, in the previous three days, to be able to be able to meet 1,500 farmers in two meetings in the constituency of the member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). In all these discussions, Mr. Speaker, the farmers to whom I spoke were willing to face reality and examine the problems in a realistic way. There is no doubt in anyone's mind about the importance of a maximum sales effort for our products. There is no doubt, either, about what can be done and is being done in this regard.


An hon. Member:: By Australia.


Mr. Lang:: But, Mr. Speaker, what is also completely obvious-it is as clear to the farmers to whom I spoke as it is to me-is that we must be realistic in deciding a number of things, including our best sales prospects. We must be realistic, too, in deciding about our inventory. Not many industries can survive without paying any attention at all to the inventory question, because inventory is expensive. It is expensive to produce and it is expensive to tie up money, even the marginal cost of production, if the inventory is in excess of what is commercially required for sales.
What is also obvious to all of us, surely, is that having determined what is approximately the right inventory, we must over a long period of time keep our production and sales in balance. That is what is at the heart of this problem and this program at this time. An inventory is expensive, not only because of the marginal cost in producing it and the interest lost on that money, not only because of the cost of storage which year after year must be paid while the inventory is carried, but because of the effect it can have on the price of the product in the world when you have excess inventory.
It is important for one other extremely basic reason, and that is because the excessive inventory of wheat in the Prairie region this year was going to have one very clear effect-it was going to press farmers into production of every other crop you can name, so that the excess inventory or surplus problem would have been spread throughout the whole grain industry. Farmers were aware of this fact; they were aware that inventory was in excess.
Generally speaking, they agreed that we are carrying almost one billion bushels of wheat, as we will on July 31 next; we are carrying 500 million bushels more than we

March 2, 1970	COMMONS
ought to for any commercial reason or for any other reason. What we are saying is that if we did not have that extra amount, on all analysis of how long we would have to carry even the upper bushels of the rest that we have, we would be carrying it a very long time before we had an opportunity to move it.
That means we would have enough without the 500 million bushels to meet all prospective sales opportunities and anything else in the way of aid or anything else we might do with it. Even in aid, the world can take only so much. When you start with a bushel of wheat and put it into an edible form like bread, the wheat in the bread comprises perhaps only about one-fifth of the cost. You need money to move it and you need money to mill it; you need to build ports and roads and trucks for the countries where the wheat is to be taken.
The simple proposition was, Mr. Speaker, that this inventory was lying as a great burden upon the farm industry, a burden costing millions of dollars a year to carry, and was causing distortion in every direction in regard to crops. I said we must maximize our sales.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Other countries are doing it.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Our record this year shows that in fact the crop year 1969-70 is going to be a very good one in terms of sales.


An hon. Member:: Is going to be!


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, by the halfway mark of the crop year producers had already delivered as much rapeseed as they did all the previous year, they delivered as much flaxseed as they did in the previous year and as much Durum wheat as in the previous half year. Wheat was lagging.


An hon. Member:: The government was lagging.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Because of the decision that had to be taken in trying to hold prices in the International Grains Arrangements, we had a gap in sales. I was rather distressed to hear the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) imply a lack of support and a criticism of the Canadian Wheat Board. I did not expect that from him. While the sales-
DEBATES	4261
Wheat Acreage Reduction


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) on a question of privilege.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I was not criticizing the Wheat Board. I was criticizing the government. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I was sure, Mr. Speaker, that was his basic intent but it was rather unfortunate that he pointed his finger at the Wheat Board in attempting to do it.
Sales have lagged in the first half of this crop year, but by the end of the crop year exports will amount to 375 million bushels, which is higher than all years but one between 1943, when the Wheat Board started, and 1963 when the first sale to Russia was made.


An hon. Member:: This is 1970.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Had this year stood alone in terms of sales, one might have asked: Where is the cash problem about which we have heard to much? But, of course, this year does not stand alone; it stands after two years of very difficult times in terms of sales, and therefore a very difficult cash position for the agricultural community. That is why we have to be concerned. That is why the inventory adjustment, which it was quite logical and clear that this industry had to make, could not be expected to be made by it alone. That is why we had to try to devise a program which faced up to this inventory issue and to the cash problem at the same time. These two things we have put together in an attempt to accomplish the result in as short a time as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the extra 500 million bushels of wheat which are above commercial requirements are expensive to carry. The longer you carry any part of it, the longer you carry that part of the expense. Accordingly, it was clear that what we needed in our attempt to bring this inventory into proper line, and also to avoid the creation of unnecessary and undue surpluses in other crops, was the quickest possible retirement from production of 22 million acres for one year. We looked at the possibilities of doing that over a longer period of time or over a shorter period. Any lengthening of the time simply prolonged the pain and the period in which those acres would have gone into other crops. Hon. members who are farmers know very well that is what would have happened. So we looked at the possibility of doing it in
March 2. 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction one year and we proposed, with the co-operation of the farmers, that we should try.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It was also clear that any farmer who had enough wheat on hand to meet all the quota he could expect this year, and also all of the quota which might be available for him in 1970-71, had his gross income established and whether he grew or did not grow more would not affect his gross income in that period. Indeed, to not produce could only conceivably lower his costs and improve his actual cash position while his inventory was being disposed of. In other words, it could temporarily improve his cash position. Accordingly, we have devised a program which has invited him to take 22 million acres out of production this year, to put that land either into summer fallow or some form of minimum maintenance and to put up to 2 million acres of it into forage or grass. We propose to pay him $6 per acre for the additional minimum maintenance acres which the farmer had on his farm, as compared with the previous year, and we propose to pay him an extra $4 an acre for land that was put into grass and stayed there during the following year.
This represents a very important opportunity for the farmers together to reduce their inventory and for the Prairie region, particularly the grains region which has been hardest hit by the cash problem, to obtain a very valuable infusion of cash. The ideal would be for the farmers to take 22 million acres out of wheat and put it into minimum maintenance and forage because, on the best estimates we have available, it is indicated that the acreage which was in non-wheat crops last year is about the right acreage to have in these crops again this year. There may be some switching around of crops; some farmers may move some acres from barley into rapeseed, but the total is about right.
The only way, therefore, we can obtain that result is through the removal from production of the 22 million acres of wheat which are not required to meet any markets in wheat and are not required for any other crops either. This, therefore, represents an opportunity to hon. members to join with us in explaining this program to farmers from one end of the designated region to the other. I ask them to join in a task which represents a challenge for us and for the provincial governments to try to give the very best possible advice to farmers about the form of minimum maintenance which is most desirable in each region.


We recognized that that challenge must be met in the time available but we did not feel it was proper to take more time and lose a whole year in implementing a program of this sort. We were particularly afraid of the impact in other grains which would have occurred in the process.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, before the minister leaves the point, may I ask him a question? On Friday last the minister said that the government estimates the program will cost it $100 million. Now the minister is talking about taking 22 million acres out of production, which would cost the government $152 million. I say this on the basis of all that land being put into summer fallow and 2 million acres being put into forage crop production. Is the figure of 22 million acres to be put into summer fallow or forage too high, or is the previous estimate of $100 million too low?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I said that the ideal would be if 22 million acres went into minimum maintenance and forage. However, in attempting to estimate how farmers would react-and by the nature of the exercise it can only be an estimate-we predicted that in the neighbourhood of 16 million acres would actually be withdrawn. There are varying conditions which might lead some farmers to leave some wheat in crop. However, it is still my view that the ideal would be to remove 22 million acres. That is why I urge all hon. members opposite to join in this effort to explain the program and how it may work for each individual farmer.


Mr. McIntosh:: Will the minister permit a question?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Not now, if the hon. member does not mind, because my time is limited. Perhaps the hon. member will wait until I have finished my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister is being taken out of production.


Daniel Aiken Lang: This, of course, is the program, the details of which will take some time to be assessed. That is one reason why I shall take a great deal of time to meet as many farmers as possible. I hope we can count on the support of people expert in agriculture in advising farmers from one end of the designated region to the other how the program works. In order to help this process along, we intend to send out in the very near future to each
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
permit-book holder an analysis and explanation of the program to assist him in the job of calculating his best position and, therefore, the right result for him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government will be also sending out an army of inspectors.


Daniel Aiken Lang: It is clear-and hon. members from other parts of the country appreciate this-that it is not a soft or an easy program. May I also say that those hon. members appreciate it is a good program. It is designed to face, in a hard-headed fashion-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In a thick-headed fashion.


Daniel Aiken Lang: -the real problem that faces us as we come into the 1970 crop year. It is designed to solve this problem to the advantage of the agricultural producer and, in particular, the agricultural producers of the region taken together. Again, I earnestly ask hon. members on all sides of the House to give the program their best support in order that the maximum amount of help may be given to the agricultural community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. If the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) is to ask his question, it must be with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so anxious for our co-operation, why does he refuse to answer our questions?


Daniel Aiken Lang: I shall be delighted to answer.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I thought someone on the government side refused unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) McIntosh: So that we may understand exactly what the minister is talking about, will he comment on two examples I shall cite. Let us take the example of one farmer who has all his land in summer fallow and the example of another farmer who has all his land in crop: how will this program apply to both those farmers?


Daniel Aiken Lang: In examining the program, the hon. member will see that a number of items 21701-59
DEBATES	4263
Wheat Acreage Reduction are included in it to deal with the particular situations of those who in fact moved much of their land into summer fallow or minimum maintenance last year. I refer to features such as deeming that anything over 50 per cent be treated as though it were wheat land. Also, the quota for 1970 is based on the total summer fallow acreage of 1970, plus one-quarter of the acres under summer fallow in the previous year.
It is true, of course, that a program of this sort cannot evenly affect every farmer in such a diversified region. It was our objective to help all farmers as well as we could, and one of the very significant ways in which a farmer without a surplus will be better off results from his opportunity to grow nonwheat crops. He will be protected through this measure from too serious a move of acres into these crops. Had it not been for them, the burden of surplus in such crops as rape-seed would have been very frightening indeed.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, will the minister now answer my question?


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, for over a year western opposition members have been trying to persuade the government to give some form of assistance to western agriculture to relieve the serious cash position of the farmers due to their inablity to market their grain through the Wheat Board. Last Friday the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) announced that something would be done in this regard. His announcement is apparently supposed to hold the surplus at its present level and at the same time provide the western agriculturist with his living expenses for this crop year. The minister may be a good professor, but he is an awfully poor mathematician. The cash advance will take up at least half the quota that the farmer is going to receive between now and the end of the crop year. The $6 requirement for summer fallow will not pay the cost of summer fallowing. That leaves exactly nothing for the farmer to live on.
The minister says the farmers are prepared to face reality. He said he talked to farmers in Saskatchewan. The only reason they are facing reality is they know this is all the government is going to offer them. There is no point in not facing reality because that is it as far as the government is prepared to go.
The minister went into quite a bit of detail in his announcement dealing with the acreage
4264	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction reduction. It was interesting to note that the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States lauded the program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why not?


George Robson Muir: My hon. friend asks, why not? In answer to a question I asked this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said that the United States was also reducing its acreage. Over the years they have been doing this on a small percentage basis. The fact remains they are still going to grow 45 million acres of wheat. Their gradual reduction seems to make more sense than this crash program which will leave the farmer without any wheat to grow or any crop to change to, because the minister has already intimated that the surplus of other grains is high enough.
Canada is in the position of making a unilateral reduction in a very large acreage of wheat. I am sure this will bring pressure on other governments from the farmers and producers of their countries to maintain production, if not to increase it, because Canada has told the world it is not going to worry about supplying wheat in the export market. We are not going to grow any wheat this year, therefore the other producers are bound to step into what might be called the vacuum.
The minister now says he is going to discuss acreage reduction with other governments. He has evidently forgotten the old adage about locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. He has given away all his bargaining powers as far as wheat acreage reduction is concerned. He has left it up to our competitors as to whether they will reduce their wheat acreage. My guess is that if they do reduce their wheat acreage, which is doubtful, it will be only a very small amount.
Had the minister made this suggestion last year when opposition members were pressing for payments on a crop reduction basis, any action taken would not have been nearly so drastic. It would have afforded the farmers more room to manoeuvre in crop selection. It would also have benefited those farmers who voluntarily reduced their wheat acreage by five million acres, many of whom will receive little compensation from the scheme this year.
Actually, the minister's statement shows a defeatist attitude on the part of this government which has failed to maintain Canada's share of the export market. It is a cover-up by the government for its failure to do the

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
things necessary to keep our grain economy competitive in world trade. It is a grandiose scheme which will fall far short of its objective to relieve the desperate cash position of the Prairie farmer. The minister knows as well as I that his boast of a $140 million payment is just so much window-dressing simply because it is predicated on the fact that no wheat will be grown on the Prairies this year. The Minister of Agriculture smiles at me. He knows very well there will be wheat grown on the Prairies this year. Many thousands of acres of wheat will be grown in spite of this program. What other crops are the farmers going to turn to? What use will be made of the five million acreage reduction that took place last year and was presumably left fallow? Should the farmer turn to rape-seed? I will now deal with the rapeseed situation. Dr. A. M. Runciman, president of the Rapeseed Association of Canada said:
-that the world projection for the production of rapeseed is forecast to be 23 per cent higher than in 1969. This figure, he said, presumes only a slight increase on the part of Canadian farmers.
Traders, however, are expecting a 50 per cent acreage increase, Mr. Runciman said. Seed sales are up 30 per cent to 40 per cent and much of this seed is going into areas that never grew rapeseed before-areas in traditional wheat growing countries. Established growers will use their own seed and this has led the traders to forecast the 50 per cent increase.
Indications are, he said, that we had better get geared to moving the largest crop ever moved and at relatively low prices.
I am reading from the February 26 edition of the Manitoba Co-operator. This same paper has an article on flax. This article deals with a suggestion by Dr. W. J. Craddock, associate professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba. It states:
While no estimates of carryover for the end of 1970-71 crop year could be made at this time, he said it should be noted that if 3,500,000 acres of flax were grown in 1970 even at an average yield of 11.5 bushels per acre, the total supply would be 50,500,000 bushels. If 25,400,000 bushels were, in fact, exported, 25,100,000 bushels would be available for domestic use or carryover...
... the maximum annual domestic use was 8,800,000 bushels and that was in 1956-57. In recent years this figure has been in the range of 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 bushels.
That shows the situation as far as flax is concerned. Should the farmer turn to oats and barley? I do not think I even have to read any comments on that except to prove the point I am making. In the Wheat Board's 1968 supplementary report, the latest available, it is shown that oats and barley produc-
March 2, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4265
tion have increased substantially. Although there has been some improvement in the movement of barley since that time, both these grains are in a heavy surplus position.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
One needs only look at production figures over the past decade to realize that our farmers have certainly solved the problems of production. However, when we turn to problems of merchandizing, transportation and distribution, an area in which the government should be deeply involved, we find we are barely out of the horse and buggy age. We were hamstrung initially by the inflexible marketing policy laid down by this government under which there was insistence on maintaining the IGA price long after our competitors had abandoned it. West Germany and Great Britain have been requesting a guaranteed protein content for the past six years but we have been content to continue a grading practice which is at least 30 years old.
This cavalier attitude toward the wishes of our customers, along with a determination to hold up the price of wheat in a buyers' market, has contributed to our loss of sales in traditional markets. At the best of times we must be competitive in price and quality, but in times of surplus we just cannot afford to be inflexible.
A recent article in the Globe and Mail had this to say with regard to our grading system:
Canadian wheat has been losing sales on the London market for reasons of quality and price, according to a consensus of dealers and millers ... A wheat board delegation spent nearly a week in London, assessing prospects in a market traditionally among Canada's best but which has been deteriorating over the past eight years.
The basic point to emerge from talks with the buyers and millers is that Canada's wheat export program has not adjusted to meet the changing demands of this market.
As a result, competitors-the Soviet Union and Australia-have been selling higher quality wheat at lower prices. Canadian sales have declined, though not drastically.
An explanation was offered in these words:
Canada was strongly criticized for being "the leading light for pressure to keep IGA prices at unrealistically high prices." In 1967, the Wheat Board was stuck with unrealistically high prices because, for political reasons, initial payments to farmers had been set too high.
Our farmers have demonstrated beyond doubt that they can produce a great variety of crops effectively. Farm production has 21701-59i
Wheat Acreage Reduction increased by more than 50 per cent in the last 20 years and this has been achieved by an agricultural labour force which has fallen by half in the same period. Unfortunately, our distribution and marketing system has failed to keep pace with this advance in production; it has changed very little in the last 20 years. Though our competitors have adopted protein content as a grading criterion, we still sell by bushel weight and colour.
The requirements of our customers have to be met, and we can do it because we still grow the best wheat in the world. We need to up-date our grading and to modernize our distribution system, including our port facilities, particularly on the west coast. We must do something about labour problems which have hampered the free flow of grain to customer countries. Lastly, we must try harder to meet competition. We must get out and sell. These things need to be done as quickly as possible if agriculture is to share the fruits of an affluent society.
In all fairness I would add that the minister's scheme is not without some compensatory features. It will provide employment for an army of inspectors who will be required to check wheat acreage and summer fallow against the quota books. It may help some of the larger farmers who will receive the maximum for summer fallow and be enabled to double production next year. But it will do little to alleviate the financial problem of the average farmer whose crop production is more diversified, particularly in areas where wheat production was already reduced by 26 per cent last year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which remain before the usual hour of adjournment I should like to do something which the opposition often prevents my doing, that is, make a completely non-partisan speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -outlining the steps which have been taken so far and the steps we intend to take, so that there may be the maximum exposure of that information to the people who will be affected, namely, the permit holders in the designated area under the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps I could begin from the position which was taken last Friday when an announcement was made to the House. I recommend to hon. members on both sides that they read with attention the statement made by the Minister without Port-
4266	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction folio (Mr. Lang). While that statement does not contain all the detail, it does address itself to all the broad concepts involves. Indeed, it goes into some detail as far as certain aspects are concerned.
I would also recommend another excellent statement which was made on Friday, and that is the one which I myself made to the press. Afterwards, as some hon. members may know, the Minister without Portfolio and I held a press conference in Ottawa. We held another later that day in Winnipeg. By the way, it was broadcast live over the CBC network for 30 or 40 minutes and was rebroadcast on "Country Calendar" on Sunday afternoon. We held a shorter press conference in Saskatoon later that day, and there was yet another in Edmonton on Friday evening. So we have attempted to give this matter as wide a coverage as possible. Nevertheless, I recognize that it is not yet possible for the farmers or for the correspondents to anticipate all the information they might need before making decisions.
In the last few days, and even in the past few weeks, we have been trying to anticipate all the situations which might arise in respect of individual farmers within the broad framework of the program; we have been trying to draw up regulations which would maintain fairness and justice, taking into account the very wide variety of circumstances which could apply to individual farmers.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) mentioned two extreme situations, including the case of the man who had 100 per cent summer fallow last year. It seems to me that some consideration must be given to a case of this kind, not only in order that such a farmer can participate in the program but in recognition of the fact that he helped the situation last year. The Minister without Portfolio was asked many questions, including some along the lines of those posed by the hon. member, and he was able to answer them. We shall be mailing to all farmers a copy of the Farm Letter within a few days. It will deal with this program so there may be an understanding of its concepts by all who receive it, whether they are within the designated area or not.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In addition, we are preparing a publication, which I understand is nearly complete, that will be sent to the Canadian Wheat Board permit holders and which will spell out even

