1970-12-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses. In so doing 1 wish to thank the committee members for undertaking and completing this assignment.
& * *



INDUSTRY


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in both
official languages a report of the Prices and Incomes Commission concerning a review of manufactured edible oil products.
(a)	Creative
Film Production Group Film Technician Group
(b)	Administrative Film Officer Group Others
(c)	English Production Branch
(d)	French Production Branch
Please note that the Production Branch percentages for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 have been adjusted to represent the functions presently performed by the Production Branches. For example, Stills Photo personnel have been deleted from the Production Branch figures, and cameramen have been included although previously they were in the Technical Operations Branch.
2.	(a) No. The NFB expects to receive $130,000 above the sum of $300,000 in 1970/71. (b) Since the suspension of the film rental charges, the NFB has taken steps to ensure that, with its available resources, service to the public would suffer as little as possible.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What percentage of the total National Film Board stall in each of the last five years, was (a) creative (b) administrative (c) in the English Production Branch (d) in the French Production Branch?
2	Did the National Film Board lose $1,200,000.00 consequent on the indefinite suspension of film rental charges as stated in an article published in Canadian Dimension, Vol. 6 No. 8 1970 and (a) if so, by how much does the Minister intend to increase the reimbursement for loss of revenue above the sum of $300,000 (b) if not, what concrete and active steps has the National Film Board taken to cut back costs, and does the Minister consider these steps will lead to a more creative and effective National Film Board?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Percentages of the total National Film Board staff in each
of the last five	years:			
1966	1967	1968	1969	197028	28	27	28	2819	18	18	18	1847	46	45	46	46%12	11	11	11	115	5	6	5	617	16	17	16	17%20	19	18	18	17%7	7	8	8	8%


CRTC-EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS IN DETERMINING CANADIAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Thompson: On what basis or formula does the Canadian Radio-Television Commission evaluate programs in determining whether or not such programs are to be designated "Canadian" under the Canadian content requirements?


Gérard Pelletier: The present Television Broadcasting Regulations enacted by the
1996

December 14, 1970
Questions
CRTC set a limit on the proportion of broadcast time for non-Canadian programs on Canadian television stations. These Regulations assume that Canadian broadcasters are well able to identify a wholly Canadian program.
When a program contains non-Canadian elements, the Commission assesses the program on the basis of the predominance of Canadian creative and other resources in the various components of the production. The elements of production considered for this purpose include creative control, the performers involved, the production staff and the facilities.
Selective monitoring and study of a sample of programs are conducted to ensure compliance with Regulations.
With respect to AM Radio, the CRTC established the following conditions as requirements for a musical composition to be deemed "by a Canadian": (a) the instrumentation or lyrics were principally performed by a Canadian; (b) the music was composed by a Canadian; (c) the lyrics were written by a Canadian; (d) the live performance was wholly recorded in Canada.
This amendment will come into effect on January 18, 1971.
During the first year, one of the above four conditions must be fulfilled; afterwards, at least two of the conditions must be fulfilled.


AIR CRASH AT WABUSH, NFLD.
Mr. Forreslall: Has the government, as a result of the air crash at Wabush, Newfoundland on November 11, 1969, received any indication from any party with respect to further legal proceedings?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes. Five Petitions of Right have been filed and served on behalf of the families of five of the six passengers.


CANADA'S ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION TO UNRWA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), what has been Canada's annual contribution to its operating budget?
2.	In each case, what percentage of the total budget did such contribution comprise?
3.	What assistance has Canada provided towards relief and rehabilitation of the victims of the Jordanian civil war?
4.	What requests have been received?
5.	Is it intended to extend further assistance and, if so, in what form and amounts?
6.	What Canadian officials have visited the Kingdom of Jordan since the termination of the conflict?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 and 2. Attached is a table indicating Canada's annual contribution to UNRWA and relating this contribution to (1) UNRWA's annual expenditure and (2) annual government contributions received by UNRWA. In all years except UNRWA fiscal years 1950/51 and 1951/52 expenditure exceeded government contributions. This difference was met by income from investments, non-governmental contributions, miscellaneous income and drawdowns on working capital.
3.	Canada has provided a total of $50,000 in two separate contributions of $25,000 to the Red Cross for relief operations in Jordan and a supplementary contribution of $150,000 to UNRWA for 1970 for use by the Agency in meeting the increased demands on its resources resulting from the hostilities in Jordan.
4.	Two general appeals for assistance were received from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
5.	No further assistance is contemplated at the present time.
6.	None.
UNRWA	Total	Total Government	Canadian	Canadian Contribution as per cent of	Canadian Contribution as per cent of TotalFiscal year	Expenditures	Contributions	Contribution	Expenditures	ContributionMay 1950-June 1951	*33,598,972	*39,477,281	1,400,313	4.17	3.52July 1951-June 1952	28,573,058	67,686,495	0	0	0July 1952-June 1953	26,778,934	26,867,673	600,000	2.22	2.24July 1953-June 1954	29,192,012	22,684,330	515,000	1.77	2.27July 1954-June 1955	29,222,705	23,673,500	515,000	1.76	2.17July 1955-June 1956	32,198,550	23,385,026	0	0	0July 1956-Dec. 1957	52,464,139	42,378,773	1,208,126	2.30	2.86Jan. 1958-Dec. 1958	32,777,564	32,555,876	2,138,750	6.32	6.55Jan. 1959- Dec. 1959	35,015,817	32,625,400	2,075,000	5.82	6.35Jan. 1960-Dec. 1960	34,674,460	33,828,887	3,060,000	8.81	9.05Jan. 1961-Dec. 1961	39,051,521	34,386,052	2,069,500	5.30	6.04Jan. 1962-Dec. 1962	35,688,844	34,308,775	925,000	2.59	2.70Jan. 1963-Dec. 1963	36,207,078	34,444,063	925,000	2.56	2.68Jan. 1964-Dec. 1964	37,192,861	33,963,601	925,926	2.46	2.74Jan. 1965-Dec. 1965	37,618,472	34,000,353	1,111,111	2.94	3.27Jan. 1966-Dec. 1966	37,498,420	34,969,322	1,111,111	2.93	3.17Jan. 1967-Dec. 1967	40,540,693	40,335,873	2,463,768	6.06	6.09Jan. 1968-Dec. 1968	43,987,105	37,561,310	1,709,445	3.98	4.55Jan. 1969-Dec. 1969	46,161,048	39,792,749	1,574,074	3.41	3.99Jan. 1970-Dec. 1970	46,145,000	39,102,769	1,266,995	2.79	3.22(All figures are in U.S. dollars.)	734,587,253	708,028,108	25,599,079	3.31	3.62

December 14, 1970


CRTC-CONTRACTS CARRIED OUT BY BIRO INC.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What contracts have been carried out or are being carried out by Biro Inc. for the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and (a) what is the nature of each (b) what are the amounts?
2.	Who are the officers of Biro Inc. and their postal addresses and with which one or ones did CRTC have dealings by (a) correspondence (b) telephone or personal meetings, in connection with these contracts?
3.	Is anyone now paid by CRTC as an employee or consultant a former officer or employee of Biro?