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
more detail. It will use some examples of what will be the situation both with respect to the incentives part of the program and also that part of the program relating to the quota for the coming year. I am sure there will be more press conferences as the administrative details become better understood by farm writers and some of the farm leaders. We expect there will be need for a further issue of a Farm Letter later on, perhaps in early April, setting out the administrative structure that we intend to use. What is of immediate importance is that the farmers know the options open to them and that they apply those options to their farming operations in order to decide to what extent they participate in the program.
I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) and other hon. members made reference to the figures that we have been using. The Minister without Portfolio mentioned that the sooner there is greater participation, the sooner we will be able to reduce the inventory. The $140 million that some hon. members talked of is the maximum amount and relates to all of the acres down with spring wheat last year, at $6 an acre, plus the two million acres more which will be seeded to grass. That is a simple calculation and adds up to $140 million.


Mr. Skoberg:: You said it was 20 million plus two million.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I said "of" two. In any event, we have estimated that the program will probably cost around $100 million inasmuch as this is the percentage of participation that we can realistically expect.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is probably all that Benson will give you.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If you have a program covering all of the acreage, you have to be prepared for the maximum number. If applications come in for the 22 million acres, plus the additional $4 for two million of those 22 million acres, we will have to be prepared to pay out $140 million. However, I do not expect we will have that percentage of participation, for the reasons I have mentioned.
If for some reason a farmer has no grain on hand, it is no secret that the amounts being offered here will not be sufficient inducement to him not to grow any grain. That is pretty obvious. But I think opposition members lose sight of the fact that this program is designed somehow to rationalize our wheat inventory
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
and to do so in such a way that the government will assist the farmers. I am sure that would be of interest to those members of the opposition who have claimed that farmers have a great quantity of wheat on their hands. Certainly those farmers will have to participate in the program, though their return will be somewhat less than if they grew a full crop which was sold.
About two-thirds or 75 per cent of farmers in western Canada have enough grain on hand to fill their quota for the balance of this year and the subsequent year without growing any more grain. During this period these farmers will also receive the cash receipts from the sale of that grain. I do not know whether the export figure this year will reach 375 million bushels, plus domestic consumption, or whether the figure will be a little higher or a little lower. But the money for the sale of this grain will go to the farmers in addition to the $6 an acre paid to reduce inventory and the $4 for forage.
The Minister without Portfolio has said this a dozen times already, but it should be borne in mind that if the program is successful, part of its success will be due to the fact that probably between 375 million and 500 million bushels, comprising both export sales and domestic sales, will be sold from the existing grain inventory; and, as I said, the cash from those sales will go to the farmers. This is a matter that should not be forgotten.
When the regulations have been compiled and the administrative machinery set up, we shall be making special efforts through the media, through press conferences and through direct mailing to make sure that all farmers who could be affected by the program will be given the fullest information. In addition to that, since I do not think it will be possible to anticipate every type of circumstance, we think it might be desirable to set up some kind of appeal board to which a farmer may have resort if he feels the regulations do not fully cover this particular situation. For example, there is a board of review constituted under the PFAA at the present time; there are appeal procedures in regard to the Farm Credit Corporation, and so on.
There are many other arguments I could advance, but in conclusion may I say-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister for some information before he concludes? Would he explain who is going to administer the wheat acreage reduction program? Will it
DEBATES	4257
Wheat Acreage Reduction be the Department of Agriculture, the Canadian Wheat Board, or some other body? Also, who will set the regulations?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The regulations will be worked out by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Minister without Portfolio as well as the grains group which has been making a major input into the program. As far as administration is concerned, the Department of Agriculture, mainly through PFAA machinery, will administer the wheat reduction payments. They will receive the applications, do the on-farm inspections and make the payments. The Canadian Wheat Board will deal with the permit books that will be issued. Obviously, there will have to be very close liaison between these two bodies to make certain that the information provided by individual producers is the same on the application for reduction payments as it is in the permit book allocation of acreage for the various crops that will be grown.
I suppose hon. members opposite, and also some of the farmers, will be able to point to extreme cases from time to time not precisely provided for in the regulations. We intend to design these regulations in a way that will achieve the objectives of the over-all program and at the same time be fair to farmers who made adjustments last year and to those who are involved with what is in their permit books for the 1969-70 selling season. Of course, we have to make a beginning from the figures which are in the 1969-70 permit books and make any changes from that position. After all, this is primarily designed as a wheat reduction program, that is, in respect of the inventory and we have to make some beginning. When these regulations and the explanatory documents or circulars I have been talking about are ready, we will obviously see that all members of the House get them as soon as they are mailed to the farmers.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister? What is the long-range intention in relation to the setting of quotas beyond 1970-71? Obviously, the fact that you are talking about 1969 summer fallow and considering the 1970-71 crop or summer fallow for 1970 means something. How will this affect the quotas that are currently on seeded acreage, and other considerations? How will it affect the quotas for the following year?
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister without Portfolio was asked that question a number of times. I do not think we have considered it deeply enough at this point to say we have a precise kind of program which will be used for the allocation of permits and quotas for the 197172 crop year. There will obviously be some major changes in the traditional pattern that has been used until this program goes into effect.
As has been pointed out, if the projections we have made are proven to be correct, we can produce and sell about 20 million acres of wheat per year starting in 1971 and from then on, provided we get our inventory into a reasonable commercial position now. Therefore, we will have to take into account that position. We will also have to take into account-and this information is not available to use yet-how much response and participation there is in the program, because our regulations for the ensuing or following year would be dependent on how successful this program is in reducing the inventory of wheat.


William Arnold Peters: There is the intention, I presume, that there will be a relationship between the performance of those who have participated in this program and those who have not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think that would be a fair assumption.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I prepared some remarks prior to the speech of the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang). While I hope to get those remarks on the record, I should like to make a comment or two about some of the suggestions he made in a speech in part of my riding. First, I wonder whether the minister meant to imply that farm leaders suggested or agreed to this plan. Perhaps they have, and maybe they should have the right to say yes or no; but I wonder whether this is what the minister intended to imply. I throw that out so he can answer as he sees fit.
The minister spoke in a town in my riding. I talked to a farmer who was there. The minister was correct-there was quite a large crowd. They listened to him with some interest, but I do not think with any enthusiasm. I do not know that they were even particularly critical at that stage. They wanted to know about the program and were there because they were interested. The comments I have


heard are to the effect that there is a certain amount of wary skepticism about the whole thing. It is necessary to explain to the farmers what this plan means because I am sure they do not understand it. I do not really understand it.
Today the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) rose in the House and asked what will happen to farmers who cut back their acreage last year. When one of the main government supporters finds it necessary to ask this question-and I assume he helped draft the plan-one can understand why the farmers might wonder about it. If the hon. member for Assiniboia was not taken into the government's confidence, I suggest this is an insult to him. He is a man who really knows what is going on in the country.
Frequently when hearing comments from ministers on that side of the House I have not been impressed by the fact that they have any real knowledge of what is going on. There was mention of equity in the speech of the Minister without Portfolio and the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). When thinking of the constituency I represent, I can see that this is going to be quite awkward. My constituency contains part of the Palliser triangle, parkland in the North, some quite large and some quite small farms. I represent some farmers who co-operated in reducing acreage last year and some who seeded large acreage. It is obvious that any application of this plan will be awkward.
The minister spoke about statesmanship in helping him sell this program. I should like to make a comment or two on that, as a responsible person. I have listed four points which I think might have some validity. This program might have its good features, and I want to mention them. The first good feature is the forage program. The idea of paying $10 per acre of land put into forage might be very acceptable and worth while in attempting to reduce the wheat surplus. I can see a hardheaded farmer taking his poorest land and seeding it in grass. I know I would do so and I would accept this as being a good feature. Second, there will be some cash flow in the country. I accept this as being of value and beneficial, but I do not think it will come anywhere near $100 million or $140 million. I suggest to the minister that if he attains $50 million he will do well.
I had an urgent phone call shortly after 8 o'clock from a farmer in the Herschel district. He said he did not think there would be even
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
$20 million obtained from this plan. I do not really know at this stage, but I would be highly skeptical of the $100 million figure that has been kicked around in Ottawa. If it was the intention of the government to imply it would put $100 million in the hands of Prairie farmers, I suggest this is a fraud and a hoax: I do not think it will happen.
Let me refer to another feature of this plan which might be regarded as useful. If I had a field full of wild oats or couch grass, I might think this was a good time to summer fallow this field twice in a row. I think a hard-headed farmer would look at this idea and think it might be a good thing. A farmer with a large surplus of wheat, probably a farmer who has already adopted some other alternative, might say, "Let us cut back a couple of hundred acres. What is the difference?" He might do so, collect his $6 an acre and do with the land what he is able to do. So much for the good features.
I should like to make one or two comments about the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. I believe his estimate that 75 per cent of the farmers would have enough grain on hand for two years is not correct; I think it is too high. I have heard many comments about how much surplus grain there is on the Prairies. Admittedly, there is quite a large surplus; I am not trying to minimize the problem. But from my own observation and from what I hear in the country-and I have a lot of good grain land in my constituency-as well as what I hear from elevator agents and the like, there is not as much grain there as the Minister of Agriculture and the press have indicated. This dates, not only from the stories I hear but from my experience back in the 1950s and early 1960s to the time we had a surplus. There was not that amount there.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
There is a point that disturbs me, and that is that $6 an acre is not enough to pay for summer fallow even on large and efficient farms on the edge of my riding. It seems to be implied by some speakers here, and in what we read in the press, that someone will make money out of this and that it is a good thing that the government is putting all this money into western Canada. I suggest that this is a minimum-income type of plan and that no one will make anything out of it. It may help a little to keep the economy alive, but that will be all. If the government is successful in cutting back 22 million acres and cutting
DEBATES	4269
Wheat Acreage Reduction down 500 million bushels, it will save about $50 million a year in storage at 10 cents a bushel a year. I think my figure is as unrealistic as the $140 million that some people have mentioned. I realize the government will save some money if its program is successful.
Around 8 p.m. tonight I received a telephone call from a farmer from Herschel who was quite concerned about this program. He said it looks hasty and ill-conceived. He says that we will have one big summer fallow field from the Rocky Mountains east. We will have a dust bowl if we have difficult weather conditions, but if we have a good crop year we will have a billion-bushel wheat crop. I am sure the minister has thought about these things, but he should determine what this program might do to some individual farms. I think it will make things much more difficult for the smaller farmers because they have fewer alternatives. I believe this will create an extremely awkward problem if the government says to them, "If you do not cut back, you will not get a quota". What are they to do?
I should like to speak for a few moments about the sales program of the government. I have argued since I first came here that the government was not paying enough attention to the sales program and that it has not done as much as it could. I should like to quote from a paper which was presented to the Harrisson Hot Springs Liberal conference by Dr. Knott of the University of Saskatchewan, in which he said that out of a total sale of 600 million bushels to underdeveloped countries Canada's share is 20 million to 30 million bushels. He went on to say that we can do something about this. It is unfortunate that apparently no one at that Liberal think-in was listening to Dr. Knott.
The wheat crop in western Canada is a renewable resource. It has been a renewable resource which has brought much of the new money to Canada in the past years. It has also done so just recently. We must remember that in an average year, from $500 million to $1 billion new money has been brought into Canada in foreign exchange. This has pumped life into our economy.
It has been suggested that a dollar return from other sources is multiplied three times, while a dollar return from agriculture is multiplied six or seven times. This has pulled Canada out of a hole when our balance of payments program has become a problem. Are we going to abdicate from the foreign market because things are a little tough? Are
4270	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction we going to say to France, Australia or any other country that from now on they can have the market, we will not fight for it?
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio that it is high time they got the protein program on the road. I have been farming for 25 years or so and ever since then there has been talk about an improved grading programs. What has been done about this? Are we abdicating from foreign markets? I suggest to the House that the government is not only interested in solving the problems of the grain farmers; part of its interest at least has been to attempt to forestall any crash or reduction in the red meat market. I cannot criticize the government for this. I do not think it would be reasonable for us to move from one area to another, but I do not think this program is strictly in the interest of the grain farmers.
I wonder if our farmers could be given an option, if they could perhaps grow more Durum wheat, more flax or more rapeseed. I suggest to the minister that the government consider arranging to take off the market next fall a certain amount of each of these grains. Let me illustrate it this way. I recall the time when we thought we had a surplus of Durum wheat. However, it turned out that there was a crop failure in Italy or some other country. The same thing happened last year with rapeseed, so that we could move more rapeseed than we had anticipated. Would it not be better if we had a reasonable surplus of these crops, so we could have more alternatives in case something turned up? I suggest that rather than have a surplus in one kind of grain, we might have a surplus in another.
A number of other hon. members wish to speak this evening. In conclusion, in my view the sales program has not been developed fully. We have lost some of our sales to Britain and to Japan. I believe that the coarse grains market could be expanded. I believe this is one market we could develop successfully. I suggest that both the ministers concerned should look seriously at this aspect of our grain surplus problem, and hopefully we will arrive at some solutions which are not completely negative.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate because it gives us an opportunity to express opinions about operation LIFT, which is an abbreviation for Lower Inventory for Tomorrow, an imaginative title.
DEBATES	March 2, 1970
A great many farmers welcome this program and will make good use of it by complying with it in large measure. Other farmers-and those are principally the patriotic, co-operative types who voluntarily reduced their wheat acreage and increased their summer fallow and grass acreage last year- are greatly dismayed at the inequitable treatment given to them. Still others-I am afraid they exist in large enough numbers to prevent the plan from achieving its goal

will decide to continue their present system of farming, unmoved by the carrot of acreage reduction payments or the stick of wheat quota restrictions contained in the plan.
I propose to deal briefly with each of these three different classifications of grain producers. They cannot be identified clearly with any one area of the Prairies, their farm size, or the type of farming, but I will try to make some references to these factors as I proceed.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
First, those who will make greatest use of this plan will be large grain farmers and smaller farmers who produce grain almost exclusively. They will be those who have kept their summer fallow and grass acreages at a low level, and their wheat acreages high. They will be found in the more arid parts of the Prairies which are not suited to livestock production, that is, the Palliser triangle. They will be of the group which has accumulated a burdensome surplus of wheat. It must be remembered that there are within that triangle many districts that have had crop failures in the last year or two because of flood, hail, drought and frost. So even here there will be a percentage of farmers who will not be in a position to embrace this program.
Then there is always a fraction who will say, perhaps with some justification, that the only wise and safe course is to act exactly opposite to what the government recommends. Still, a large number of this group of farmers will co-operate with this new program. Perhaps even a few of them will give the government a little praise for its good intentions, its initiative and the double-barreled reward.
The second group includes all those farmers who were naive enough and perhaps foolish enough to follow government advice last year. They cut down their wheat acreage, in some cases to nil, increased their summer fallow and cultivated forage acreage. In other words, they have already done voluntarily what

March 2, 1970	COMMONS
other farmers are being asked to do now. They have cut down the wheat surplus both for the country and themselves, and now because of their reduced wheat acreage and reduced wheat surplus they are unable to take advantage of these incentives.
It is true that they will have partial compensation because they can use 25 per cent of their 1969 summer fallow acreage for wheat quota in 1970-71. But the poor fellow who last year adopted this plan's preferred alternative and increased his grass or legume acreage gets absolutely no credit for it. His first reaction is that he will convert that grass stand, which is not even established yet, back to summer fallow so that he can use it as wheat quota acreage.
I have been informed today that when full details of the plan are available, this option will be found to be ruled out. But he may decide to summer fallow it anyway, to protect his position in 1971-72. I ask the responsible minister now, as I did earlier today and will continue to do so until a change is made, to revise this plan to increase the credit for 1969 summer fallow to perhaps 50 per cent, and more importantly and more insistently, to give a 50 per cent credit for increases in forage crop acreages last year. If these amendments are made, the government will partly confound the dissidents who counsel farmers to refuse to co-operate with government advice.
The third group includes the multitude of mixed farmers who have no burdensome wheat surplus. They have fed a lot of their grain to livestock and have tended to produce only enough wheat to fill their quotas. Under the new plan their quotas will probably not be reduced very much, at least if they have been summer fallowing a third or more of their acreage each year. Therefore, there will be no need and little incentive for them to reduce their wheat acreage.
If they can get some grass seed-and most of them will not be able to do so-they may seize this opportunity to get help to do this and thereby contribute a little to the wheat acreage reduction drive. They will largely tend to ignore this plan, and because they represent the majority of farmers, although probably not the preponderance of wheat acreage, the wheat acreage reduction program will fall far short of its goal.
Taking all these things into account, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the program will be nearly as successful as the $100 million price 21701-60
DEBATES	4271
Wheat Acreage Reduction tag envisions. The minister must have calculated that 14 million or 15 million acres of wheat will be converted to summer fallow and one million or two million to forage crops, to achieve a pay-out in the neighbourhood of $100 million. I will be greatly and agreeably surprised if farmers respond with a total conversion of half that much.
A program of wheat acreage reduction incentives should have been instituted a year or more ago. I tried hard to persuade the government to do so. When it became apparent last spring that there would be no such program for 1969, I immediately started to campaign for a 1970 program. In this regard the House might be interested to know that a senior government official telephoned me in Saskatchewan last August to ask my opinion of the effects of two levels of incentive for wheat acreage reduction. Without any research or time for reflection, I offered the estimate that a payment of $5 per acre would result in a reduction of five million acres and that a payment of $10 per acre would result in a reduction of ten million acres. So this policy has been under consideration for at least six or seven months.
It is too bad it was not announced two months ago because many farmers, like myself, have got themselves practically locked into a pattern or plan of seeding from which it will be difficult to deviate. They have laid in supplies of fertilizer, bought seed and prepared their equipment. Now they will scramble around and compete with each other for scarce supplies of forage crop seed. Throughout the past several months I have repeatedly advocated that a wheat acreage reduction program should be based on 1968 acreages; that the program should go back to 1968 before the five million-acre cut was voluntarily achieved last year, and reward those farmers who so patriotically reduced their acreage last year. I am disappointed that this program does not go back to 1968, or at least average 1968 and 1969 except in a few exceptional cases.
Back in the dirty thirties a great deal of land was abandoned and reverted to municipal governments. The owners ceased farming. The best farmers survived and eventually increased their holdings by bringing abandoned land back into production in the forties. The land suffered very little; in fact, it became revitalized from lying idle. There is nothing wrong with the suggestion that, in effect, this should happen again in a planned way. I understand that it would be counted as
4272	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction summer fallow if a farmer abandoned part or all of his farm, did no cultivation and allowed the weeds to take over.
The only thing wrong with such a suggestion is that few farmers could bring themselves to commit such sacrilege. I would fear for the sanity of the farmer who did it, because if he was not crazy already he would probably go nuts looking at the desecration of his farm. You might just as well ask the gardeners and groundkeepers on Parliament Hill to let the flower beds become overgrown with weeds and the lawns go uncut because of an oversupply of hay in the Ottawa Valley.
Because I do not believe it is right to criticize without making some constructive suggestions, Mr. Speaker, I now propose a few improvements to what is basically a very good program as follows:
1.	Treat all increases in forage crop acreage in 1969 more equitably by allowing wheat quota on 50 per cent of that increase.
2.	Give full credit on the 1970-71 wheat quota for any increase in summer fallow which took place between 1968 and 1969, even if it means the elimination of the flat 25 per cent credit in the program for all 1969 summer fallow.
3.	This might very well permit an increase of one or two bushels in the guaranteed wheat quota level for 1970-71, that is, from eight bushels to nine bushels or ten bushels.
4.	Increase the acreage payment from $6 and $10 to $9 and $15 in order to inject the full $100 million into the Prairie economy and in order to achieve a conversion in the area of 10 million acres.
5.	Be prepared to continue this program for 1971-72, or another program which might be an improvement on this one in light of this year's experience.
6.	If the ministers are really serious about preventing a glut in coarse grains and oilseeds, they should introduce a regulation which would penalize farmers for increasing those acreages. I would hesitate to recommend such a step, but I feel that there is bound to be an increase in coarse grains and oilseed crops in the absence of such restrictions. Farmers will in large number decide individually that they will reduce their wheat acreage, but instead of re-summer fallowing they will seed a variety of crops for which there might be a market.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
The history of agriculture teaches us that markets for farm products are unpredictable,

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
by farmers at least. Farmers are, in the very nature of the business, the greatest gamblers in the nation. So they will take a chance that at least some of these alternative crops will find a market.
When our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in the Prairies last July he talked face to face with many farmers right on the farms and in the farmhouses, and after hearing about the many hazards grain producers face he made a remarkable statement. He heard that farmers have to make hard choices each year as to what and how much to seed in the spring, and take chances in this regard. Then we have to contend with the weather through the growing season, the risks of hail, frost, drought and flood. Some of these risks continue through the harvest. If we finally harvest some grain, and we have been relatively successful in the aggregate in the last few years-this is part of the problem-after we have it harvested we have to gamble on how much we will sell and what price we will get for it. After hearing all this, Prime Minister Trudeau said, "It appears to me that it would be easier to run the government than to operate a grain farm."
It was gratifying to hear the minister in charge of the Wheat Board say in his statements last Friday that the government regarded this as only an interim measure; long-term policy is being developed. The long awaited report of the Task Force on Agriculture will soon be tabled, I hope. I urge the government to lose no more time in developing a long-term comprehensive farm policy for Canada. It is worthy of note, too, that the ministers have been actively negotiating with at least some of the other major wheat exporters. The United States has had a much more generous wheat acreage reduction program for many years and has progressively reduced its wheat acreage to the lowest level in a great many years.
The minister stated that the Wheat Board and the government will give the fullest possible attention to promoting wheat sales and sales of other Canadian field crops. I agree with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er) that this is the best solution for our surplus problem. In a hungry world we must do everything possible to distribute the over abundance we have to the people who need it. So I say, let us revise our selling techniques, let us revise our grading system to diversify our Prairie agriculture gradually and continuously until we get away from this risky, one-crop economy. Having said all that, Mr. March 2, 1970	COMMONS
Speaker, and having, hopefully, offered some constructive suggestions for improvements in the plan, I now join the minister in urging farmers to go all out to comply with and take advantage of this imaginative program.
I want also to express my appreciation for the fact that the government has recognized the seriousness of the problems surrounding the grain industry. This plan will, in a very tangible way, reassure farmers in the west that they are not forgotten people. To the extent that farmers are able to share in the estimate of $100 million, the Prairie economy will benefit from a much needed injection of cash. It should be remembered that delivery opportunities in total will be at least as high in 1970-71 as they are in 1969-70. Therefore, all or any part of this $100 million which finds its way into farmers' hands will represent a net improvement in the cash income position. As I said earlier, I am even hopeful that at least a few farmers will openly express appreciation of the plan. In fact, some of them already have expressed appreciation to me. But it is not easy for a western farmer to praise the federal government.
If I may take the liberty of concluding on a political note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out again that this program is a very commendable one. The people who benefit from it, and they are very numerous, should be made aware that only the hard work of the Prairie cabinet ministers made this plan possible. At a time when the watchword in Ottawa is "Hold the line," they were able to persuade their colleagues and the Prime Minister to allocate $100 million to this plan.
Without some Prairie Liberal backbenchers to press for cash assistance to grain producers, without some Prairie Liberal cabinet members and without, especially, a cabinet member from Saskatchewan-which we did not have from 1963 to 1968-I do not think we would have had this program.


An hon. Member:: You would not have needed it.


Albert B. Douglas: Many of the
other ministers have been interested enough in western Canada to pay repeated visits there to learn more about the situation. Even with all these obvious advantages and improvements, I still do not believe this item would have been given approval if the Prime Minister had not taken time last summer to personally investigate the grain problem. He gained a very sympathetic understanding of 21701-601
DEBATES	4273
Wheat Acreage Reduction the business of grain farming with all its hazards.


An hon. Member:: You are pretty naive.


Albert B. Douglas: So I hope that many other members and many people across the country will join me in acknowledging, with thanks, that the government has made a tremendous first step in tackling the very important and vexing western farm problems.


An hon. Member:: Amen!


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) make his announcement on Friday on these new measures in regard to western farmers. After he had made his announcement I listened to my house leader and the leader of the New Democratic Party deal with them rather harshly, and I thought that maybe they were a little hasty in running down his program. Being a new member here, in my innocence I thought he was trying to do his best for us and I even sent him a note of congratulation. How naive could I be? Like so many other proposals of this government, it was only a political exercise, though I did not realize it then.
Over the weekend I had time to see how I could fit his proposals into my own program, because I am still an active farmer, and I could come up with very little. In fact, in my situation it turns out that I will have to go out and tear up 500 or 600 acres of grass so that I have enough quota to pay my cash advance.


Daniel Aiken Lang: There is no quota on that.


Cliff Downey: In the few minutes at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to point out some of the weaknesses which I see in these measures. I should like to take the example of a man with 1,000 cultivated acres, on which he has quota now. Suppose he has co-operated with the government and attempted to diversify in the last few years, and in so doing he has about 400 acres seeded to grass: listening to the government encouraging him to summer fallow, he has his cropping on a basis of half summer fallow and half crop, so he ends up with the 400 acres under grass, 300 summer fallow and 300 in cash crops.
Under the proposed quota system he gets 25 per cent of his summer fallow from last year included with his new quota for 1971, and this is 75 acres. He is allowed to quota on the 300 acres summer fallow which he has this
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction year, so in the logical trend of events he only has a 375 bushel quota. Now he has two alternatives: he can summer fallow two years in arow-and we know that this would be one of the disasters of the nation-or he can tear up the 400 acres of grass he has already seeded. So it is actually possible to defeat some of the measures that the proposals are intended to cure.
There are several other situations which have been mentioned briefly. Suppose we run into a situation where a farm is rented from a widow, retired farmer or somebody who needs the income: generally they are on a one-third shared crop basis or something of that nature, and these people need the income from this crop. How will this program fit in with them? They cannot gain anything from the $6 an acre for summer fallow because they will use at least that much money in completing their summer fallow operations. Certainly, the seeding of grass will not help in any way, shape or form.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
Let us look at another example. Suppose you have a farmer who is almost bankrupt- and a good many of them are-and suppose he has been summer fallowing half his land and cropping the other half. We will say he has 1,000 acres. He therefore has 500 acres under crop and 500 under summer fallow. This fellow cannot summer fallow two years in a row, or certainly he should not. So he can quota on 25 per cent of the 500 acres he had under summer fallow last year, that is, he can have quota on 125 acres from last year and he will have 500 acres under summer fallow this year. Altogether he has 625 acres under quota on his 1,000 acre farm. It seems that the government is asking farmers to seed more forage or, in this case, to summer fallow twice.
I think I ought to go into the question of the summerfallowing. I do not think any government should ever encourage farmers to summer fallow, because summer fallowing created one of the greatest disasters that occurred on the North American continent. I was a schoolboy in the mid-thirties; I went to a one-room country school, and I remember you had to have lights on in the middle of the day because the sky was black. Today I can still see fences that were built on top of other fences. You could take a bulldozer and on breaking the ground discover one fence built on top of another.