Gérard Pelletier: I have been informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. Three contracts have been carried out by Biro-Incorporated: (a) (i) To provide consultant services and work at the development and implementation of a computer based management information system, (ii) To undertake a study of the feasibility of establishing a control and planning system for management, (iii) To provide consultant services and work at the development and implementation of the control and planning system.
(b)	(i) $356,000 over a period running from October 23, 1967 to December 31, 1970. (ii) $5,000 over a period running from August 15, 1969 to September 15, 1969. (in) $13,000 over a period running from September 15, 1969 to January 15, 1970.
2.	Biro Incorporated-Bureau d'informatique et de Recherche Operationnelle, 1070 avenue De La Tour, Quebec 4, Que; Andre Juneau, 1155 De La Tour, Quebec 4, Quebec; Jeannine (Mrs. Andre) Juneau, 1155 De La Tour, Quebec 4, Quebec; Fernand Cadieux, 5018 Avenue Victoria, Montreal, Que.
(a) and (b) Andre Juneau (Mr. Andre Juneau is not a relative of the Chairman of the CRTC.)
3.	Yes, Stanley Jetchick, former employee, and Guy Lefebvre, former employee.


NATIONAL MUSEUM-LOANING OF POSSESSIONS TO PRIVATE EXHIBITORS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the National Museum lend any of its possessions to private exhibitors?
2.	If so, on what conditions as to cost of transport and packing, and as to commercial use?
3.	Did the National Museum make loans to any group or groups in Atlantic Canada in 1969 and, if so (a) to whom (with postal addresses) (b) on what terms?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Museum of Man loaned in 1969 military uniform equipment to the Regiment Adjutant Royal Canadian Dragoons Cambrai Barracks, Canadian Forces Base Gage-town, Oromocto, New Brunswick. Costs of in-bound freight and insurance was borne by the borrower.
23568-55i
Questions
Loans by the National Gallery during 1969 to the Atlantic Provinces were as follows: To National Defence Establishments: Canadian Forces Base: Cornwallis, Nova Scotia; Gagetown, New Brunswick; Gander, Newfoundland, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Moncton, New Brunswick; Shearwater, Nova Scotia; St. John's Newfoundland.
To Non-National Defence Establishments: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick; The Army Museum, Halifax Citadel; Arts and Culture Centre, St. John's Newfoundland; Memorial University, St. John's Newfoundland; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick; Confederation Arts Centre, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Beaverbrook Art Gallery, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
For individual loans or special exhibitions the borrowing institution assumes responsibility for care, transportation and insurance. For travelling extension exhibitions, the National Gallery pays for the transportation but each participating gallery is charged a nominal fee.


DEBT OWED BY NIGERIA TO CANADA
Mr. Robinson: What debt, if any, is owed by Nigeria to Canada and what are the terms of repayment?


Mitchell William Sharp: $13,100,000 comprised of three development loans: (a) one in the amount of $1.6 million, $450,000 of which is repayable over 30 years, with a seven year grace period, and an interest rate of 3 per cent, with the remainder of $1,150,000 having a maturity of 50 years, a grace period of ten years and an interest rate of 0 per cent; (b) one in the amount of $8 million, of which $2 million is repayable over 30 years, with a seven year grace period, and an interest rate of 3 per cent, with the remainder of $6 million having a maturity of 50 years, a grace period of ten years, and an interest rate of 0 per cent; and (c) one in the amount of $3,500,000 repayable over 25 years, with a five year grace period and with an effective rate of interest of 4 per cent over the life of the loan.


DEBT OWED BY GHANA TO CANADA
Mr. Robinson: What debt, if any, is owed by Ghana to Canada and what are the terms of repayment?


Mitchell William Sharp: $7,580,000 comprised of two development loans in the amounts of $5,830,000 and $1,750,000, each having a maturity of 50 years, a grace period of ten years and an interest rate of 0 per cent.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Rodrigue: lished? What year WaS the Company of YounS Canadians estab-
How mYch money has been granted by the government to CYC since it was founded?
December 14, 1970

Questions
3.	How many persons are and have been employed by CYC since it was founded?
4.	Do any other agencies contribute funds or have they contributed to CYC since it was founded and, if so, (a) which ones (b) in what amounts?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	The Company of Young Canadians was established in July 1966.
2.	Since founded, the Company of Young Canadians
has received the following yearly grants:	1966-1967,
$893,908; 1967-1968, $2,400,000; 1968-1969, $1,900,000; 1969-1970, $1,900,000.
3.	Number of persons who have been employed by the Company of Young Canadians since it was founded:
(a)	Staff
1966 to April 1967	73
April 1967 to December 1967	117
January 1968 to December 1968	107
January 1969 to December 1969	136
January 1970 to November 1970	56
(b)	Volunteers
1966 to April 1967	136
April 1967 to December 1967	267
January 1968 to December 1968	288
January 1969 to December 1969	333
January 1970 to November 1970	200
(c)	Consultants
1966 to April 1967	30
April 1967 to December 1967	21
January 1968 to December 1968	23
January 1969 to December 1969	35
January 1970 to November 1970	15
4.	No. However, contributions of time and money have been made by individuals, agencies and universities to local projects in which the CYC has participated.


OTTAWA-GREENBELT FARM CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Mr. Paproski: 1 Were tenders called for contract CR-67-10 to cover the erection of buildings 31A, 31B and 34, Greenbelt Farm and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3	Who was awarded the contract?
4	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation^ (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, (a) Eleven tenders were received; (b) Highest tender, $419,462, lowest tender, $338,000; (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement:	Newspapers-Ottawa and
Hull, Daily Commercial News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Cooper-Ellis Limited.
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $9,795-Brais, Ouellette, Frigon, Brett, Hanley & Berthiaume; (ii) None; (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for sub contractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Greenbelt Farm, A.R.I. Buildings 31A, 31B and
34-Contract N.C.R. 67-10
Excavation, grading and backfill	$ 8,000
Services, excavation and backfill	6,000
Concrete	65,000
Sealcote and culverts	6,000
Cages	34,000
Wire partitions	22,000
Miscellaneous metals	4,000
Rough carpentry	27,000
Finish carpentry and hardware	17,000
Insulation	10,000
Painting	15,000
Feed conveying and storage	14,000
Plumbing, heating and ventilating (Bradley
Plumbing and Heating Co. Ltd.)	42,000
Electrical (C and M Electric)	42,000
Metal roofing and siding	26,000


OTTAWA-SUPREME COURT BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2703 to cover alterations to the Supreme Court Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (y) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6 With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?

December 14, 1970


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Eight tenders were received; (b) Highest tender, $634,636., lowest tender, $497,980; (c) Lowest tender;
(d)	Public advertisement: Newspapers-Ottawa, Hull, Montreal, Toronto, La Voix de la Construction, Montreal, Daily Commercial News, Toronto, Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	M. J. LaFortune Construction.
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $15,267, Murray & Murray, Architects; $5,932.50, Daniel Forget, Clerk of Works; (ii) none; (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Alterations, Supreme Court Building-
Contract N.C.R.-67-2703
General-Fixed Cost	$ 4,980
-Operating Cost	21,391
Demolishing	16,428.
Concrete	10,680
Masonry	9,970
Carpentry	5)540
Millwork	jg 7go
Structural steel	21,500
Plumbing, heating and ventilation (Rene
Cleroux Limited)	256,220
Electrical (Univex (Canada) Limited)	48,500
Plastering	7,200
Terrazzo and tile	3,500
Floor tile	1,450
Acoustic tile	5,900
Carpet	2,781
Painting	8,000
Hardware	3,045
Miscellaneous metal	4,500
Metal partitions	2,150
Metal doors and frames	1,125
Elevators and dumbwaiter	40,630
Miscellaneous	2,790