One can see what happened. Our land is one of our greatest natural resources. If the government encourages farmers' to summer fallow we can be overtaken by an unmitigated disaster, because that is where the government's program is leading. It would be better to let farmers sow grain and use it either for feed or till it under. Certainly, that would be no more expansive than the summer fallowing process. The government could have inspectors to see that the crop is used in this faction so that it will not add to the surplus, but I do not think we should encourage farmers to summer fallow.
Much has been made of sowing land for forage. On Saturday, after the minister had made his announcement, I was working out my crop program and thought I had better order some grass seed. Accordingly, I phoned two of the largest seed handlers out west. One was Can west, the United Grain Growers seed agency. I endeavoured to obtain the two recommended grass varieties, the legume rambler alfalfa and Russian wild rye, the only combination that is really suitable for palatable pasture in drier areas. I found the seed was in extremely short supply. I was able to obtain the legume at $1 a pound, but Russian wild rye, the other grass seed western farmers use, I could not obtain at any price.
I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter ought to have been looked into far in advance. Uninitiated people who have not raised livestock think you can go out and buy grass anywhere. They may go to Ontario and buy grass cheaply, but the varieties obtainable here are useless in our western climate and it only misleads people when you encourage them to believe they can use Ontario grasses. If the government had a plan like the one it just announced in mind some time ago, it should have seen to it that suitable grasses were available for seeding.
When you run into an individual who is in poor financial shape you ask, for what will he use this grass? He will be in much too poor a financial condition to buy livestock at current market prices, and he must have some money to live on. True, he will receive $10 an acre for seeding his land to grass but as we have seen, Mr. Speaker, this farmer of necessity will have half his land out of use for two years in order to collect the $10. This means that part of his land probably will not be used for two years running. He will have to cultivate the land maybe twice; he will have to spray or he will have to swath weeds if he
March 2, 1970

does not spray it. Also, he must pay taxes on the land for two years and, as I say, the land will be out of production for two years because he cannot afford to put livestock on it. He must keep his land out of production this way in order to obtain $10 an acre. Clearly, that farmer cannot afford to subscribe to this plan at all.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has told us in this debate that the government will probably set up mediation boards or settlement boards to deal with problems as they arise. I can tell him that just about half the people out west will appear before these boards, because this plan was not designed to deal with people, and farmers in particular. As I see it, it is just another bureaucratic monster spawned by those people who brought forward the white paper earlier this year.
I think in this country too many boards and agencies have tried for too long to thwart the law of supply and demand. Who can tell me that farmers today with surplus grain would not be better off if they could sell it for 75 cents a bushel or even $1 a bushel, instead of letting it pile up and of accepting what the government is offering in allowable sales? If we had used the $1 billion we spent during the last 15 years for grain storage, together with the $140 million to be spent under this program, for price supports of grain to sell it on the markets of the world, we should not be where we are today. Any such program would have had a far greater multiplier effect on the economy than the sort of subsidy now being proposed.
It is my experience that western farmers do not want charity and programs like this one. Programs like the one proposed make the people of the rest of Canada imagine that western farmers are receiving charity. They do not want charity; they want better Canadian salesmanship in world markets. Some say, "But if you enter into national competition in an open market, farmers may have to take lower prices for their wheat, and they cannot afford that." I ask, are not the United States, Australia and other countries competing in the open markets of the world, and are their farmers taking in much less money than ours? I do not think so. Certainly we must compete. We cannot live under the artificial world marketing system we have accepted in this country for very much longer. I have been speaking about charity: when programs like this one are implement-
Wheat Acreage Reduction ed, the people of the urban and industrial centres of our country think the farmers are accepting charity.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
The media-I do not know whether it does this on instructions from the minister- sometimes projects this image also. Last Saturday I watched a CBC television program which originated in Regina where some farmers from Indian Head were interviewed. They were interviewed in, of all places, the local bar. This may seem a little laughable but all it proves is that farmers drink a little beer. There are not many of them drinking much beer these days. Why does the media not perform its services in other arenas? Why do they project the farmers in this condition? Situations are portrayed, for example, of Indian reservations where there are poor, starving children huddled in the cold with their parents in tarpaper shacks. Why doesn't the media show what they do with their spare time? Why do they not go to the local pub where these people spend 75 per cent of the treaty money they get? Why do they not depict the situation as it really is, instead of segregating the farmer and depicting him in the barroom, when he is one of the most independent hardworking people in our nation?
A similar situation exists with tractors. The news media show big, expensive machines on the farms, suggesting that these fellows cannot be poor. They do not mention the large debt on this machinery. In many cases it is only through the generosity of the machine dealers that the farmer has this equipment. If the farmers are ever forced out of business, the situation will be different in the cities and the industrial areas of Canada. This is one of the greatest areas of productivity in this country, indeed in the world.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board suggested we should go across the nation and help him sell this program by explaining it to the people. The minister spoke to groups of people. I do not know whether there were 1,000 or 600 people at Mackenzie. He spoke to 500 people somewhere else. Why does the minister not ask some members of the opposition to fly out there with him in the government Jetstar and explain the situation to the people? There are some things we could explain as clearly as the minister.
I wish to again emphasize the hypocritical attitude of the government in proposing these
4276	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction measures. The government says it is going to spend a huge amount of money on the farmers, but in actual fact this will never come true.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, a number of members of this House who are practical farmers with an adequate knowledge of the situation have torn into shreds the program announced by the minister last Friday, black Friday, the day the cabinet representatives from western Canada sold their country down the river. These members have made wide enough holes in that program to drive through a dozen combines.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), a supporter of the government, very effectively disclosed all the defects and faults in this scheme. Of course, he ended up by accepting the challenge of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) to become a patriotic Canadian. Despite all the great faults and evils of this scheme, as a Liberal backbencher he felt compelled to follow the idea. It is very difficult for me to understand this program in light of the very searching and telling criticism which he so effectively put forward.
The Secretary of Agriculture of the United States thought this was a great scheme for Canada. He congratulated the minister and the government of Canada for their fortitude and courage. There has been a program similar to this in effect for a number of years in the United States. This program in many respects has been a complete disaster which has separated town and country and has forced people apart. It has not been a good and effective program. I think what the American Secretary of Agriculture was really doing was saying, "Thank goodness another sucker came into the game," and tongue in cheek he laughed out loud. He was glad to welcome the Canadian minister into the club of those who engage in this act of stupidity.
The minister talks about patriotism. He has invited us to enter into a holy crusade. He wants us to come to the lobby where he will pin red crosses on us so that we can go fighting as knights on our chargers to topple down the mountain of wheat. We are not against this program because it was introduced by the government but because it is not a good program. In many respects it is defective. This is why I want to speak on it briefly.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia and other hon. members have said, this program

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
or something akin to it should have been introduced a year or a year and a half ago as a temporary measure, with a firm indication that within a year the government would make a far more serious and permanent attempt to solve the problem. We all saw the problem. No one knows better than Your Honour that not one week has passed without the minister being questioned with regard to it. We have put forward suggestions in a constructive and objective way, but the abominable no-men on the other side refused to listen to the proposals which we advanced.
The hon. member for Assiniboia let something slip today. He indicated that this scheme was being considered last summer, yet today the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) are unable to answer concisely and with a degree of certainty simple ordinary questions about how the program is going to work. They are flying by the seat of their pants making up the rules as they go along. They have not thought the program through.
Is there going to be legislation? Is this money going to be passed as an item in the estimates? What are the regulations? To what act are they going to be attached? What is the authority for passing the regulations? The minister nods. It will take more than nods, Mr. Speaker. We still have some semblance of parliamentary government left, although certain members opposite are doing their best to reduce it by attrition. Until they succeed it will be essential for parliamentary amenities to be observed. There will have to be some means of appropriating this money. Questions with regard to the amount have been asked by a dozen hon. members and by people all over Canada.
I have received a number of phone calls and letters from people who are very interested in knowing how this program will work. A sensible question was asked by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), which the minister was unable to answer. He asked a question about the situation where one man had all his land under summer fallow last year and another had all his land in crop. How will this plan apply in that situation? People want to know precisely how this program will affect them. My hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Downey) has inquired about his own situation, as have a number of other hon. members. There have been no answers to these questions.
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Daniel Aiken Lang: Write me a letter and I will reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: If it is a letter which goes through the Post Office, the minister will probably get it by next July when he talks about making the first payments. For some months I, along with others in this House, have been dinning into the ears of the government the seriousness of the debt situation which faces farmers in western Canada, particularly in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. The minister brushed aside these representations. He told the House he could take no action of the kind we proposed. Mr. Speaker, the average payment which might be expected under this program would, I venture to say, not amount to one-quarter of the interest payments which have to be met by farmers in western Canada this year.
The accumulation of interest and taxes to be paid will probably amount to four or five times the gross sum for which provision is made here-and there is no indication of what the net payment will be. Farmers cannot plant forage or otherwise vary their crops without spending a good deal of money. But there has been no indication of the amount they are likely to get, and in these circumstances I have no hesitation in saying that the sheer accumulation of debt falling on these unfortunate people of western Canada will amount to four or five times the likely net payment under this program.
The people of western Canada are practical. They know one cannot dispose of crops with a wave of a magic wand. They want to hear that the government has an intelligent and honest plan on a long-range basis for dealing with this problem. When I put this matter to him last Friday, the minister said he was in touch with the governments of the four other wheat producing countries in the hope of working out a scheme. What, in the name of Heaven, have he and his colleagues been doing for the last two years during which time the problem of wheat marketing has become increasingly serious and obvious?
The minister talks about rationalizing our stocks of wheat. What will these other countries do? Will they rationalize their stocks or will they, when they see that we have substantially reduced our accumulation of wheat, simply maintain supplies at the former level by growing more? As I was saying to the minister on Friday, assuming there is a substantial acreage put into summer fallow, what
DEBATES	4277
Wheat Acreage Reduction is likely to be done in the following year? Will this become a permanent arrangement? The minister suggests it will not. But if we look at history we find that allegedly temporary schemes of this nature have a habit of becoming permanent. In the same way this might become a permanent feature of the agricultural economy. This is what I fear, particularly bearing in mind the approach taken by a government which does not seem to know what its final plans will be.
I wish to revert, as I did on Friday, to the statement made by Mr. S. C. Hudson, a former director of economics for the Department of Agriculture. In a statement made on behalf of the Economic Council of Canada in a special report, he alleged the Canadian government had failed to deal with this problem in several specific aspects. There had been a lack of uniformity in protein content, a lack of flexibility in pricing and insufficient attention to marketing. This is in connection with wheat. Others have repeated this statement. Nevertheless, neither the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister without Portfolio, nor any of the members who have spoken from the government side have attempted to deal with this criticism.
Had either of the ministers, in conjunction with last Friday's announcement, indicated that there was a real intention of responding to these criticisms I am confident the people of western Canada would feel there was far more promise in the situation than they do today. It is my honest belief that when the farmers and the people in the small communities who serve them begin to realize how foolish, how defective is this scheme, in the sense that it is being offered as a cure for the difficulties in which western people find themselves, they will generate a tide of protest which will sweep through this country and end up here in Ottawa. The complaints the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has received in connection with the iniquitous proposals in the white paper on taxation will be nothing to what will be said and done by the farmers in western Canada when they realize how defective is this scheme. The minister should take note because he is the one who, having sown this seed, will live to reap the whirlwind.
There are difficult tasks before us, we know. The previous government faced a task of this sort nine or ten years ago. We found that the market for rapeseed, which during the war had been considerable, was diminish-
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction mg. A number of private members in our party took it upon themselves to make a case before the Board of Transport Commissioners, as it then was, and at the same time we persuaded the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Alvin Hamilton, to undertake a number of experimental surveys within his department. In the result, we were able to get the Railway Act amended in such a way that rapeseed was classed as a grain and could be carried to export positions at the same rates as wheat, oats and barley. The government assisted in promoting the sale of rapeseed until today its export occupies an important place in our national economy. This is an indication of what can be done by a government with enterprise, knowledge and a feeling for the best interests of the farmers and others in the agricultural community. The farmers want to know that there is a government in Ottawa which has their interest at heart and is prepared to take the steps essential to maintaining a viable agriculture economy in western Canada.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
There are many other points. For example, it is about time the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) took a look at this situation. There is a strong case to be made, a case that we have attempted to make in this House, for trying to change the economic mix in western Canada by injecting into certain areas a reasonable measure of industrial development to form the basis for carrying forward the country's economy in conjunction with the agricultural economy. I think this is a very essential step, yet the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has ignored our suggestions.
Then what about making some effort to try to secure employment opportunities for the people of western Canada? This, too, would be part of a wide program which, taken in conjunction with this measure, would probably prove acceptable and would indicate to the people of western Canada that the government of Canada was indeed cognizant of their troubles and prepared to do something about them.
If the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, are prepared to look at these suggestions on this basis, I assure them they will have the strongest support from the members of this party. But standing by itself, this program is defective. It does not meet the situation, and having in mind the psychological attitude of the people in the

west, in my opinion it will end up by aggravating and worsening the situation that now exists in western Canada.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am participating in this debate, perhaps more specifically related to the western provinces, as a member of Parliament and as a citizen of an eastern province of Canada which certainly represents a potential market for western wheat.
I am in favour of the $100 million for western farmers. It is real evidence that the government is aware of its responsibilities and wishes to meet its commitments. I have before me a Chinese proverb which says:
If you plan for one year, sow grain. If you plan for 10 years, plant a tree. If you plan for 100 years, teach the people. By sowing grain once, you will reap once. By planting a tree, you will reap ten fold. But by teaching the people, you will reap a hundredfold.
We are now faced with a diversification in farming. I mentioned last week that agricultural productivity would increase annually at a rate of about 6.9 per cent during the next decade, compared with 3 per cent in the industry.
It is essential, and I think all members of the House will agree, that we give a new type of leadership to agriculture. We must study new markets, we must consider every alternative and seek the best possible solution.
All hon. members are very actively seeking solutions to the problem. First, I would like to define this problem taking into account the relative importance of agriculture in the economy of the country.
The western farmers produce 55 per cent of all agricultural commodities in Canada, of which more than 40 per cent are for export. However, in the eastern provinces production is lower than $500 million on a total of $2 billion, and only from 10 to 15 per cent of such production is for export.
However, problems are absolutely alike in the East and in the West, as in both there is surplus production. Only one department is concerned and the decision to subsidize western farmers to the extent of $100 million seems to me altogether normal.
However, when I learned last Friday that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board had announced compensation payments of some $100 million to western farmers, I was virtually thunder-
March 2, 1970

struck. Still, I got my senses back quickly enough when I recalled the trip made in the Prairies by the Committee on Agriculture and during which I realized just how urgent it was to solve that problem.
First, I thought that the statement made in the House last Friday was likely to eliminate part of the problem but, afterwards, I wondered whether this was really the ultimate solution. There are two questions: Is production going to be cut back, or are we going to be more competitive on agricultural markets, after studying them?
Here is what worries me most: if we cut down the acreage of productive land and boost fertilization by means of chemicals, we shall then be able to increase production. Production will then increase and even if the acreage is reduced, the productivity will be greater.
I would have preferred that a limit be set on the production per acre. The acreage can be reduced while its productivity is increased. Thus, a certain distinction can be made as to this problem and the purpose aimed at.
Mr. Speaker, I should not like to dwell on the subject before the House; nevertheless, I may say that the western farmers perhaps have not been ill-used as much as is being said, taking into account the present situation of the eastern provinces.
I have here the April-June 1969 issue of the quarterly agricultural statistical review, authorized by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On page 97, it says that the net income of the three western provinces increased 141 per cent from 1954 to 1968; in comparison, the net revenue of the Quebec farmers, for the same period, increased 14 per cent only. The western provinces, therefore, have not been that much forgotten in budget management.
I would not pretend that our farmers wish to live on subsidies. On the contrary, they are too proud, I believe, to depend on social welfare. We have efficient producers, as shown by the productivity percentage which I mentioned at the beginning.
What worries me is the future of the farmer in the eastern provinces in view of the policy to reduce subsidies. Last year, the cost of potash was increased, and that affected the cost of our farm products. The estimates informed us this year that the transportation subsidies for feed grain will be reduced by $5 million.
Wheat Acreage Reduction
We do not oppose the reduction of that subsidy, but we seriously wonder what it is good for. The province of Quebec is granted $10 million for feed grain freight assistance, which benefits the western producer more than the eastern consumer.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
I believe that if we accept a reduction of $5 million in the feed grain transportation subsidy for shipments to the East, the minister will have to be asked to establish free trade between the provinces. In my view, the Canadian Wheat Board should perhaps deal with exports, but if trade is free, the transportation subsidy may not be necessary. But it shall be necessary that we have access to western grain and also that the Wheat Board make no distinction between East and West, as this contributes to an increase in the production costs of poultry, milk and eggs.
Mr. Speaker, such a policy worries me because our milk producers have invested millions of dollars in the construction of poultry-yards, pig sties and stables, and this policy will divide the country, thus preventing us from competing with western producers who will then be able to use their surplus of grain for pigs, eggs and poultry.
Then, you have the choice of two things: either take a smaller subsidy for the transportation of feed grain or set up a free grain market between the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend too much time on the subject, but since we are faced with a double problem of wheat and milk surpluses, we have studied the policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission. We heard the representatives of 14 national associations in order to examine that policy which involved a production cut of 10 million pounds.
The new assistance program of $100 million did not impress any of the members of the Committee on Agriculture, although we are not the least opposed to it.
I conclude my comments by pointing out that according to 1980 forecasts, meat consumption will increase by almost 50 per cent and poultry consumption by almost 75 per cent. In view of the policy to reduce transportation subsidies for feed grain, we will not be able to produce and meet competition, which will kill agriculture in eastern Canada.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, a rather feeble attempt was made earlier
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction in the evening to suggest that the hero of the piece in connection with the policy announced by the government was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think tonight we had a far more realistic exhibition of the interest of the Prime Minister in this particular question, when, after my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) had commenced to speak, the Prime Minister entered the House and indicated that he wished to make an announcement. I think no member of the opposition had any objection to this as such. The Prime Minister on occasion has very important matters to announce. If it was indeed a very important matter that required consideration at that moment, no one would stand in his way. However, we had an announcement which I think was not so urgent that it could not have at least awaited the completion of the speech of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.
Subsequently, as soon as the Prime Minister had made his statement and after exchanging a couple of comments privately with colleagues on that side of the House, he left the House prior to the completion of the address of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I think this gave a very real and accurate indication of the degree of interest in this problem by the Prime Minister.
I think when we are discussing the issues before us this evening we should keep in mind those about whom we are talking. We are talking about the farmer and his family; we are talking about his community; we are talking about the food-producing industry and about all other segments of the economy which are related to agriculture. We had a policy announcement last Friday which I consider to be the culmination and climax of a long series of events involving mismanagement, bungling and policy errors. Now the farmer has to pay the shot. He is left with little in the way of real alternatives in the present situation, on the basis of the announcement made last Friday. He is locked-in on the basis of the quota system as it is now being developed. He is almost being forced to take land out of production.
The minister and government officials have stated that the income of the farmer will not be changed because he will just be selling the inventory that he already has on hand. I hope the people of Canada and government members realize that what the farmer will be selling during the coming year from his inventory is what he will have to live off, secure his income from and pay the greater

portion of his expenses out of for 1970-71, and that this is some of the income which helped to build paper-income figures over the past several years but was not cash income in the pocket of the farmer.
We have had, of course, a very important policy announcement by the government which will affect every person in western Canada. I presume a good deal of study went into this policy before it was finally decided upon. I understand that there were a number of studies carried out leading up to the conclusions and decisions of the government. I appeal to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who has been involved in this matter, to table some of the relevant studies on this matter in order to provide fuller information on the subject and which would contribute materially, I suggest, to a more informed discussion of the issues before us at the present time.
Of course, we have considerable background on this situation which I do not intend to go into in detail at this hour of the night. Several years ago we had the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time: You grow the wheat and we will sell it. Later on we had the development of the switch-over from the International Wheat Agreement to the International Grains Arrangement, which left very serious deficiencies in terms of the over-all international marketing situation. Then we had an 11-month period between the expiration of the old International Wheat Agreement and the commencement of the new International Grains Arrangement. This, of course, produced a very serious situation for the western farmer and witnessed the commencement of the disappointing slide in the international wheat marketing situation.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
We had price drops at that time. Later, in March of 1969, there was a policy decision to drop prices below the International Grains Arrangement minimum. We have as yet had no indication from the government that there will be any price guarantees in terms of the final payment for the 1968-69 crop, for the present crop year 1969-70 or the next crop year 1970-71.
Several members have made reference to the prospect of a new grading system being introduced, which has been referred to for many years. I first heard the chief chemist of the Board of Grain Commissioners outline this new system of protein grading over 20
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
years ago. As yet the House of Commons has not been given the details of this plan. Some months ago the Financial Post and other publications were able to obtain some information on this matter, but the members of the House and the farmers have not been able to obtain any detailed information on it. There have been indications and suggestions that it would be tabled in the House and that a bill would be introduced, but we still have not seen it.
Within the framework of the plan announced by the government there are, of course, a number of very important questions.
I was pleased to hear one statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in which he indicated that the government would be prepared to take a look at some of the details of the plan as it was announced, in order to try to remove some inequities which might arise. I certainly hope this is done, because I think it is badly needed.
One of the questions that comes to my mind concerns consultation with other nations. I note that in his statement the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) made reference to the fact that he is proposing a meeting with the governments of Australia, Argentina, the U.S.A. and the Commission of the European Economic Community at the ministerial level to review the Canadian program and consider complementary action by others designed to compound its benefits internationally. It seems to me that is no way to carry on international negotiations and international affairs. First of all you give away everything that you have to bargain with, and then you see what the other fellow is going to do. This is a rather poor application of negotiating principles.
Reference has already been made to the problems created for the farmer who in fact adjusted his production last year. I urge the minister to take a look at this matter and to make adjustments in the program. I can give him examples, perhaps not quite as severe as the one referred to by another member earlier this evening, but of a farmer in the minister's constituency with whom he is well acquainted, I believe, and who has 680 acres of cultivated land. In 1968 he had 320 acres of wheat under production; last year he reduced it to 120 acres of wheat. Plans for the coming year involved some 150 acres of wheat, and he planned to increase his summer fallow acreage. On the basis of the plan announced, he would be left out in the cold.
DEBATES	4281
Wheat Acreage Reduction
This is not a proper application of the plan. In fact, I think there are other considerations as well. What about the farmer who maintains an acreage of registered seed? How is he affected if he maintained a reasonable acreage of registered seed, even though he increases his summer fallow acreage? Some consideration should be given, not to the person who goes in and out of registered seed but to the farmer who produces registered seed on a regular basis.
What about the situation involving landlord-tenant arrangements? Here I refer to arrangements involving crop shares. There is no problem with respect to cash rentals, at least in terms of the landlord. It is the tenant's problem whether he can find the money or not, but at least there is no problem inherent in the arrangement itself. But where there are crop sharing arrangements, how is the landlord affected? This matter was referred to earlier this evening.
Several references have been made to the problem involved in the incentive that has been given for greater summer fallow production this year. One of the most serious problems has to do with the area of the Prairie provinces wherein they engage basically in two-year cycle patterns of production. Generally, farmers year after year leave one-half of their land in summer fallow. Will these farmers be expected to summer fallow their land two years in a row? The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) suggested that basically this was a good program. I think many farmers in his constituency will not consider it to be a good program.
I would also raise a question about the situation of farmers in areas where more summer fallow work is required. It is well known that there are many areas in the Prairies where only two or three summer fallow operations are required in a year, whereas in other areas six or seven operations are required. I think this produces a problem which should be taken into account.
Beyond that I suggest that a legitimate question can be asked whether in fact it is reasonable to ask any farmer to take more than a certain percentage of his land out of production under this crash program. I think it is very unreasonable to suggest this, if that man is expected to continue farming in the future.
Questions were asked earlier today about forage seed prices and the possible pressure on prices that will come about as a result of
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction the government's announcement. I think this question should be given further consideration. In my own province of Saskatchewan a great deal of pressure has been put on the provincial economy as a result of the downfall in farm income, and I suggested that there will be even greater pressure.
The situation in Saskatchewan is reflected in the most recent population figures which show that between October 1, 1969, and January 1, 1970, the population of that province dropped by 8,000 people-from 956,000 to 948,000. In fact, from October 1, 1968, to January 1, 1970, the total drop was some 12,000 people. I think this is a reflection of the situation which the Saskatchewan economy faces. We see this evidenced in many areas in terms of retail sales, closed businesses and shops, increased unemployement and reduced capital investment.
On the other hand, we find very little in the way of alternative programs offered by the federal government in the coming year to offset this situation. We have a very poor regional development incentive program. We have nothing in the way of a public works program for Saskatchewan. Certainly, it seems to me that the federal government has not given adequate consideration to the very serious problem facing the Saskatchewan economy.
It has been suggested by the government that they will be spending in the neighbourhood of $100 million or more on this program. I suggest this simply will not happen and, in fact, a much smaller amount will be spent. The government has, I suggest, even within its own inner circles, admitted that a much smaller accomplishment will be achieved than has been indicated. This is a short-term program. It is designed basically as an incentive to take land out of production. It is not an income maintenance program, and it seems to me the government has to be concerned with income maintenance. I suggest that we need more programs in the way of income maintenance for farmers if we are to avoid a disastrous situation.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
I suggest that up to now we have had a total lack of planning of the Prairie economy in western Canada, in terms of federal government programs. I suggest the federal government has completely ignored the report which was just published by the Economic Council of Canada, written by S. C. Hudson, a

well known agricultural economist, entitled, "Future Market Outlets for Canadian Wheats and other Grains." In this study he notes that on the basis of market projections for wheat over the next several years there is room for wheat acreage of some 23 million acres. That is only a 6-million acre drop from the 1968 figure.
On the other hand, he points out that by 1975 there should be a diversion of almost 8 million acres of improved land from wheat to coarse grains, forage and pasture crops, and of something over 2 million additional acres to rapeseed production. Thus, in terms of his projection the increased acreage required for coarse grains, forage, pasture crops and rape-seed production far outweighs the drop in wheat production or wheat acreage that he envisages. But we do not see this reflected in the government's program at the present time. We do not see it reflected in the manner in which the government is treating farmers under the announced program.
We are not just speaking of agriculture; we are speaking of more than just farmers: we are speaking of the prairie economy and the effects of this program on the entire economy of Canada and Canadian society. It will affect town, city and country alike. I suggest that the present situation and the plans as they have been developed can harm all of Canada.
I want to make it quite clear that we in this party are committed to the principle of orderly marketing, which is presently under attack from some quarters. Ways need to be found to improve this system in some areas, but we have to make it quite clear that the continuance of orderly marketing is critical and essential if we are to solve our present problems. We need to extend, develop and help the system as it has been developed up to the present time. But we have a ridiculous situation where the farmer has been told, "You have done such a good job of producing food over the last several years that we do not need you this year." The farmer is now expected to crawl into some gopher hole, hibernate for a year and come out in the spring of 1971.
I suggest that the government's policy, if in fact it is successful and carried through to its culmination, is insensitive and will be destructive. I suggest it will be unfair and inequitable and that it will create havoc in the Prairie economy. We need to ensure the survival of a viable agriculture and a viable farm structure in western Canada. We need
March 2, 1970

adequate measures to assure farmers of a stable income and a stable pattern of production and farm organization for future years.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the hour is getting late, and I shall keep my remarks brief because many of the problems relating to the acreage reduction plan have already been gone over in the debate. The wheat acreage reduction plan that we are discussing this evening is negative. It is an admission of failure. This program that was announced last Friday by the minister who speaks for the Canadian Wheat Board is an unquestionable admission of the government's failure to sell wheat.
The wheat sales statistics available at the moment indicate that Canadian wheat sales to date are down 31 per cent for the first four months of this crop year and are the lowest in 14 years. If we look at our competitors' record for the same period, we find that Argentina has increased wheat sales by approximately 60 per cent, Australia by 50 per cent and the U.S.A. by 40 per cent.
The minister stated this evening that our wheat sales will show a substantial increase by the end of the crop year. He suggested they might reach 375 million bushels. Of course, I hope he is right, because naturally all sales will be appreciated by our farmers. But this amount falls far short of our share of world markets when the original IWA was effective. In those years we reached sales peaks of 500 million to 600 million bushels. So, Mr. Speaker, our western farmers cannot really get very excited about a 375-million bushel sales total this year, and we must all agree it will make a pretty small dent in a one billion-bushel wheat carryover presently in our storage bins, to say nothing of what may be added after this year's crop is harvested.
I give the government credit for finally realizing that there is a very serious problem facing western agriculture, but I cannot give it any credit for saying that this program will solve the problem. One could honestly say it is too little and too late. It is still basically only crumbs from the master's table. At first blush the general public, the press and those not too familiar with the western situation would say that $140 million is a lot of money for one industry. But let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that it has already been fed back to me from western farmers that in all probability about $40 million may be the maximum that farm-
Wheat Acreage Reduction ers will be able to utilize under this proposal. This of course remains to be seen. I might mention here that when I say "fed back to me," I had the privilege of attending a meeting in Saskatoon over the weekend where our PC Party was having a leadership convention, and we had delegates, 350 in number, from every corner of Saskatchewan. We had a first-class discussion of the various problems affecting these people, we heard their points of view and I may say that they are not very optimistic.
The biggest and most immediate criticism I hear is that $6 per acre for summer fallow only pays the cost of cultivation and keeping the weeds down for a year. What does the farmer do about the high land taxes, the interest on his loans against the land, the cash required to keep his wife and family, the interest on machinery payments, etc? The summer fallow payment should have been at least $10 per acre to be realistic.
In regard to the forage crop plan it also falls flat on its face because of the cost to farmers in loss of a marketable product. In the first place, cultivation costs and the purchase of grass seed will take up the $10 per acre bonus at once. In fact, it is becoming clear that grass seeds, if they are at all available, will cost 70 cents or 80 cents per pound in some cases. This indicates that here is an area that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) should check into at once.
One of the strongest complaints I hear is based on the fact that due to the high summer fallow voluntary increase last year, some 15 per cent, coupled with the much greater summer fallow hopefully predicted by the government this year under the present plan, if the weather situation turned dry we could conceivably have the worst dust bowl in Canadian history throughout the whole Palliser triangle.
Many hon. members, including the western Liberal member from Assiniboia and my colleague from Battle River, have pointed out quite clearly the many inadequacies of this acreage reduction plan and have implored the government to review the whole program. Therefore, it is not my intention at this late hour to bore hon. members by repeating these complaints. But I would like to place one or two quotations on the record to indicate to government members opposite that all is not well with the plan and that all is not light and happiness with those affected by it.
4284	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction
For instance, I wish to quote a small article reporting a speech by no less a personage than a former member of the House of Commons from the riding of Assiniboia, who is now a Senator and who at one time, under the regime of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, was promised the agricultural portfolio. Therefore, I feel hon. members opposite must have confidence in what he says. It is headed, "Argue Criticizes Policy" and reads as follows:
Senator Hazen Argue Saturday called the government wheat policy shocking and unacceptable.
Mr. Argue charged the government of tampering with the quota system and changing the rules to decree that farmers shall cut back on wheat acreage.
"Surely in a democracy where participation ought to be sought, no policy should ever be introduced that has such a revolutionary effect before being given a thorough airing amongst those it will affect," Mr. Argue said in a telephoned statement from Ottawa.
Mr. Argue also claimed that $6 an acre is an unrealistically small payment and said the cost of summerfallow is that much or more; consequently there is no payment for land taxes and there is no financial compensation for loss of the crop.
He suggested the new wheat policy be placed before public meetings similar to the manner of Mr. Benson's procedure with the white paper on taxation.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
Mr. Argue also suggested that a House of Commons committee should study the proposals and conduct a mail survey involving the Prairies' 180,000 grain producers.
"It is essential that policies have the support of the producers," said Mr. Argue.
Here is another excerpt under the heading "Grain Expert Offers Views". This is the president of Federal Grain Limited, Mr. George Sellers, and he gives the government a pat on the back saying that the program should prove effective and he qualifies it by saying:
"We are concerned about some of the mechanics of the announced program," said George Sellers in a news release-
Mr. Sellers said the wheat surplus is not distributed equally between all producers and therefore many farmers who have no surplus will likely grow wheat in the coming crop year on part of their acreage.
He added that it was doubtful if there can be much more than a 1,000,000-acre increase in forage crops because the announced program as some forage seed is limited in supply.
"We are concerned that many producers might attempt to grow forage crops in areas that are not adaptable to their production such as the Palliser triangle," he said.