OTTAWA-MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2706 to cover alterations to the Museum of Science and Technology and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
Questions
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Five tenders were received; (b) Highest tender, $484,053, lowest tender, $431,000; (c) Lowest tender; (d) Public advertisement: Newspapers-Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull, Daily Commercial News, Toronto, Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	A. Lanctot Construction Company Limited. (All bidders were required to provide a provisional cash allowance of $40,000 in their tendered price to cover the cost of site work, landscaping and paving. During the tendering period, it was decided that this work would be done by separate contract. As a result, the contract award amount was reduced by $40,000.)
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $11,646.64, Strutt & Adamson, Architects, $1,024.55, Subsurface Investigation, McRostie, Seto & Genest, Drilling and lab study; (ii) None; (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades Alterations to Museum of Science and Technology- Contract N.C.R.-67-2706
Mechanical (J. R. Seguin and Company)	$ 64,300
Electrical (Glebe Electric)	108,700
Painting	8,290
Precast concrete	42,355
Glazing	6,453
Plastering	6,390
Flooring	3,900
Laboratory equipment and furniture	8,165
Skylights	3,370
Ceramic tile	1,860
Roofing	8,700
Structural and reinforcing steel	2,400
Doors and frames	4,200
Toilet partitions	600
Overhead doors	12,162
Hardware	4,300
Concrete, carpentry, masonry, excavation- overhead, profit and supervision	104,855

December 14, 1970
Questions


NEW DRUG APPLICATIONS
Mr. Foster: 1.	During the past five years, how many new drug applications have been received by the Food and Drug Directorate?
2.	How many of these applications have been approved and the drug licensed for use in Canada?
3.	How many of the drugs licensed for use in Canada had already been licensed for use in the U.S.A.?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. In the years 1965-1969 inclusive, a total of 1,586 submissions on new drugs were received. Of this total 1,193 were for drugs for use in man, and 393 were for use in animals.
2.	A total of 1,124 submissions were cleared, comprising 944 human drug submissions and 180 veterinary drug submissions.
3.	Information not available.


OTTAWA-CANADIAN BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract OC-05787-Alterations to 7th, 8th, 9th and 13th floors, Canadian Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Tenders were not requested because it was essentia] that the building owner carry out the work, which affected the building's mechanical and electrical services, to maintain continuity of guarantees under the lease arrangements.
3.	The owner of the building, Ottawa Commercial Realties engaged the contractor.
4.	5 and 6. Not applicable.


ROSTHERN, SASKATCHEWAN-SENIOR CITIZENS' RESIDENCES
Mr. Gleave: 1.	What amounts are being contributed by (a) the federal government (b) the provincial Government (c) the Town of Ros-thern, toward the ten one-bedroom units being built for senior citizens in Rosthern, Saskatchewan?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.	The cost of the ten one-bedroom housing units for elderly persons in the Town of Rosthern, Saskatchewan
[Mr. Laing.1
is being shared among the three levels of government as follows: Federal Government, $88,267; Provincial Government, $23,538; Municipal Government, $5,885; Total: $117,690.
2.	The estimated cost for the serviced land for this project is $6,320 and is included in the figures given above.


FEDERALLY OWNED PROPERTIES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the area of land owned by the federal government in each province?
2.	Is there a complete and perpetual inventory of federally owned properties?
3.	What action has been taken since the release of the Glassco Report to improve the management of real property?


Arthur Laing: 1. The
area of land owned by the federal government as recorded in the Central Inventory of Federal Properties, by province, is:
Province	No. of Acres
Newfoundland	96,041
Prince Edward Island	1,353
Nova Scotia	22,514
New Brunswick	318,532
Quebec	280,485
Ontario	268,283
Manitoba	51,707
Saskatchewan	77,445
Alberta	101,751
British Columbia	164,158
* Yukon Territories	21,125
'^Northwest Territories	90,193
^Includes only property that is being utilized by federal departments or agencies.
2.	There is a perpetual inventory of federally owned land. The inventory is estimated to be 90% complete at the present time and is expected to be completed by the end of 1971.
3.	Several of the recommendations made by the Glassco Report to improve real property management have been acted upon; more recently the Treasury Board-Department of Public Works Task Force has examined the entire ecect of real property management and proposals are now being studied for presentation to the government.


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Communications during each year since computers have been used?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: The Department of Communications has utilized computers since 1969 in connection with its research and administrative programs. The man-hour savings in gen-
December 14, 1970

eral are derived from estimates of the additional personnel that would have been required to cope with the increased workload over the past two years. In the Research area only moderate savings were estimated because it is realized that the majority of the present research projects would not be feasible without the use of computers.
Man-hours saved: 1969-70, 51,000 man-hours; 1970-71 (projected) 80,000 man-hours.


PERSONNEL OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the total number of full-time employees in (a) the Department of Communications (b) the Post Office Department?
2.	What are the names, duties and salary of the personnel in the office of (a) the Minister of Communications (b) the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office?
3.	At this date, November 9, 1970, who is the Postmaster General of Canada?
4.	Is it intended to commission further studies on the question of converting the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Communications and by the Post Office Department as follows: 1. (a) 1,324; (b) 36,755.
Salary Scale
2.	(a) Mr. A. Houle, Special Assistant $12,500-15,000 Miss F. levers, Special Assistant 7,500-10,000 Miss I. Lefort, Private Secretary 7,500-10,000 Mr. P. Saumure, CR-3	5,632- 6,191
Miss R. Paul, ST-6	6,294- 6,918
Miss A. Kinkella, ST-5	5,632- 6,191
(b)	Mr. J. R. Bellemare, Executive Assistant Miss M. J. P. Theriault, Special Assistant Mrs. G. Cousineau,
Private Secretary Mrs. M. Dubois, ST-6 Mr. G. Prud'homme, CR-3

3.	In accordance with Section 3 (2) of the Post Office Act, the Minister of Communications is the Postmaster General of Canada. By Order-in-Council P.C. 1970-1704, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote is authorized to act at all times for the Postmaster General in respect of the office of Postmaster General.
4.	No. As mentioned by the Prime Minister in the House on November 9th, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote has been asked to study this question and is now pursuing the study.


MEADOW LAKE, SASK.-COST OF PUBLIC HOUSING
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is being contributed by (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the Town of
Questions
Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, toward the 16 public housing units presently being constructed in the Town of Meadow Lake?
2.	What amount was paid for the land?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	The cost of the 16 public housing units in the Town of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan is being shared among the three levels of government as follows: Federal Government, $172,200; Provincial Government, $45,920; Municipal Government, $11,480; Total: $229,600.
2.	The estimated cost of the serviced land for these units is $11,000, and is included in the figures given above.


SASKATOON, SASK.-COST OF DWELLING UNITS FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is being contributed by each (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, toward the 50 dwelling units for low-income families in Saskatoon?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	The cost of the 50 dwelling units for low-income families in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is being shared among the three levels of government as follows: Federal Government, $395,325; Provincial Government, $105,420; Municipal Government, $26,355; Total: $527,100.
2.	The above funds are being used to acquire existing dwellings; it is not therefore possible at this time to determine the actual land cost.


LABELLING OF BABY FOODS
Mrs. Maclnnis: Does the Canadian Food and Drug Directorate intend to adopt federal standards for infant feeding formulas and to require the labelling of all contents in baby foods similar to those recently set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration?


John Carr Munro: The Food and Drug Directorate presently is developing regulations for infant feeding formulae which will specify the amounts of essential nutrients required to be present. A list of ingredients will be mandatory on the label of these products.


ICEBREAKING UPPER LAKES
Mr. Noble: Is it the intentoin of the government to winter the icebreaker Alexander Henry in Owen Sound or Collingwood to take advantage of the fact that navigation can be opened up in Georgian Bay and Lake Huron eight to ten days before Lake Superior?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: No. The program this winter is for the Alexander Henry to winter in Thunder Bay and a second small icebreaker to winter in Georgian Bay.

December 14, 1970
Questions


LIVERPOOL, N.S.-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENT
Mr. Crouse: 1 What was the name of the Unemployment Insurance agent in Liverpool, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the amount of remuneration paid to him during 1970?
3.	On what date did he resign?
4.	On what date does the government plan to reappoint another agent in Liverpool?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. Presently, there is no agent of unemployment insurance in Liverpool (N.S.). The last agent employed by the UIC in that locality was Mr. Lester L. Clements.
2.	Nil.
3.	Mr. Clements resigned on November 6, 1969.
4.	At the present time, the Commission does not plan to reappoint another agent in Liverpool (N.S.). The Area Office of the Commission in Halifax provides services to the workers of that locality.


GENERAL MOTORS-WHEEL DEFECT 1960-65 TRUCKS
Mr. Mather: Did General Motors Corporation of Canada notify the government that the wheel structure of its three-quarter ton pickup truck manufactured between 1960 and 1965 is "subject to sudden and catastrophic failure" and (a) if so, what action has been taken (b) if not, is the government aware of the situation in the United States, where the U.S. Government is suing General Motors for refusing to notify purchasers of the above-mentioned defect?


Gérard Duquet: General Motors Corporation of Canada has not notified the Government of a wheel defect on pickup trucks manufactured during the period 1960 to 1965. The Ministry of Transport is aware of this situation in the United States. The dispute involves vehicles manufactured prior to enactment of the 1966 United States Motor Vehicle Safety Act and, as this litigation involves a complex principle of law, the case could remain in the Courts for some considerable period of time. The Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act has not as yet been proclaimed. The proposed date for enforcement is January 1, 1971. The Canadian Act is not retroactive with respect to either safety standards or defect notification. *


*CBC-SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEES IN QUEBEC
Mr. McCleave: How many employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (a) have been suspended (b) have been fired, from their jobs because of events arising from the state of apprehended insurrection in Quebec?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the CBC that two employees of the Corporation, one in the Ottawa-Hull area and one in
Montreal, were apprehended under the provisions of the War Measures Act, detained in custody for 13 days and 10 days respectively, released without any charges having been laid against them and, on release, returned to their employment with the Corporation.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICES
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many regional offices are maintained by the Public
Service Commission across Canada?
2.	Where is each office located?
3.	During the period August 1, 1969-July 31, 1970, how many people were released from each office and for what reason?
4.	What was the mother tongue In each case?
5. How many, in each case, were (a) bilingual (b) unilingual?
6. During the same period, how many people were hired by each office?
7.	What was the mother tongue in each case?
8.	How many, in each case, were (a) bilingual (b) unilingual?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Seven.
2.	Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.
3.	None.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6, 7 and 8:	Number	Mother	Bi-	Uni-Office	hired	tongue	lingual	lingualHalifax	1	English	-	1Montreal	8	French	8	-Ottawa	3	French	3	-Toronto	5	English	1	4Winnipeg	4	English	-	4Edmonton	2	English	-	2Vancouver	2	English	-	2


INVESTIGATION INTO PROBLEMS CREATED BY VISITORS AND NON-IMMIGRANTS SEEKING PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN CANADA
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Does the government intend to follow up on the report of an investigation made by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick Q.C. on the problems created by visitors and non-immigrants who ask for permanent residence in Canada?
2.	When will the bills correcting this situation be introduced?
3.	How many people worked on the investigation?
4.	What was the amount paid in salaries for this investigation?
5.	What were the other expenses incurred?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes.

December 14, 1970

2.	As soon as possible. There will probably be a need to amend the legislation.
3.	Mr. Sedgwick consulted with departmental officials and other interested parties in the course of his investigations, but the department is not aware of any persons who may have been employed by Mr. Sedgwick in connection with the preparation of his report.
4.	Mr. Sedgwick's fee was $12,000.
5.	Incidental expenses for hotel accommodation, transportation, meals, etc. amounted to $563.21.


CBC PERSONNEL
Mr. Mather: 1.	In the years 1967-1968, 1968-1969, 1969-1970, what was the number of CBC employees including production, administration, clerical, special services and/or commission employees?
2.	In each year, what was the cost of salaries, wages, fees, commissions or other employee indemnities of such employees?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: For the year ended March 31, 1968, 9,042 employees; $83.4 million; 1969, 9,147 employees; $89.8 million; 1970, 8,951 employees; $98.4 million.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Orlikow: Who are the staff members of the Company of Young Canadians and, in each case, what is their annual salary?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise with regard to written questions, if I may.


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


Frank Howard: That is as convenient a way as any to get the floor, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inquire about starred question No. 40 standing in my name which simply asks about the results of the inquiry undertaken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare into the leakage with regard to the interim report of the Le Dain Commission. This question has been on the order paper since October 8, and I should like to know what progress is being made toward making a reply?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I have noted his remarks and will try to get an answer very shortly.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement on Friday by the chartered banks that during the past 12 months their profits have increased by a further 12 per cent over and above the three previous record-breaking years, has the government given consideration in the intervening three days to advising the chartered banks that they can well afford to reduce the prime rate to 7 per cent and that it is in the national interest that they do so because this is by far the most effective means available to us for stimulating the economy and thereby counteracting rising unemployment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, to my memory the hon. member has asked this question at least six times in the past three months and each time he received the answer that the banks were effectively lowering their rates. There is nothing new to add today. I do not expect that he would imagine the government would act against the banks just because they were making profits.


George Harris Hees: The government has said that it is looking for ways to stimulate the economy. I have suggested a way in which that can be done very easily and I have asked the Prime Minister whether the government has considered this suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member has a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the government has no intention of following this suggestion, I would ask him if he would take the House into his confidence and tell us how it is that the chartered banks have the Minister of Finance and himself so completely in the palm of their hands-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is in order. I am sure it is not and I do not think the Chair should allow a reply to be made to it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: want to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding a group which is unfortunately growing in number. I refer to the single unemployed transients, many of whom at the present time have used up their
2004

December 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
unemployment insurance benefits and are not eligible for welfare assistance because they cannot establish domicile in any one place. The result is that many of them are being pushed from town to town and represent a very serious problem. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving any thought to some effective measures for assisting these single unemployed transients?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I had
occasion to tell the House at least twice last week, the government is hoping to help all sections of the population who are unemployed. I understand that it is not within the power of the government to correct the problem in the particular case to which the hon. member referred. I know of many instances where companies in many parts of Canada have complained that the transients themselves depart very soon after their arrival, not because their jobs have been withdrawn but because they themselves decide to move on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that many of them are young men who have not yet been able to establish themselves in the labour force, and in view of the fact that last summer the Secretary of State provided hostels for some of this group, is the government giving any consideration to establishing hostels where crash programs could be set up to help them upgrade their education or acquire some of the skills that are necessary to enable them to secure employment later?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration dealt with this precise question last week, but let me repeat that I know of many cases where young, single transients do not wish to work very long in isolated communities and it is they who of their own free will give up the job when the company would very much welcome their continuance in employment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since many of the municipalities and provincial governments- not all but certainly some of them-have been refusing to grant welfare to these people and insist on them moving on after giving them one night's lodging and a meal ticket, would the federal government consult with the provincial governments and undertake that if these people are supplied with welfare the federal government will assume the entire cost for looking after single unemployed persons whose care cannot be charged to a particular municipality?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, the government shares in 50 per cent of these costs now. If the government were ever to contemplate paying the total cost, of course the whole problem of provincial jurisdiction over welfare cases would have to be examined and the jurisdiction possibly shifted. I know of no province that is prepared to suggest that kind of change in the constitution.



NUMBER OF EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED UNITED STATES DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS IN CANADA

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has any study been made as to the number of draft dodgers and deserters from the American forces who are in Canada, how many are employed, and how many are unemployed at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such study, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe it is the policy of the government to keep track of people who enter this country legally and to see whether they are employed or otherwise.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Can the Prime Minister inform the House how many of these people are on welfare at the present time in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this information is available at the municipal or provincial level. As the hon. member knows, these welfare schemes are administered by the provinces. I am told it is possible that we might have some figures and if there are figures available I will ask the minister to report to the House.



INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES OF SHARING OF COST OF ASSISTANCE

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that reports in the last couple of weeks show that in every city in Canada the number of young people who cannot get jobs has risen to unprecedented heights, would the federal government discuss with the provinces the possibility, where these people do not qualify for assistance, of sharing the cost of assisting them so that they can be helped during the winter months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the thrust of the question. I believe it related to discussions with the provinces, but I did not quite seize the question.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. In view of the fact that many young people do not qualify for assistance because they have not lived in a city or province for the required time, normally a year, would the federal government consider as an emergency measure discussing with the provinces the sharing of the cost of assistance for these young people during the winter months which will be extremely difficult for them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that most provinces are in effect giving assistance to such people and that therefore this is the rule rather than the exception.
December 14, 1970



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has any federal commitment been given, either unqualified or conditional, to the superport known as Lorneville in New Brunswick, as reported by the president of the New Brunswick Development Corporation yesterday?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about that and will be glad to report to the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When the minister inquires, in view of the statement of the president of the New Brunswick Development Corporation that such an announcement will be made in January will he make sure before any commitment is made that he and his officials have access to the most recent report on a superport for the Atlantic area, prepared by Jones, Bardelmieir, and Clements and I believe almost ready for release, which suggests that the superport for the Atlantic region should be in the Canso Strait area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire first if any commitment was made.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it government policy "to keep its cotton-picking hands off the Atlantic offshore mineral resources", as warned by the new Premier of Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that his question cannot be asked in those terms. Perhaps he could find a more acceptable way procedurally in which to ask it.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made on Saturday by the Premier of Nova Scotia, has the Prime Minister been requested to renegotiate or are there direct negotiations going on at the present time with respect to offshore mineral resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made very concrete proposals to all the provinces, including Nova Scotia, and in most cases we are still awaiting their responses to our proposals. I believe the Atlantic provinces have had consultation among themselves as to the type of response they want to give to the federal government. Perhaps the Premier of Nova Scotia, whom we are happy to see in that job, will be able to do a bit of homework and make sure it is not our intention to put our hands on anything that does not belong to us.
23568-56i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, based on the statement just made by the Prime Minister. Although he stated that the government did not want to put its hands on anything that did not belong to them, will he now take under consideration Bill C-135 on which I have presented a petition to the House? From that he should realize that the government has already disclaimed ownership of offshore mineral rights in Nova Scotia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take notice of that question. I do not know if it refers to the heavy water plant and I do not know if the Premier of Nova Scotia wants us to keep our hands off that as well.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I can enlighten the Prime Minister since he was Minister of Justice when this bill was placed before the House. I am talking about mineral rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the minister's recent announcement that Procter and Gamble are to receive an incentive of some $11,790,000 to construct a pulp mill in Alberta, can the minister indicate whether this is a foreign-controlled corporation? If so, was consideration given to providing the incentive to a Canadian company or Crown corporation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we certainly considered the possibility of an incentive to a Canadian company, which unfortunately was not ready to start operations at this time.



PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL OF PROPOSED ALBERTA PULP MILL

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. In view of the large investment by the federal government in the proposed pulp mill in Alberta, is it the intention of the government, either directly or through one of its Crown agencies, to hold any equity capital in this operation, or is there going to be any safeguard of the federal interest through having some members on the board of directors-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member's supplementary might be placed on the order paper.

December 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL, PROTOCOL-EFFECT OF CANADIAN COMMITMENTS ON LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the minister is back in the House after meeting his provincial colleagues, does he intend to make a statement concerning the commitments the government could enter into in regard to the Geneva protocol on psychotropic drugs and the effect of these commitments on the recommendations of the Le Dain Commission?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a long statement is necessary. I can assure the hon. member that I do not believe it is the intention of the government to make any commitments of a binding nature until it receives the final report of the Le Dain Commission.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Is the minister now in a position to advise the House on the nature of the answer relayed to the directors of the provincial antiaddiction programs who have urged the government not to proceed to enter into any international drug agreement prior to the completion of the Le Dain report.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would hope my previous answer would answer the hon. member also.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that no commitments will be made at Geneva until he comes back to the House and such agreements are fully ratified by Parliament?


John Carr Munro: 

PENITENTIARIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who I believe is Acting Solicitor General. I should like to know whether 20 or 25 or approximately that number of inmates of the Saskatchewan penitentiary have been moved to the penitentiary in British Columbia, plus a number of those who have been labelled as malcontents and the like from Stony Mountain penitentiary in Manitoba?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



PRINCE ALBERT-INVESTIGATION OF CONDITIONS BY STANDING COMMITTEE

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the President of the Privy Council. Has the minister taken under consideration the request made in the House last week that the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee arrange to visit Prince Albert penitentiary, and is the minister in a position to report now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with the Solicitor General with respect to a reference to the committee. I am not exactly certain what the effect of the reference will be, but it certainly will be in accordance with the general wish to continue the examination commenced last session.


John Stratford Burton: Can the minister give any indication of the timing of any such visit to the Prince Albert penitentiary?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot anticipate what the terms of reference will be. When the terms are placed on the order paper, we shall be in a better position to say.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On October 20 the minister was to meet with the officials of Rivers Air Base and Brandon. However, the trip was postponed due to the Quebec crisis. Because of the uncertain economic situation in western Manitoba, can the minister advise the House when he will visit Manitoba and when these meetings will take place?

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, we intend to visit both bases as soon as the policy applicable to those who will be discharged has been fully developed.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the recent representations to the minister by a representative group from the province of Manitoba, led by the Premier of that province, with respect to widening the designated area, will the minister, when he visits the Rivers and Brandon communities, be making an announcement based on those representations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon.

December 14, 1970



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would refer him to the remarks which he made in the House on January 26, 1969, when he tabled the report of the Royal Commission on Security. Has the Security Review Board recommended by the commission, and discussed by the Prime Minister at pages 10637 and 10638 of Hansard yet been established? If it is functioning, how long has it been functioning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The policy of the government has been decided but the implementation is still suspended. I hope to acquaint the House with the action we are taking in the not too distant future.


Erik Nielsen: Has any review procedure at all been established? If so, what is that procedure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the review procedure which existed before is continuing to operate. As the hon. member knows, a new procedure was recommended in the royal commission report. It is this new procedure on which the government has taken a policy decision which has not yet been implemented.


Erik Nielsen: On page 10638 of Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated that it was the intention of the government to bring about a parliamentary debate on the report of the commission. Can the Prime Minister indicate now when that debate will be held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot, Mr. Speaker. I will take it up with the House Leader. Perhaps the occasion would be when the government announces its policy on the review board. Perhaps at that time the House may want to debate the matter. I thank the hon. member for reminding me of this commitment. I will discuss it with the House Leader.



TRAINING ABROAD OF MEMBERS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General. Is the minister now in a position to tell the House if any members of the FLQ or . related terrorist organizations have received training in terrorist activities abroad. If so, in what countries?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could the minister undertake to give this information to the House before the end of the week? Perhaps he could discuss the matter with his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for V ancouver-Kingsway.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



APPOINTMENT TO COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THOSE ON LOW INCOMES

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In making his new appointments to the Canadian Consumer Council, does the minister intend to appoint a representative or representatives from groups of consumers on low incomes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are members on the council who purport to speak for these people now.