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
"This is of particular concern today because a large percentage of the surplus wheat is located in this area."
Mr. Sellers warned that with the marked increase in summer fallow acreage during the coming year, soil drifting could become a serious problem unless special precautions are taken.
This, of course, has been emphasized by many people already. Other newspaper headings read "Wheat Plan Admission of Failure," "Cautious Optimism Greets Wheat Proposal," "Hardly Worth While," "Feast or Famine". I should like to quote briefly from a letter I received from a farmer. I do not know the man personally, but from his letter he appears to represent the average type of farmer and he puts some facts very pointedly. The letter is dated February 28, from a Mr. W. H. Trudgeon of Whitewood, Saskatchewan who says:
A word of warning. Dire consequences may result unless these repressive measures are withdrawn from the newly designed regulations affecting delivery. The so-called incentive payments on land taken out of production of wheat is almost totally inadequate for most farmers in this area. The outlined program is unrealistic in the extreme. If the governement is going to dictate how many acres any particular producer may plant, they must be able to provide that producer with an adequate subsidy per bushel in order to help his income up to an acceptable level. The policy seems rigid and also complicated. I would suggest that meetings of the government officials concerned take place all over the grain growing area of the west with the farmers concerned because conditions are varied. What would help some farmers would strangle others, possibly the majority. It may be sufficient to observe that time is of the essence. The anger of the people here about such meddling with our basic freedoms is barely suppressed with such trash as has been delivered to an otherwise law-abiding people. We expect action to protect our right to run our own affairs at least with some sense of personal freedom. We await your reactions in this matter with interest.
Mr. Speaker, that gives you just a few samples of the current thought in connection with this matter. In conclusion I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio who has introduced this acreage reduction who he consulted in western Canada before bringing in this plan. He has mentioned discussing it with farm organizations but strange to say, when I was in Regina early today I was informed that the government of Saskatchewan was calling an emergency cabinet meeting today to discuss this plan and its failings. I do not have to remind hon. members what the political complexion1 of the Saskatchewan government is. Surely the minister and the government should have had consultations with the premiers and the ministers of the
March 2, 1970
three Prairie provinces before introducing this half-baked plan.
Mr. Speaker, before this plan can become successfully effective, the government will have to give many more answers and make many changes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I promise to be brief because I know that if my colleagues in the House are as tired as I am, brevity will be about the best thing I can produce at this time. I support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) this afternoon and agree with a number of things that were said about the details of the legislation introduced in the House last Friday, things said not only by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar but by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) and several others. That is one of the handicaps in participating in the debate at this time of night, Mr. Speaker.
There is one thing I really do want to stress, however, and this is as a result of a number of phone calls that I have received, one as late as ten o'clock tonight, stressing the disillusionment and disappointment of many people with small farms in my constituency in regard to the announcement of Friday last regarding the reduction of wheat lands by 22 million or 24 million acres. This is going to affect many smaller farmers in a negative way, the farmer on the half or three-quarter section with 200 or 300 acres of cultivated land. It will not help them very much at all and many will be worse off than before because they depended on the unit quota to pay immediate expenses in the fall. In many areas of my constituency there are small farms where people are going to feel the pinch when they find next year that they do not have the opportunity to deliver 400 bushels of wheat in a unit quota.
This is something we must emphasize to the government as members of political parties, that we must give the opportunity to the smaller farmers as well as the larger ones with units of 1,000 or 1,500 acres. The small family farm still has a place in Canadian society, a place in western Canada, and I think this could be just another way of speeding the day when the small farmer is forced off the land. I should hate to see this happen, Mr. Speaker.
In many ways this plan is nothing but a teaser to the farmers. They are being provid-
Wheat Acreage Reduction ed with $6 or $10 an acre to take their land out of wheat production. This is barely enough to cover the cost of summer fallow. On top of this the farmer has to make a living and has to meet his expenses from last year and provide for the year ahead.
People in my constituency have been waiting for a long time and with anticipation for an announcement from this government and I know many of them are disappointed in the announcement of last Friday. It was a unique announcement in many ways. It was an admission by the government that they had failed in their marketing policies and that the government did not really have a solution. The only solution they offered, to take wheat land out of production, is a great insult to many farmers. It is also a great contradiction when we think that more than half the people of the world are either hungry or dying of starvation while we in western Canada have a surplus of grain.
[DOT] (12 midnight)
We have the capacity to produce even more grain, but we cannot sell it. Food is one of the greatest tools for peace there is. Hungry people in the world will rebel, no matter where they live or under what political system they live. That is what I must stress again and again, because it is something the government has forgotten as it goes about governing the country day to day. There are many contributions we can make in the nation and the world, and we must introduce vast changes in our way of doing things pretty soon, not only for our own sake but for the sake of the people of the world.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) has been undertaking interesting activities and making interesting statements. In one of his statements he said that we spend more time in this House talking about agriculture than about any other subject. Perhaps he is right. We spend a great deal of time talking about agriculture, but is it not ironic that the more we talk about it, the less seems to be done about it? The government never takes our hints and never seems to listen to us. Some say that Parliament is becoming more and more irrelevant. Perhaps that is true, perhaps we should not be talking in this debate.
Are we doing any good here and accomplishing anything? I ask myself this question more and more as every month goes by. Perhaps we are just sitting here and playing

4286	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction little games with each other; perhaps we are merely participating in a debating society and exchanging niceties and formalities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If that is correct, we must bring about some changes to make this institution meaningful to the people of the country-the people who count.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is not only the members of this House, members of all political parties, who have been pointing out problems and possible and feasible solutions to them; the people of this country have been mentioning them also. The Premiers of the three Prairie provinces-I refer to the Premier of my province, the Premier of Manitoba and the Premier of Alberta-have sent briefs to the federal government which, although representing different points of view, discuss the same or similar problems. Yet nothing seems to have been done about the problems of those provinces. In the government there are three cabinet ministers from western Canada, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lang), and the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba (Mr. Richardson), the Minister of Agriculture from Alberta (Mr. Olson). They should know what is happening. They have lived in western Canada all their lives. They should be sensitive and responsive to the way people feel out west. They should realize from their mail what is happening in their constituencies.
In addition, the government must be obtaining the views of the National Farmers Union, the wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations and private citizens. Yet those views are not being heeded. The government is not responding to the wishes of the people. This behaviour is characteristic. We shall have to solve our agricultural problems really quickly or this country will be in serious trouble.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government really do not care what is happening to the western farmer or the Prairie farmer. When farmers tell me they are getting more and angry in my area, quite frankly I do not blame them. What happened last July on the Prairies may be only a beginning to what may happen if something is not done immediately. I cannot overemphasize this. I know many farmers out west, including the people who voted for the hon. member for

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
Saskatoon-Humboldt, believe the Prime Minisister does not care about them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They know.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They think he has forgotten about them. Personally, I think the Prime Minister does not care; I think he has forgotten about the farmers; I think his attitude toward their problems is callous. He thinks the farmers are expendable. Let us look at the record. During the federal election campaign the Prime Minister said in Winnipeg, in June, 1968, "Let the farmers grow all the wheat they want. We will sell it. Do not worry about it." In November of the same year, after he had won the election, he said, "Why should I sell your wheat?" He is the Prime Minister of this country. The duty and purpose of the Prime Minister and the government is to do collectively what we as individuals cannot do. This is where the Prime Minister has let down the farmers of western Canada.
In February of this year the Prime Minister made a speech to the students of Carleton University. When questioned by the students as to why he was not helping western farmers he said, "When I was out there last summer I was asked by a group to give about $200 million in cash to western Canada. I don't think they really need it because some of them came to see me on $12,000 tractors and they probably live on $100,000 to $200,000 farms. I don't really think that most of these farmers are very poor." This is a very callous, cold and calculated attitude. I think it should be condemned by all members of this House, especially those from western Canada.
I do not say this with an ideological commitment, but it is no wonder the Premier of Saskatchewan and many provincial Liberals are embarrassed by the federal government. There is one member in this House who knows that-the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang). I cannot say that I blame the Saskatchewan Liberals, because the activities and inactivities of Ottawa have made the provincial Liberals very fearful about their chances in the next election.
I wish to deal with one or two more items before my time expires. If we look back over the election campaign it is very ironic that the Prime Minister had one issue that overrode all others, that of national unity, not only of bilingualism but economic disparities and inequities as they existed across this
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
country. This has been a real disappointment because we cannot have national unity in this or any country by having only bilingual equality. It is necessary to preserve national unity.
I am a strong supporter of bilingualism and biculturalism. I am currently studying French in order to try to understand the one-third of this country that is French speaking. I think we should all make efforts of this sort. We are only fooling ourselves if we think this is going to hold Canada together-it will not. There must be economic and social changes. All regions of this country must feel they are equal partners in Confederation. If they do not, Canada as a nation may not celebrate its 150th or 200th birthday.
It is very ironic that the Prime Minister who preached national unity, the eradication of economic disparities and inequities, has up until now contributed more to disunity in this country than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada. He is not only destroying the pocketbook of western farmers but their very way of life. This is very important. Other hon. members have pointed out that not only is the farmer suffering, but the small businessman and everyone else in the west.
The farmer has planted wheat year after year. The government says to him, "Don't grow wheat; we cannot sell it." The farmer is not given any alternative. It is like going to the doctor and saying, "Listen, Doctor, don't practise medicine; we have not enough hospitals for you." This is going to put many of our small farmers in a very precarious position. The small farmers cannot be sent into the cities because they will find themselves in a very foreign and alienated environment. Those who are unskilled and untrained will be faced with unemployment and will become part of the urban poor.
The minister could help alleviate the situation today in Saskatchewan and, indeed, all across the Prairies. This is becoming a national issue. Soon it will concern not only the Prairie people: already people in Ontario in the machinery industry have been laid off, and people in industries directly related to agriculture will be laid off in the very near future.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
The Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon could be doing a great deal to help. The people of western Canada are counting on him. Every time I go out west people ask
DEBATES	4287
Wheat Acreage Reduction me: "What is he really like? What will he do for us? Does he have the courage to face up to the Prime Minister?" Up to now I have said, "I hope he has. I have seen no evidence of it, but I think he will." I am not so sure, now. If the Minister without Portfolio does not have the courage to change government policy, he would be better off to resign as soon as possible. If he fails to do so, his leave of absence from the University of Saskatchewan will be over soon, as one member on this side remarked not long ago.
The situation is serious. Everyone involved is suffering financial hardship, not only the farmers but everyone in the province, particularly in a riding such as my own where most of the towns are relatively small and where everyone depends on farm income. Farm income has decreased, non-farm income has decreased. Unemployment has almost reached an all-time high and, as the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has said, the population has declined. I believe the only province which experienced a decrease in population last year was Saskatchewan.
As to markets, I believe they are available. We need to embark on a new sales policy. People are hungry, and people who are hungry are willing to eat our wheat provided we can trade with them and build up a barter system. We shall have to do this very soon. Again I plead with the Minister without Portfolio to do something to change government policy and the direction it is taking. If he fails to do so, he will not be the only one to suffer; others in western Canada will be suffering handicaps in the very near future.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to emphasize that the present wheat problem is very serious indeed. We who only three years ago were talking about growing all the wheat we could are now faced with the task of dealing with a carryover amounting to a billion bushels at the end of this crop year.
The factors which brought this situation about are many and varied. In the usual importing countries there has been a drive toward self-sufficiency through the greater utilization of fertilizers, new technology, water resources, pesticides and so on. For a time, at least, world cereal production seems to have caught up with world demand, with the consequence that there is a glut on the wheat markets of the world. Total wheat production increased 48 per cent between the years 1954-59 and 1966-67. The main factors
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction affecting wheat exports have been the cultivation of improved varieties of short-season rice and the trend toward double and triplecropping. This trend has been evident for a good many years; it has been encouraged for economic, technical and political reasons, but awareness of this development in Canada has been slight due to the separation of our marketing arrangements from the productive end of our agricultural system.
Along with increased acreage under production there has been a large increase in yield per acre. The average yield of wheat throughout the world has increased by 29 per cent; in Mexico the increase amounts to 200 per cent. This improvement has been going on slowly over the years. Again, almost all countries operate some form of price support, incentives and so on to obtain a specific objective. Tariffs and various restrictions imposed for this purpose make it very difficult for Canadian wheat to penetrate these markets.
The demand for feed grain is the fastest growing in the export field. Exports increased from 13.6 million tons in 1935-39 to 42.4 million tons in 1967, a growth of more than 300 per cent in 30 years. Unfortunately, Canada does not share in this market. We exported 73 million tons in 1935-39, increasing only to .78 million tons in 1967-68. In 1935 our share of the market amounted to 5.3 per cent but in 1967-68 it was only 1.3 per cent.
A large carryover in wheat is evident in all export nations as well as surpluses in countries that normally are classified as importers, such as Spain. As of July 1 the United States carryover was 810 million bushels, Canada's was 848 million bushels and Australia's was 250 million bushels. So our Prairie grain economy is in serious trouble indeed. It will require the best efforts of all to cope with the problems and to seek solutions. It is imperative that our Canadian program be developed and operated in terms of the real world and in such a manner as to allow us to compete. Our commodities must be competitive in quality, availability and price in order for us to sell our grains in world markets.
What does the government propose to do to remedy the situation? There is to be a payment of $6 per acre for summer fallow and $10 per acre for seeded grass. In addition there is to be a severe restriction in quota deliveries. The government has indicated that it believes and hopes that 22 million acres will be taken out of wheat this year. This

seems a bit impractical, and the initial reaction in my own riding has been mixed. I found few who felt that this would begin to solve the problems of overproduction of wheat.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems likely for various reasons that, at least over vast areas of western Canada, there will be little reduction in wheat acreage. Nearly all the farmers have indicated that they are likely to carry on much as usual; that they would sow as much wheat as they could reasonably expect to get rid of on their quota. The farmer must of necessity carry on as best he can under all circumstances.
If the government is afraid that the $140 million that would be paid if all acres that qualify were put into summer fallow, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) can rest assured that the farmers will not require nearly that much. It is more likely to be less than half that amount, and could easily be much less. The program is likely to have only marginal effect. Certainly, it seems that if there is an average crop in the west, next year will see as much wheat grown as we will dispose of at home or in our export markets. The program shows little imagination, and then only in the minds of the bureaucrats who are giving advice to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). The larger problems remain. The only real solution is to sell more Wheat or to diversify and sell the products as feed grains.
Dr. Irvine, director of the Board of Grain Commissioners, stated that the Canadian Wheat Board is losing out to Australia, the United States and the Soviet Union in sales because we do not sell wheat on a protein basis. Our sales to the United Kingdom have dropped from 78 million bushels to 55 million bushels due to the advent of new baking processes which are spreading to all western Europe. It is important to the British millers to use a high guaranteed protein wheat so that the wider use of home-grown, low protein wheat can be made. Some millers indicated that unless Canada supplied high grade protein wheat, they were not interested in Canadian wheat.
The same story is true all through France, Germany and other areas where a high percentage of bread flour grist is made up into low protein domestic soft wheat. This is also true in other markets in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and many Latin American countries. Dr. Irvine concluded that Canada can
March 2, 1970

[DOT]compete with any country in world markets because the quality of our wheat is still there. It is still an asset. But we must develop a protein grading system that will let us offer some of our wheat for sale on a guaranteed protein basis. Western Canada would be a lot happier if this government showed more signs of moving toward what is a desired goal. Even the minister in charge of the Wheat Board admitted on his return from London that the selling of wheat on a guaranteed protein basis was a necessity. So let the government hurry along with this desired reform.
A second area about which I should like to say a word is the handling of our rapeseed crop. Rapeseed, a Cinderella crop in past years, is in the opinion of many an agricultural crop that may have some future. The crop this year amounted to 40 million bushels. There is talk of being able to sell abroad up to 100 million bushels. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. We have not gone about the exploitation of this crop in a manner which would indicate that it had much future. Delivery at our ocean ports has been very slow. In Vancouver, for instance, there is a reservation of only 1,500,000 bushels for rapeseed. There has been no so-called free rapeseed in Vancouver for months; it has all been sold for months previously. If a buyer of rapeseed wishes to take delivery at Vancouver he has to wait nine or ten weeks because with the quota system, the block system of transportation and the shortage of cleaning facilities at Vancouver, it takes that long for the rapeseed to be obtained from the farmer's bin and moved to the ocean port.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)
This year there has been a world shortage of edible oil crops. We do not seem to have taken all the advantage of this situation or to have been able to exploit the market to the fullest. This may be because the Wheat Board is in charge of quotas and shipping yet is not involved in selling. Last fall there were persistent reports of sales of flaxseed being lost because flax was not available at ocean ports. Perhaps this was overemphasized, but the uneasy feeling remains that the Wheat Board did not do nearly as good a job as it might have done in this situation.
In the matter of feed grains it is necessary to pursue an aggressive policy. Last year in the world markets we only sold 26 million bushels of barley. This year's exports are con-