SEMINAR ON DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETS IN NEW ENGLAND STATES FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES' PRODUCTS

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister having officials of his department meet with officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding a possible seminar of businessmen and trade consultants on the increased development of markets for the industries of the Atlantic provinces in the New England states?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. I shall inquire if meetings are being held and I shall inform the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and is further to the question directed to him late in the question period on Wednesday, December 9, last. What provisions, if any, are being made for the former employees of auto parts suppliers through the auto parts agreement or otherwise?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must apologize to the hon. member for not being as expansive as I ought to have been at the time. I misunderstood the question. If lay-offs in the auto industry are directly connected with the auto pact, those employees temporarily out of work during the transitional period are entitled to transitional assistance benefits to supplement unemployment insurance according to the specific formula which assures them of an income of approximately 65 per cent of their normal income.

December 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the government concerned in any direct way with these former employees, particularly in view of the fact that the closing of these supply plants seems likely to continue and as the government had something to do with the proliferation of these plants in the first place?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the particular provision to which I alluded will be in existence until December, 1972. A particular board is responsible for evaluating these lay-offs. If they consider that these lay-offs are a direct result of the auto pact, the transitional assistance benefits come into effect.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the minister consider discussing with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the lay-offs in the automobile parts industries and attempt to persuade his colleague to peg the Canadian dollar which might prevent further closings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is in the form of a submission.



LABOUR RELATIONS


George Harris Hees: Has the
Minister of Labour been in touch with the Minister of Labour of Ontario to see whether the federal government can offer and make available services which might be of assistance in solving the General Motors strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member is repeating a question which was asked on Friday.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman reaffirm the policy of the Pearson government so that in the interests of freedom of thought, expression and teaching there will be no police surveillance of university campuses?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the policy of the government that there will be no more surveillance of campuses than of any other segment of Canadian society.
sjs sj* %



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the Senate mass media report indicates that approximately 70 per cent of television viewers are willing to overlook distorted reporting, is it the government's intention to

advise the president of the CBC that some people are very concerned about the fact that almost every time the Prime Minister is interviewed by CBC personnel a distortion caused by blatant, differential fawning occurs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the question is not acceptable in those terms.


Mark Willson Rose: May I rephrase the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Try rephrasing your thinking.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might like to try a different question.


Mark Willson Rose: What is the Secretary of State prepared to do to increase more objective reporting on CBC television?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question contains an allegation and in that sense it is not in order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister report to the House any progress in his efforts to have the employees of Canadian National hotels brought under the minimum wage legislation passed by this Parliament?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, henceforth that particular question would be best directed to the Minister of Justice as the Department of Labour has asked the Department of Justice to pursue the line I have already recommended on several occasions in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: I redirect my question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister prepared to support the Minister of Labour in this very just and worthy cause in order to expedite a decision on this matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National Railways has sought an order in the nature of certiorari before the Supreme Court of Alberta against the Canada Labour Relations Board and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. These proceedings will raise constitutional questions respecting the application of federal labour legislation generally to the hotel operations of the railway company. Until this question having constitutional import is decided by the Supreme Court of Alberta, there is no justification for any further legal action against the company in that regard either by way of prosecution or otherwise.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the Minister of Justice assure the House that the federal government will be represented at this hearing because of the special interest of Parliament with regard to this matter?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
December 14, 1970



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the Acting Solicitor General. In view of the problems at the Prince Albert penitentiary, is the minister considering the transfer of the warden of that penitentiary?


John Napier Turner: Not
that I know of, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSFER OF FEMALE INMATES FROM MATSQUI TO KINGSTON

Mark Willson Rose: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Solicitor General with regard to the closing of the Matsqui correctional unit in British Columbia. Has the minister or the government had an opportunity to reconsider this proposal in view of the fact it will result in the loss of 65 correctional staff jobs in British Columbia?


John Napier Turner: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether there have been any further seizures of explosives and arms from FLQ arsenals? If so, will he indicate the extent of such seizures and the amount of the remaining explosives and arms available to the FLQ?


John Napier Turner: Even if that question could be answered with any precision, Mr. Speaker, I do not have with me further specific figures since the last time I addressed the House on the subject.
He *	*



COMBINES


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On November 12 I asked the minister a question with regard to an alleged monopoly in the Alberta broiler industry by the Alberta Poultry Marketers Co-operative. Is the minister now in a position to indicate what progress has been made with respect to the investigation being conducted by his officials, particularly with regard to possible breaches of the Combines Investigation Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the report was referred to the proper officials of the Combines Investigation Branch. Under the Act, progress of an investigation is not reported except in the annual report of the director or in the event charges are laid involving an infraction of the Combines Investigation Act.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Frank Mazankowski: After the investigation is completed, will the minister be making a report to the House in view of the fact the matter was raised in the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, completed investigations are reported in the annual report of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
A delegation from Manitoba went to France recently to
assess the possibilities of getting some assistance for the teaching of French in that province. Could the Secretary of State tell us if these negotiations have been approved and conducted according to federal government requirements?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs can answer this question and not the Secretary of State.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I shall repeat it in English.

A short time ago a delegation from the province of Manitoba visited France in order to study the possibility of obtaining assistance in the teaching of French in the province of Manitoba. Can the minister state whether the conducting of these negotiations has been approved by the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it is a question of approval, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, any representations were made in accordance with the Canadian constitution and did not raise any constitutional issues.
H* H*


WELFARE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that reports continue to come in that single unemployed persons are being denied welfare in some provinces because the municipalities are naturally reluctant to assume responsibility for those who are not residents, will the minister undertake to conduct discussions with the provincial governments to see if some arrangement can be worked out so that such single unemployed persons who do not have domicile in a particular community can be taken care of rather than being pushed from pillar to post?

December 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this question was asked earlier, but possibly it was not answered and the minister might wish to reply.


John Carr Munro: I have read some of the reports to which I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party has referred. After meeting many of the provincial welfare ministers a few weeks ago, I can say that this is not a prevalent practice throughout Canada, though it may be happening here and there. To the degree that it is, I shall be pleased to talk the matter over with the welfare ministers whom I shall be meeting shortly.


INCLUSION OF PARAMEDICAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. May I ask whether at his conference last week the question of including certain paramedical services in the national medicare plan was discussed and, if so, whether any progress was made toward a consensus on this matter?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was discussed, and it was decided we should examine this question of the extension of coverage together with the financial implications of the present sharing arrangements and of health insurance programs generally.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Is the minister in a position to tell us when we might expect a more specific announcement?


John Carr Munro: Well, we agreed to look into this whole matter with the provinces over the course of the next few months, and until we are in a position to reach a more definite conclusion I would have nothing more helpful to advise the House.


IMMIGRATION
Erik Nielsen: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the government taking any steps to improve the Immigration Appeal Board structure and procedure having regard to the 14-month backlog of appeals waiting to be heard?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure this question was asked some days ago. It may be, however, that there have been developments since then which would make it more relevant today, so in these terms and to this extent the question would be in order.


Jean Marchand: I will take this question as notice and I will refer it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


NATIONAL LIBRARY
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State inform the House when he will be appointing the national advisory council which was provided for under the terms of the National Library Act approved by Parliament over a year ago?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice and I will look into it to see where we stand.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Secretary of State.
Can the minister answer now my question of November 26 regarding the retired employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The CBC intends to give its retired employees the same benefits as those granted to Public Service employees but the implementation of this policy is subject to an agreement with the representatives of the employees and to considerations proper to the administration of a Crown Corporation pension fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I extend my thanks to the minister, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Mr. Baldwin:: A brief point of order, Your Honour more for the sake of clarification than for obtaining some order from the House. Votes and Proceedings of Friday, December 11, includes an order of the day under the notices of committee meetings which indicates that this bill, Bill C-205, is to be considered by the Standing Committee at 3.30 this afternoon. While I understand there was some discussion on this question, and it was
December 14, 1970

hoped the bill might have been dealt with, the committee is obviously not seized with jurisdiction so no such order can be made.
There is every hope, though, that with the spirit of goodwill which has finally made its way over to the other side of the House, we might get rid of this bill so that the committee would have jurisdiction. Perhaps either now, or before we leave the subject, the House will permit an order to be made enabling the committee to deal with the bill this afternoon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the suggestion made by the Opposition House leader is a good one, and perhaps it could be agreed that when the order is passed the standing committee can consider the bill as soon as it can conveniently arrange its affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue the remarks I was making on Friday in this debate on Bill C-205 which seeks to offer assistance to industry and provide for further loans similar to those applying to fishermen, farmers and small businessmen, in addition to extending the designated areas so as to include Montreal and southeastern Ontario.
About a year and a half ago, when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created, I recall having serious reservations on the subject of the powers accorded by the act to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), powers which I believe to be excessive. I felt that once a minister had been given such powers he was in a position to convert them into a type of dictatorial exercise; moreover, they might be used for the purpose of extensive political advantage. Nevertheless, I put these misgivings aside, feeling that since we have a cabinet made up of some 30 ministers and a Liberal caucus of some 130 members, any activity of this kind would be curtailed. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps I have been naive.
I have always been aware that a cabinet is in itself a form of dictatorship, since there are 20 or 30 men who make all the important decisions. I have always felt that government is best when there is such a divergence of opinion that no one minister can take advantage of a situation. Looking at the present bill, I have to say that every member from the Atlantic provinces, every member from areas in western Canada where there is regional disparity, takes exception to the proposals contained in it. I am surprised that the ministers from Newfoundland, from Nova Scotia and from Prince Edward Island, together with the ministers from western provinces, have not prevented Bill C-205 from coming before the House. When members like the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), as well as the entire opposition, raise an issue in respect of the principle of
Regional Development Incentives Act
Bill C-205, perhaps they are like voices in the wilderness because it is possibly a fait accompli.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I have an article by Gordon Aalborg, which appeared in the Edmonton Journal, in which he refers to a quotation from an official of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Michael Fitzgerald to the effect that incentives boundaries are extremely flexible. He indicates that it is at the discretion of the department to decide which areas should become designated and which areas should receive special incentives. He indicates also that this act gives little direction to the minister and that most of the decisions are made at his discretion, justified only by the unemployment situation. For example, when the minister designates the Montreal area or parts of southeastern Ontario, he can refer to the fact that at the present moment in Quebec unemployment stands at 7.2 per cent, up from 6.3 per cent in November of 1969. He can also cite, in respect of specific parts of southeastern Ontario, which has a very heavy unemployment rate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether hon. members would mind if I drew to their attention the fact that there are many conversations going on in all areas of the House, and that is unfair to the hon. member who has the floor. It is certainly difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member. If these conversations have to be carried on in the House, perhaps they could be done sotto voce. I think it might be appropriate to carry on the conversations behind the curtains.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am mainly interested in the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion hearing my presentation and I think he is listening. Perhaps other hon. members have made up their minds or have not even read the bill and are not aware of its consequences. The minister is aware of the unemployment situation in Quebec. I wonder whether he is fully aware of the fact that at the present moment, regardless of the historic reason behind it, in the province which I represent there is an unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent, even higher than the critical unemployment rate of last November. This is the highest unemployment rate in any area of any province in Canada. During this winter, this rate will likely soar to about 20 per cent.
At this time the minister is using as a tool to fight the unemployment situation across Canada the special powers of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In 1968, during the debate, and in 1969 when approval was given by the House, certain principles were agreed to in respect of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It was to be a tool to be used to fight specific problems in certain parts of Canada, a tool to fight regional disparity. It was never agreed that the department was to be used as an instrument to combat the economic ills across the nation.
If the minister follows the logic of designating highly industrialized parts of Canada, then he has no alternative but to designate the whole province of British Columbia which today has the second highest unemployment rate in Canada. This rate has increased to 8.6 per cent from

December 14, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act 5.6 per cent in 1969. I do not think hon. members from the province of British Columbia would argue against the suggestion that we should designate British Columbia. They might argue that we should have special provisions brought in by the government to accommodate serious economic crises in various parts of Canada, including British Columbia, and I would agree with that. We need special measures to help particular parts of Ontario, and Montreal, which require incentives of various types in the form of economic aid and assistance during this crisis period of extensive unemployment. I do not think this Regional Development Incentives Act should be diluted by the patchwork designation of regions just because they face this kind of situation. Perhaps the minister is in agreement that there is a lot behind this move, and that before all this is over history will record what is now taking place in this cabinet and this government.
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, in their Newsletter for November, 1970, makes some observations about the distribution of incentive grants in various parts of Canada. The letter reads in part:
The incentives program seems to be having little or no effect in broadening the industrial base of the region, the bulk of the grants being made in the food and beverages and wood industries-the two industries which are the backbone of the existing manufacturing base. Nor are the grants proving useful in promoting the establishment of growth centres-
The same newsletter goes on to quote the distribution of grants from October 21, 1969 to September, 1970, one year. During that period there were 285 industrial incentive grants made in Canada; 11 were made to the province of Newfoundland; 9 to Prince Edward Island; 30 to Nova Scotia and 34 to New Brunswick. The province of Quebec received 104 grants, 22 went to Ontario, 65 to the Prairie provinces and 10 to the province of British Columbia. The total amount of grants represented $79 million offered as incentives to industry in Canada. The province of Newfoundland received less than $1 million or a percentage of 1.1 of the total incentives. In the province of Newfoundland, there is a much higher percentage of the total population than those figures would seem to suggest. Prince Edward Island received just over $500,000, less than 1 per cent. Nova Scotia received $20 million or 25 per cent. New Brunswick received $7.9 million or 10 per cent. Quebec received $30 million or 38 per cent. Ontario received $10 million, or 12 per cent. The Prairie received a total of $8.7 million or 11 per cent and British Columbia received less than $500,000, or less than 1 per cent of the total grants. Those are the particulars prepared by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.
I understand the Council will have representatives appear before the committee when it meets to receive representations on Bill C-205. There is very serious concern on the part of this Council and the Atlantic provinces about the moves being made by the minister, the cabinet and the government, specifically in respect of regional disparity and development. We have, in the Atlantic provinces, a type of economic fibre unlike that of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. We have a multiplicity of small industries and small businesses. Many of
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
these people know very little about the sophisticated international money markets or monetary and fiscal policies. We hoped that the incentives built into the regional economic expansion program would help a lot of the small industries indigenous to the regions to which I refer. I refer to the Atlantic provinces, the lower parts of the Prairies, the northern part of Ontario and rural parts of Quebec. These are the areas which require assistance in developing industries which are local and indigenous in nature to these areas.
Instead, we understand that 75 per cent of the total incentives have been outright gifts to multi-national corporations. I have in mind the announcement of a $12 million grant to a particular firm in Canada. I am not taking exception to this, but can hon. members of the House imagine where the bulk of the incentives are going to go in the industrialized parts of Canada, such as Montreal, which is designated as a special incentive area? Can hon. members imagine a small lumber dealer, a small fish plant operator or a small farmer in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, or even in my own province, trying to compete with these great multi-national organizations? This is the kind of thing which will ruin regional development in this nation and the whole Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am not against special emergency problems. I am not against special measures to help any part of Canada which has economic disparity or special economic crises. I could refer to certain cities which have had heavy unemployment this year caused by the government's mistaken attack on inflation, by the use of unemployment as a lever. I am not against that. I believe this is a necessary reaction to a situation the government has itself created. It is necessary to have special measures, but I do not think we should prostitute the industrial incentives Act in such a way that we dilute its effectiveness in parts of Canada where there are particular problems. I am against that and I do not agree with it.
We have been asking that special monetary and fiscal policy be adopted in special regions in Canada. I could not take the time to express even my own limited opinions concerning how monetary and fiscal policies should be adopted for special regions. This, however, is what the government must do if it is sincere in its fight against regional disparity. On Friday, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) made a statement which sums up my views to a "T" about the need for the special regional development effort being oriented to the resources of particular areas. I say, for example, that in the last year and a half there has been a real contradiction in respect of the government's effort in the Atlantic region. The government has moved in to do two things. First, it has provided infrastructure in areas where this was inadequate. It has provided public services to attract industries where public services were lacking. Having provided these things, the government provided incentives for those industries which would move in and take advantage of the provision of the infrastructure.
December 14, 1970