Wheat Acreage Reduction fidently expected to be much more. What is the difference? It seems to be that in the markets of the world we are now pricing our barley at a realistically competitive price. It is a lower price, but at least we are selling barley. Had such a policy been followed last year it is quite likely we could have done much better.
Those are only a few of the areas which could well be talked about. There are many areas in which much remains to be done. We have only really begun to think of what should be done in our sales areas. The government has become expressively legalistic and managing in its approach to the problems of western agriculture. The minister talks about export production, sales and how each would be balanced exactly. The government believes the farmers can be made into ciphers and that they will respond like trained ants. How wrong can the government be? If this is to be the main thrust of government policy, it leaves much to be desired; it is a pale shadow of what should be done. Western agriculture will have to wait longer before the minister will bring it to the promised land.
I suggest that the regulations suggested last Friday seem quite complex and difficult. I hope the minister will make every effort to publicize them, because each farmer will have to decide what the regulations mean to him. Let me close by reading what Premier Thatcher is quoted as having said, by the Western Producer of Thursday, February 26 at page 2:
Because of the farm crisis, he said, there is a "bitterness abroad in the Prairies which is somewhat frightening. I must tell this conference that unless far-reaching steps are taken soon, the agricultural industry of western Canada could be ruined for a decade.
With this in mind, I hope the minister will watch the grain problem on the Prairies.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here tonight to take part in this very important debate on a topic that concerns me very much. Let me refer briefly to one of the editorials in a western paper today, the Winnipeg Tribune, which states:
The best that can be said for the Ottawa scheme to curtail wheat growing is that it is better than nothing. The scheme may ease a desperate situation temporarily but it offers no permanent solution to the problems confronting Prairie grain farmers nor is it in any way a substitute for a federal long-term agricultural policy.
I think that sums it up fairly well. No doubt there are a few farmers who may capi-
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction talize on the situation to some extent and who are possibly not in the greatest of need. I come from the northern part of Saskatchewan, where the problem exists. Many of the farmers there have been cutting down their wheat acres for a number of years, and this year many of my constituents did not grow any wheat. Last year many of these farmers had no wheat acres at all, so this plan means simply nothing to them. Many of the farmers have been forced to sell coarse grain at sacrifice prices for the past few months in order to clothe and feed their families.
I was quite surprised to hear the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), who spoke a while ago, speak in critical terms of western Canada. It surprised me because this is not the way he spoke in western Canada last spring when he was out there with the Committee on Agriculture. He saw the serious situation in which the farmers found themselves and certainly made a different type of speech there than he did tonight. Possibly he has one for western Canada and one for the east. I was quite surprised at this.
How can those who have small wheat acreage afford to summer fallow the land? Where, and how, are they going to buy forage seed, and what will it cost? There is a shortage already, and the cost will be terrific. The maximum they can get is $6 an acre for what they curtail, and the first payment will not come until July. This is the government that has committed blunders in our wheat sales, in grain movement and boxcar location. Now they say we must fold up because they have failed.
It seems strange that this policy should be put forth only a fortnight after we heard of people who are in dire need and of farmers who have been turned down by the minister. Farmers have offered wheat. They have abundant piles of wheat to be ground into flour. Surely we should be able to assist our neighbours who are in great need. This government has done away with the winter works program, with northern development, with our roads to resources program and with winter access roads. These people have no jobs. When we see the employment situation in Saskatchewan today, we realize fully why these people are in dire need. They have no way of meeting the high cost of living, the highest we have ever experienced.
If we the farmers have to face this kind of situation, surely we should be allowed to pass our abundance of grain along to some of our
[Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake).)

more unfortunate neighbours who are living in our midst. What would the pioneers of this great country think if they could see what was going on today? They pioneered this country and they were certainly able to grind their wheat into flour. They did not have to get it done by a cattle-mixer to receive the benefits.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)
Members of Parliament and members of the civil service were sent to Meadow Lake as a delegation to investigate something they knew little about, but I, the member for that constituency, was not asked to go along with the delegation. Mr. Speaker, I could have shown them something, and it would not necessarily have been concerned with Metis or Indian people. I could have shown them a lot of our other neighbours who are in dire need. I was not asked to go, because Mr. Speaker, I realize it was a just trip-just for Grits. I cannot help but think of what this trip cost and how that money could have been used to grist the wheat that the farmers were willing to give these people. I would like to see the figures of the cost of that trip compared with the cost of grinding the wheat. It is a shame to waste money like that when we have people in dire need and we have piles of good wheat lying on the ground. It is certainly not sensible.
There are some who say that these people were not starving. I know that is quite a serious description. I know that I have friends out there-even among Liberals-and I do not think they would let their neighbours starve; but, my God, how hungry are you going to let them get? When the committee went there some members took pictures of a house to depict the deplorable living conditions, but they never went into the house to see what was in the cupboard. One fellow phoned me to say, "Bert, maybe they claimed they did not find anybody starving, but they sure found out the conditions under which some of these people are living, and so the trip was not in vain after all."
I know the government has to do something about the situation into which it has got itself, but surely it could have made this program more flexible and workable. Now the government plans to pay $6 an acre next July for summer fallow, and if farmers want to seed their land down to forage they will get $4 an acre more. But where are the farmers
March 2, 1970

going to get the seed, and what is it going to cost them?
I think members of the government were hasty. I have never been able to give them credit for being hasty previously but certainly they have been hasty on this occasion, thinking that this program will be the solution to the problems of western Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it really should not have been necessary to have this debate tonight, and I know all of us regret the fact that the Hansard reporters, the protective staff and others have to stay on extra hours. If I may, I would suggest it might be a good idea were Mr. Speaker to investigate the possibility of docking the pay of the members who are not here and using it as overtime payment for the staff. We might thereafter have a warmer reception for a debate at this hour of the night.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't get apologetic.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We don't apologize for moving this emergency debate. I was saying it should not have been necessary to hold it, because if the minister and the government really thought this program was so good, if they were really anxious to have farmers, Members of Parliament and the public at large understand it and co-operate, and were anxious to have the farmers participate in it, they would have arranged a day's debate on government time in order to give a full explanation of the program and to answer the myriad questions that are in the minds of farmers and are being phoned to us almost on the hour every hour.
They were not all that interested, Mr. Speaker, and as referred to earlier this evening, the interest shown by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-in fact the discourtesy shown by him-this evening indicates the seriousness with which the government views this problem and how it feels it should be explained to the public.
Farmers have shown in the past that they can put up with almost everything. In the past year or two the conditions I have seen on the Prairies remind me of the agricultural depression in 1938. We had grasshoppers, we had Russian thistles-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And CCF!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -gophers and dust storms and Liberals, so the farmers over the years have learned to put up with almost anything.
Wheat Acreage Reduction The saying started then, "Liberal times are hard times" and I have never heard it repeated so often as it was last year.
After two years of requests and pressure from every possible farm organization and every part of Canada, after the issues about agriculture-wheat, cream, milk, corn; you name it-being raised in this House countless times, the minister and the government finally came forward and recognized a farm cash shortage. That is putting it mildly, Mr. Speaker, but at least they finally admitted it, and their solution is acreage payments.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many people the program is entirely inadequate. It is a cheapskate way for the Liberals to try to get out from under this problem. This, in my opinion, is their first objective, to get the farmers to bail them out of the situation they are in with wheat and the inventories we have on hand. Secondly, it still makes the Canadian farmers compete against the treasuries of other nations. Among those who protest so much about the Canadian Wheat Board it is remarkable how many are Liberals and Tories, or are concerned in the agricultural business. These people and the boys in the Winnipeg grain exchange talk about the inadequacies of the Wheat Board and about salesmanship as if just anybody could sell wheat.
Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board is not perfect and nobody has ever pretended that it is, least of all the members of the Wheat Board. But let us call it the way it is. The Wheat Board has not been, nor will it in the future under the Liberals be able to operate any better than the government's policy will allow. It has been continually handicapped by national government policies which prevent it-


Daniel Aiken Lang: How?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -from carrying on massive and successful sales efforts outside Canada. The minister asks how. The minister expects the Canadian Wheat Board to sell wheat in competition with the subsidized grains of other exporting nations, he expects the Prairie farmers to compete with those prices and expects the costs of that competition to come out of the pockets of our farmers. He wants to know how. Here is another quote from the report of Mr. S. C. Hudson, prepared for the Economic Council of Canada, stating some of the ways in which the Wheat Board is handcuffed. At page 290 Mr. Hudson states:
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction
A survey of the competitive position of Canadian wheat in selected markets suggests that the principal causes of Canada's declining market share are: a lack of consistent quality as measured by uniformity of protein content-
The minister tells us we are now going to get a new grading system, starting next year. I am glad he has awakened, though it is five, ten or 20 years after the farm spokesmen have been saying this. Point No. 2 is:
[DOT] (12:40 a.m.)
-insufficient flexibility in pricing to meet market competition.
We must have flexibility in this country in this regard. Whenever this concept of flexibility was departed from, it was to our cost. Lower prices have always been an advantage to farmers of other countries, especially when they have been subsidized by their national treasuries. Point No. 3 relates to inadequate market development effort. If you do not give the Canadian Wheat Board the finances and staff it needs, how can it possibly enter the field of market development? It will not do that job very well if you handcuff it with inadequate national policies. Point No. 4 relates to increased self-sufficiency in importing countries. Point No. 5 is:
-unfair competition resulting from the use of export subsidies-
That relates to a concept we have; we still expect Canadian farmers to compete against the treasuries of other nations. Point No. 6 is:
-the manner in which the government-assisted export programs are carried out by competing exporters.
Again I say, when many of our industries are aided and subsidized, why should Canadian farmers be expected to sell wheat and take declining prices, while farmers of other nations who are subsidized could not care less how low wheat prices fall on the export market, because they still obtain their price?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Unless the policies of the national government make sure that the Wheat Board has the backing of the entire nation, no one will be able to sell wheat, not even a fancy salesman like the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). The Canadian Wheat Board must be authorized by the national government to extend credit terms with low interest rates to importing countries and make a host of other arrangements which will involve the backing of the national treasury.


Daniel Aiken Lang: It does.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: To expect farmers to operate under present conditions is absurd. It seems that the policies of this government and previous governments have been designed to eliminate farmers very quickly. The new policy is an extension of those policies. The government, its experts and those fancypants, ivory-tower editorial writers always talk about rationalization. That is double-talk. What they really mean is, "We need to take 100,000 farmers off the land." The government has consistently catered to corporate farms, to corporations that insert themselves into rural communities, and tried to eliminate efficient and independent family farms. That has been the government's policy and this program of acreage payments, despite claims Liberal spokesmen have made in the last few days and will continue making in the next couple of months, will not improve the cash position of farmers.
Anyone who suggests that the program will help the agricultural industry of western Canada is broadcasting a myth. I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), the $6 and $10 payment per acre is insufficient. I have talked to farmers from different parts of Saskatchewan; I was out there last Friday, Saturday and Sunday talking with them. Those who live in the wetter lands have to summer fallow several times. This $6 will not cover the cost of summer fallowing. For those farmers who live in the wetter areas with a fair amount of rainfall, the $6 will hardly cover their costs. After the $6 per acre is exhausted, they will let weeds grow.
The minister's program will mean that a great many farmers will use herbicides on their land and pollution will result. We do not know what the effect will be on the soil, on water tables, and on food that is grown when that land is brought back into production. A number of farmers from the Melfort-Tisdale area have said that it costs about $4 per acre to make land ready for grass seed. Clearly, therefore, the program does not go far enough. It is not an incentive.
A farmer who farms a few miles north of the United States border in the constituency of the hon. member for Assiniboia phoned me this afternoon saying that he has 600 acres in crop and 600 acres in summer fallow. He has consistently operated his farm that way. Considering the average rainfall and light land in that part of the country-the hon. member
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
for Assiniboia probably knows it better than I do-I think it is fair to say that if the minister's program is adopted on that kind of land, the gophers will be digging 20 feet in the air every time there is a dust storm. This program will not help the farmers to survive. The $6 will not cover summer fallowing costs. That is not an incentive. If the minister is really anxious to get acreage taken out of wheat production he will make it worth their while. There are no other alternative crops. The minister said, "Do not grow anything else."
This whole program is a cheapskate attempt to get the government off the hook with wheat inventories. It lets the farmers foot the bill. This program will mitigate against good farming practice and land conservation. The payments per acre must be raised to a point at which it is a real incentive. If the minister were to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Assiniboia he would be surprised how much more support he would receive. In fact, we would be glad to advertise the program and persuade the people to co-operate and participate in it, if he would make it a real incentive. I suspect that is a very fond hope and nothing will come of it.
From now on the Liberals will perpetuate this claim of a $100 million program for western Canada. Even the minister admits that is only an estimate. That is a nice phrase for it; actually, it is only a figure off the top of his head. There is no way of knowing how much acreage will be taken out of wheat production. I will be surprised if the cost exceeds $50 million or $60 million.
From now until July Liberal spokesmen will be talking about the $100 million program for western Canada. When the smoke is cleared and the government finds the figure is nowhere close to $100 million, we will not hear any more about this program. The figure is phony because no one, including the minister, knows what the final figure will be. The suggestion of this amount being injected into western agriculture is the worst kind of attempt to delude and mislead the farmers of western Canada and the rest of the country.
There seems to be something basically immoral about paying people not to do something, such as paying good, practising agriculturists not to grow food. The day will come in two or three years when we will have no wheat. We will have to go through the same bit again. I support to some degree one area
DEBATES	4293
Wheat Acreage Reduction of the program proposed by the minister. In fact, it is long overdue; it is something the people in my party were advocating long before I entered politics.
While the program does not go far enough, has not been carefully thought out and does not take into account the wide variety of problems farmers will face, it is at least a half-hearted entry into production planning, production control and market projection, although the market projections the minister gave us were nil for anything the farmers would plant instead of wheat. At least it is a start.
The government suggests this is only a one-year program. I hope from now on planning and research into agricultural commodities and markets will be done well in advance so that when announcements are made farmers can make an intelligent decision. It is easy for members of this House and agricultural experts to talk about diversifying. Diversifying to what? How much? What price? We may well be getting into the same situation we were faced with in the fifties when we were up to our eyeballs in wheat. Farmers were urged to diversify. Four years later we were up to our eyeballs in pork and beef. Then the pitch was to specialize, then to diversify, and then back to specialization. Now we are being told to diversify.
[DOT] (12:50 a.m.)
I hope this old-line government has learnt the lesson that this half-hearted and belated excursion into production planning and control has to be improved. A decision to back the industry with guaranteed prices and resources of the national treasury, of the nation as a whole, would arm the Wheat Board with the facilities which would enable it to compete in world markets. We could take on Australia, Argentina, France-we could take them all on at once if necessary. But I do not think that would be necessary, once they knew that our wheat growers had behind them the power and resources of our federal government. Hon. members would be surprised, I am sure, how quickly those nations would fall into line with regard to stable prices and no more price cutting.
I hope the minister will accept some of the suggestions made by his friends in this House, for example, those made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, even if he does not accept the advice which has been offered him from this side of the House. I think he should give much more by way of explanation to the
4294	COMMONS
Wheat Acreage Reduction farmers of what this plan means to them, advising them of the circumstances under which they should go into summer fallow, reduce acreage or produce other crops.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: intend to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I should like to say that as far as the Wheat Board is concerned the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) has been charged with a very difficult task. No one in this House would have liked to take the position he has taken. He has inherited a most difficult problem. I think we have all been a little dishonest as far as wheat sales are concerned. The unions, the farm groups have supported the Wheat Board as far as sales are concerned; they believe we have to keep the price up; they have motivated this philosophy. That is what makes it very difficult.
We have a surplus of wheat in Canada. There is what the newspapers call a world surplus. But it is only a world surplus as far as the buyers' market is concerned. As other hon. members have said, two-thirds of the world's population goes to bed hungry. The surplus is only in the buyers' field. Today questions were asked on Orders of the Day and they penetrated to the heart of the wheat problem. I say to the minister: My sympathy is with you, sir.
We are breaking the international wheat agreement. Every country is doing so. Forty-four importing and exporting nations are breaking the agreement. The government is faced with this problem. It is faced with the attitude of the unions of western Canada; it is faced with the attitude of the wheat pools of western Canada. They must put their ears to the ground. They must not get into competitive marketing, selling on the open market.
There is one thing of which I am proud. It was our party which set up the Canadian Wheat Board in 1935. Then, when the world war was declared we were told we had to have a ceiling on the price of wheat. This was when wheat was controlled, as to price, entirely by the Wheat Board-not to keep the price up but to keep it down.


John Stratford Burton: Right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear a member to my left say "Right", and I will have something to say about that party in a few minutes. I will defend any government-and the minister will be happy to hear I defend him-that has tried to handle this problem. I wish the minister success. However, I tell him he must break free from the bureaucracy that exists

DEBATES	March 2, 1970
in the Department of Trade and Commerce and in the Wheat Board, because this is a tough problem to tackle.
It was admitted in this House that we broke the international wheat agreement because a state of open trade existed. That is what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said. Having made that admission, one crime begets another and the gate was opened wide. Basically, I do not support the program presented by the minister, and for this reason. First of all, if the farms in western Canada turn to summer fallow, you will create a dust bowl. Second, where will you get the grass seed to grow forage crops? I asked that question today.
The only way Canada can get out of the mess it is in is to sell wheat. From being the No. 1 exporting nation of the world, in the last three years we have moved to fourth or fifth place.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone to the left says, "Hear, hear." Let me say something about my hon. friends. The NDP cannot have it both ways. They have been sitting in this House of Commons and have been economic hypocrites. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talked about the longshoremen, and today they are paid the highest salary of any longshoremen anywhere in the world. As a result, the price of wheat and cost of production have been affected.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How much do lawyers get?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now my hon. friend is getting nasty, but I do not mind. I am not talking about the professions, what Members of Parliament get or what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said this afternoon. I am talking to the back row farmers of western Canada. It is the backbenchers who are rocking the boat. Those in the front rows are supporting the unions. That party cannot have it both ways.
An increase in the cost of production on the farms means an increase in the price of wheat in international markets throughout the world. As far as I am concerned, to put it bluntly, when you increase labour costs you increase wheat prices on the world market. You cannot have this both ways. If you increase the wages of longshoremen and wages all the way down the line, you increase the cost of delivering grain throughout the world. This is the area in which I come to the defence of the government. You cannot have
March 2, 1870
it both ways. These people on my left like to love the labourers and the farmers at the same time. They cannot do both. There must be a little flexibility, and that is why their job becomes tough.
[DOT] (1:00 a.m.)


An hon. Member:: The minister is going to put them all in one flask.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I won't go into that now, but I could.
Economic hypocrisy does not work. The members from Saskatchewan who represent the farm belt know as well as I that when you increase wages and the cost of production, you increase the price of the product and in turn increase the export price. Let us get down to brass tacks. The Wheat Board is supported by the old CCF, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals. Nobody in this House of Commons, including my party and the Liberals, has the nerve to criticize this bureaucracy. Four million bushels of barley could have been sold to Montana at a certain price, but because the Wheat Board said we had to keep the price at a certain level the sale was not effected.
There is more bootlegging going on now in western Canada in respect of barley, wheat and oats than there ever was in prohibition days. I could put my political reputation on the table by saying that I know many members of my party and of the Liberal party who shiver and shake when they think of attacking the Wheat Board. The Conservative Party brought in the Wheat Board on the basis that we should sell wheat on the open market. Now is the time when someone must stand up and criticize, because I have sat through this debate tonight and listened to more hypocrisy than ever before.
Many members feel they are threatened politically when they criticize the Wheat Board. They feel: Oh God, you cannot do that politically. Let me say it: we know that the Wheat Board has not performed its task and we know that the Wheat Board advises the ministers. We are in trouble in respect of the international wheat agreement. We heard today during answers to questions on Orders of the Day that everybody is breaking the international wheat agreement. That is why this is an important matter. What is the policy of the government? The government says it will inject $100 million into the western Canadian economy. Those in eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec, think this is a tremendous program which will provide $100 21701-61
Wheat Acreage Reduction million through the creation of summer fallow and forage crops.
When I questioned the government today they admitted that there is no grass seed on the market because last year there was frost and one thing and another. The price is going to become so high that only the speculators will get it. What kind of program is that? When is the minister who comes from the best university in Canada, who was the dean of the law school of the University of Saskatoon, going to measure up to his responsibilities and say, "I realize the government and the Wheat Board have failed. We are not going to pay you for not growing wheat when two-thirds of the world are going to bed hungry".
The members to my left criticize the program. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) called it an insane policy, but he offered no alternative. When is the minister going to come up with an idea to sell our wheat to the world and feed the starving and the hungry? What is going to happen next year following the summer fallow, if the land is not blown away, when the farmers start to plant something? My suggestion to the minister is to use the $100 million-call it a subsidy or whatever you want-to sell the wheat to the world, which is ready to buy it. We do not compete. I give the leader of the NPD credit for saying that we were the first wheat exporting country in the world two years ago but today we are the fourth or the fifth. In what place will we be after this program?
Would it not be better to sell the wheat or to give a subsidy to the Prairie farmers? It seems to me that this is the worst type of program: first, because there is no grass seed to plant it is all in the speculators' market; second, if you summer fallow as the minister suggests and he is a Saskatchewan-born man, the Prairies will be turned into a dust bowl; third, this is an inflationary program; and fourth, it would be better to put in the $100 million and get rid of the wheat. As the president of the Bank of Montreal said, for every $1 we get out of wheat or any other product in Canada, $3.50 is returned in gross national product.
Let us get back to my friends on my left who, as the minister knows, have a good representation from western Canada. I am referring to the New Democratic Party. I call them economic hypocrites. These people basically support the Wheat Board. They do not want anything changed in it. At the same time, they criticize the government.

March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction * (1:10 a.m.)
They never had it so good, Mr. Speaker. The Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba Wheat Pools got so much a bushel on storage in the country elevators, at the Lakehead, in Vancouver and all the other places, and they never showed a better profit. Why would they oppose the system? It doesn't matter whether they sell wheat. They never had profits so good. No Member of Parliament, nor the minister, if he was honest-and if I was in his position, I would remain silent-would dare in western Canada to attack this situation. It is the family compact, the establishment- Grit establishment. Now a minister has to face this problem. Oh, yes; you attack these people and say they set up the program, but the program should be: Let us do something positive. We should not be telling the farmers in western Canada this, when professors and doctors on the CTV on Sunday night said in 1975 we could face a famine in the world- and Canada has these great resources!
Could I sit in my place and be silent in this situation? How could I? The minister says he has proved it by statistics. We all want to win in our constituencies. I am not interested in that, but I am interested in western Canada, in Canada as a whole, and in the world. We sit around. We are told there will be a famine. But this government, and maybe another party if it were in-we are not the government-would have done it. Maybe this party would have done it. It is time somebody stood up and said something about the grains trade. When two-thirds of the world go to bed hungry, it is time Canada with our resources should not be so selfish as to say we will not grow wheat because we cannot get a certain price, with all our co-ops and wheat pools and all the infiltration government people have- and I know how much they have. They say, "Oh, we cannot stand that kind of politics.'' That is why the minister has a difficult problem. It is time we grew wheat on every acre of land and sold it to the world.
I will defend the government; I will defend this party.-but I will not defend anybody who suggests that we cut down acreage and the growth of wheat. We can sell wheat and we can compete with the world, and we must compete with the world-


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as an easterner I have been very interested in listening to the discussion tonight. I agree with much of it. Some of the comments, of course, have been more important than others but I think everyone is very concerned, and rightly so, with the problem that has developed in western Canada. I have been thinking of how you would apply this in eastern Canada. It reminds me of one of my colleagues who said the other day that they were having a great deal of difficulty in one of the automobile industries. I was just thinking that if the minister responsible for the Wheat Board were responsible for our Department of Industry, he would say to the people in Oshawa, "It is difficult to sell cars now. Nearly everybody in the country has a car. Some even have two cars. So we will close down General Motors. It really won't hurt you people. You have been working quite a while; you have paid your unemployment insurance. So sit on your fat fanny and draw unemployment insurance. We won't make any cars this year. Maybe next year." That may be an insurance principle, Mr. Speaker, but I think that some of the workers in western Canada, just like those of General Motors, would decide that maybe they wanted to work.
Maybe they would want to make cars. That is their job, their livelihood, and perhaps they would want to get on with it. I am sure there are many people in western Canada concerned in this way.
Mr. Speaker, another thing that has struck me as interesting is that I see behind this scheme of the minister's, not his own intelligence, because his intelligence is in a different field, but the hand of the man who was behind the national dairy policy. If you will remember, nothing in the national dairy policy was very important. There was to be a subsidy paid to everybody producing milk, and this affected the little farm producing farm separated cream as well as the industrial milker producing skim milk powder and other by-products. The surplus milk that came from the fluid milk industry was subsidized as well.
It was not very long before there was a curtailment of the surplus from fluid milk and it was taken out of the subsidy program. Interesting things began to happen. They decided to set a quota based on the last year's milk production.
If you had not met certain limits last year, you could not apply this year; but if you me*
March 2, 1970

the quota last year, you would get a quota this year and be a quota-holder. The crux of the matter came in the third year when it was decided that you had to meet a certain production level or you did not qualify, and you did not qualify for anything on the top end either. The limits were set and you had a dairy policy, a nice scheme which produced a certain amount of money in the middle. As the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) pointed out, we are going to curtail that now.
I think there is a similarity in the wheat situation. I think you will find that the $100 million does not matter a damn. The real thing is going to be, if you do not have summer fallow this year and put some land into forage, when we reallocate the quota system and you start producing wheat again it will no longer be on the present basis, so much for seeded acreage and so much for pasture. You can build up in a number of ways to establish a quota. Those quotas will be gone and the new quotas will be established on a totally new basis which will not take into consideration many of the people who do not play ball with the government. So the money must be incidental, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who has a farm knows that the money really is not sufficient to meet the cost of summer fallow. It will be a unique situation wherein $6 an acre will supply a years' summer fallow plus cover crop. I do not know what you are going to do with the cover crop; you cannot plant wheat until you get rid of that again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the hon. member one simple question. Does he believe they should cut down the acreage, and does he support the regulations of the Wheat Board to keep the price up, particularly in light of the fact that Canada is not adhering to the international wheat agreement?


William Arnold Peters: I think this raises the key to the whole problem. I believe the farmers themselves should make a decision before a quota system is applied to them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How can they?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says, "How can they?" In the province of Ontario where we had a very serious problem in the tobacco industry, the industry had a plebiscite and decided that a certain amount of land would 21701-61J
Wheat Acreage Reduction be taken out of production to maintain the price structure. This was agreed by almost everyone in the industry and they have since been able to regulate. Sometimes they increase the quota to more than the year before, but they have been able to maintain a balance between production and the market. The hon. member asked whether the Wheat Board should set its price. I believe the Wheat Board has to set the price, but I think it has to take into consideration a number of factors.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are they?


William Arnold Peters: Canada is one of the few countries that does not have a government selling agency, and I think it is about time the coun-ry made a decision about this. I am not one of those who wholly supports the Wheat Board. I am not in total agreement with the Wheat Board because it is not a sales agency and I believe it should be.
[DOT] (1:20 a.m.)
A few minutes ago the hon. member from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was very concerned about the longshoremen. The longshoremen do not make one-thousandth of one per cent of the wheat they handle, but that is not true of the independent brokers who handle wheat that comes in and goes out and make the same money no matter whether they handle wheat from the United States or Canada. As well, they handle cheese and all other foods on a percentage basis; they do not care what they handle. They are not really interested in selling wheat. I think the hon. member for Calgary North will agree that you must have an aggressive sales program.
In my opinion the government, through the Canadian Wheat Board, should be the selling agent. We should be out selling. If, as the hon. member for Bruce suggested, I wanted to sell cattle to Cuba, I should have the support of the government. It would work out long-term arrangements under which export credits would be made available and the cattle would be sold. Surely the government could do something similar with wheat.
In my opinion the Liberal government has been pretty stupid; certainly it has done some pretty stupid things in sales. I remember a minister of a former government saying to his trade commissioners, "Get out and sell, or get out." They sold and worked out a deal with Czechoslovakia to make wheat available on a credit basis. We also worked out arrangements with other countries and they bought wheat on a credit basis.
March 2, 1970

Wheat Acreage Reduction
Perhaps we shall have to cut prices, but that is the responsibility oi the government and not the farmer. I submit it is the responsibility of the government. It is damned near time we got rid of McNamara who has devoted more energy, time and money to maintaining his own position than to selling wheat. Under the present commission system, agents sell to the highest bidder; furthermore, they sell whatever commodity will fetch the most money. The brokers who handle wheat are not doing a very good job for the Canadian people, and the government has over-all responsibility in this field.
Surely the minister knows what we all know, that much of western Canada will produce only wheat. Now the government is talking of putting that land in forage. Does the minister know what happens when you put land in forage? You produce hay, which must be used for feed. You cannot sell hay to China; Russia will not buy hay-you must use it for feed. If you were to put two million acres in my part of the country under hay production, pretty soon the market in Toronto would be handling 2,000 head of cattle every day from our area, and what do you think would happen to the price of beef? Dogs would be eating T-bone steaks which would sell for two cents a pound. This could happen in western Canada. That is what would happen if we acted without thinking.
The minister said the government is looking at long-term solutions. What is he talking about? The $100 million it will make available is nothing. The minister knows what that $100 million will be used for in the west. The farmers will use the money to buy gas, oil and repairs for their machinery. The money will not keep equipment dealers in business; it will not keep grocers in business. We hear talk about selling the wheat in storage. Mr. Speaker, if the farmer is to pay back all the money he has had advanced to him, he will need to sell wheat under a 10-bushel quota. Is it likely that the farmers will see a 10-bushel quota in the next year?


An hon. Member:: Or the year after?


William Arnold Peters: Even with that quota, and, assuming the farmer receives $1.20, Mr. Speaker, 60 cents per bushel would go toward repayment and the other 60 cents for his living expenses. It is better that the farmer should go to Florida for a holiday. At least he might get a job in a gas station down there and save everyone lots of trouble. He should


not go to Toronto, where they have lots of unemployment. I am saying that the government has not really looked at the problem.
The farmers in western Canada do not have the equipment to break grassland. They have not put in grassland for a long time. Only a cattle farmer would be interested in permanent pasture and grassland. I was amused by what the hon. member for Calgary North said about grass seed. My brother had a bumper crop of sweet clover last year which he was not able to sell. Maybe he will be able to sell it under this program. Maybe it will not be a loss to the farmers in eastern Canada where a lot of seed is produced.
I am interested in doing something for the people of western Canada. I am not interested in getting rid of any more farmers. Because I was curious, I asked how many people would be able to take 1,000 acres out of production and still have land for wheat. I found it applies to only a handful of people. There are very few people in western Canada with 2,000 acres of wheat. Mr. Hazen Argue suggested that my old room-mate, Merv Johnston of Kindersley, may be in that category; but we are not talking about anyone at that level.
We are not talking about $100 million, nor are we talking about $6 or $10 an acre; we are talking about a totally new quota system for producing wheat in western Canada. I am told that the clergymen in every church in Regina yesterday preached against the proposal put forward by the minister. They did so on purely moral grounds. It is a shame.
I agree with those hon. members who said we should be producing our maximum. This can be done easily and with little labour in Canada. These agricultural products could be used to feed those less fortunate in the world. We are not spending any money trying to develop a method through the United Nations of getting rid of our surpluses. It is necessary for this country to establish a granary system in order to meet our needs and the needs of those less fortunate. There must be a way of doing this. I do not suggest this should be up to the farmer. If the farmer wished, he could give away all the wheat he had and then his granary would be empty and this $100 million exercise would not be necessary. The less fortunate people in the world may have developed a liking for bread, bannock, scones or whatever they eat in different parts of the world. We have a moral responsibility to these people.
March 2, 1970	COMMONS
We do not now have, nor will we have in the foreseeable future a large enough number of people to consume all our agricultural products. It is one of our prime responsibilities to immediately develop agencies which will sell some of the produce we have and at the same time dispose of our surplus to those less fortunate. This should be done in a manner that will provide a return to the farmer and maintain the usefulness of our land.
If the minister really believes he can reorganize agriculture in western Canada and can decide the quotas, he should say so. If anyone is interested, they should read the answer given to me this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). He indicated the quotas will really be decided in 1971-72 and that the quota system in western Canada will be considerably different from that of today.
[DOT] (1:30 a.m.)
I say to the minister: If you really want to reorganize this business, call a plebiscite, call in the farmers, hold meetings and ask permission. Some of them might be happy to get out of agriculture. There are areas in which rape-seed can be grown. But let us not have everyone producing rapeseed this year or we shall be overwhelmed with rapeseed. Give farmers an opportunity to get out of agriculture if they wish, but let us not use the whip. We did this as far as dairying was concerned and now we are witnessing grave repercussions. We eliminated the small family unit in eastern Canada; we increased production there, particularly in Quebec, and we now find that the farmers in eastern Quebec are in dire straights. Their units of production are economic; they have increased the size of their
DEBATES	42S9
Wheat Acreage Reduction holdings. Nevertheless, they find themselves in much more trouble than was the small farmer with three or four cows. The small farmer knew he would never become rich, but he could manage. These other people will lose their farms in many cases because they are head over heels in debt.
As far as western farmers are concerned, the $100 million will not go to them at all. It will not go into the rural economy; it will not go into the western economy. Any money which flows into the western economy will come from the proceeds of wheat which is delivered to the elevators from the farms. Someone will wake up two years from now and find that even if there were sales to be made, there would be nothing to sell. The minister would be unfair if he did not hold some kind of seminary with the farmers of the west and tell them what his proposal is-how he sees the situation five years from now. They would then know what the whip is and what the carrot is and would be able to reach a decision with full knowledge of the facts, something they do not have today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member answer a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the House that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired. I am satisfied, pursuant to section 13 of Standing Order 26, that the debate has been concluded, and I therefore declare the motion carried. The House stands adjourned until two o'clock later this day.
At 1.35 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 3, 1970