Now, we have the government designating areas where there is already the incentive and the infrastructure. It is only a matter of an industry picking up an outright gift from the government to establish in an area in which it already has easy accessibility to the Canadian and world markets. We have asked the government to consider adapting their regional development policies so that they would be based on the industry in the area. I can speak with some conviction about my own province. Last year the government brought in an $82 million two-year program of special area grants and loans for the provision of the necessary infrastructure in the area, but not a single penny of that expenditure was directed to the resources of the area. There has never been a grant, for example, to assist in establishing facilities for the fishing industry which is the most important industry in my province. Not a single penny has been spent on this.
The minister and his officials sit in their offices. These officials are very capable men; you had better believe that. They have minds like computers and they have the assistance of computers. These officials have figured out what the economy of any area needs. They have paid no attention to the representat ons of the people or of the members from the area. They have designed a type of program that will elimintate the rural economy of Atlantic Canada. I am not against the relocation of people, but an approach has been designed which will mean the elimination of the rural economy. This includes the fishing industry, the traditional industry, the farming industry and the forest industry in the Atlantic region. This will be the result of the type of approach the government has designed, the elimination of the rural economy. If I had time, I believe I could prove that the government is hung-up tight on the question of urbanization across Canada, giving little consideration to the residents of the various areas.
I could point to transportation and regional development policies, as well as the lack of effort on the part of the Department of Public Works, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and perhaps the Department of Agriculture. I believe these policies have all been designed to hasten the already serious urbanization of the population across the entire nation without regard to the human consequences involved. In various parts of Canada, we have chronic unemployment problems which did not originate in 1970. They go away back in history. I do not think the federal government must assume the full responsibility for the heavy unemployment, for example, in my province any more than for the heavy unemployment in the province of Quebec. I think all hon. members from the province of Quebec, and other parts of Canada, could from their experience and from their reading concerning the history of Quebec find several reasons for the serious economic crisis in that province. If the government should proceed with Bill C-205 as it presently exists, I think this will mean it has given up the fight on regional disparity.
The Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) promise to the nation about regional disparity and regional development has become a farce. We cannot attract industry away from Montreal, and we should not attract industry away
Regional Development Incentives Act from Montreal or Toronto. However, I would hope we could have special types of incentives that would help us develop the economy in respect of our own indigenous natural resources. I could refer, for example, to the economy of Prince Edward Island, where there is a heavily based agricultural economy or my own province where there should be a heavily based fishing economy and also a forest and wood products economy. We receive very little incentive. I could point to all kinds of examples in my own area where men have endeavoured to obtain incentives for the forest and fishing industries. These incentives have been denied on technicalities because the members of the minister's department, either by instruction or on their own, have ignored the problems peculiar to these areas. They have interpreted the regulations exactly to suit themselves. The minister can go ahead now and announce a $12 million incentive for one of the largest companies in the world because he has the flexibility.
The headline on the article in the Edmonton Journal reads "Incentives area boundaries extremely flexible". Mr. Michael Fitzgerald explains how the minister has all the discretionary powers he wants. Yet, he sits back there in his cozy complacency and refuses to adopt any policies which would suit the indigenous industries of our area, particularly the fishing industry. Now, he intends to place all the provinces of Canada and pretty well all the regions of Canada on the same footing. Joe Batts Arm, Fogo Island, South Western Nova, the south shore, Dartmouth and all these other parts of Canada must compete for the same incentives with what is basically one of the largest and the most complex industrial economies in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to touch on the minister's loans program. The minister announced that one of the big changes in legislation now will come about as a result of Bill C-205's provisions for lending to service industries. This week three types of loan programs administered by the federal government should have come before Parliament. One is the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, another is the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the third is the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the Minister without Portfolio for Finance and the Minister of Finance will agree with me that these three loan programs are not worth two cents so far as the small growth parts of Canada are concerned, because once this chamber gives its approval the legislation will be administered by the banks and the banks scuttle loans in the slow-growth areas of our country. They are scuttling the loans because the government is asking the banks to lend money under a government guarantee with a pegged interest rate of 7 per cent to 8 per cent. I am saying that the banks are scuttling these loans. They refuse to lend the money because, with the tight money situation, they can lend money at the much higher interest rate of 12 per cent and do not have to worry about the government's program.
o (3:10p.m.)
On December 1, I presented documented evidence in the House of Commons for the record, and for the infor-
December 14, 1970

Regional Development Incentives Act
mation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his assistants, which indicated that small businessmen, fishermen and farmers have gone to banks but have been refused loans under government acts and that the banks have then made loans under demand loan banking procedure. In other words, they have deliberately scuttled the act. I say this legislation is window dressing and the minister knows it will not work in our area. The only people who will be able to take advantage of loans under Bill C-205 are the relatively large businesses in sophisticated parts of Canada. They can do so because they know the ropes. They can go to banks because they have done it for years and years, and they can take advantage of the situation. People in the slow growth areas where money is tightest cannot take advantage of the legislation. I have quoted statistics to show that under the act 800 loans were made in Canada but only two of them were made in my province, even though the act is supposed to be administered equally across the nation.
Hon. members have listened to the debate on Bill C-205 but I want to repeat my position. I am not against special measures for the city of Montreal, which undoubtedly is suffering serious economic problems at the moment. I am not against special measures being taken in southeastern Ontario, and I would like to see special programs brought in for British Columbia. I understand that the prognostications for the city of Vancouver are that it will have a 12 per cent unemployment rate this winter. The effect of this on young people, and on the population as a whole, will be tragic and frightening.
I think such special measures should be brought in, but I consider that the program under Bill C-205 is designed to even out the economic disparities in Canada in all regions, and our region on the east coast of Canada should have the same basic opportunities as the other regions in Canada. This is the aim of the bill and the end result will perhaps be achieved in a couple of generations. The present move indicates the government has given up the fight against regional disparity and is ignoring the underlying reasons for it. I am amazed at members of the cabinet from the Atlantic region, two of whom are in the House at present, and members of the cabinet from the Prairie region not taking a very strong exception to this bill. This act should never be used as a tool to try to solve economic crises across this nation.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I should like to have a heart to heart talk with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) regarding Bill C-205. He and I have a great deal in common. We both came to the House in 1965. We have the same first name-he is Jean and I am John-and he has a French background while I have an Irish background, which indicates volatility and passion. He is a man of good instincts, like most Irish and French people. He is both concerned and compassionate. He comes from working class parents, as I do, and, like myself, he has at first struggled with a minimum of success. He has a labour background and most of his time has been spent in the trade union movement. I myself, have not been that close to the trade
union movement but at one time I was an organizer and I think I am acquainted with some of the hopes and aspirations of trade union people. He has had a reasonable success in his position as a trade union leader. I think I will let you in on a secret, Mr. Speaker, and tell you that he attended the NDP founding convention in 1961, not as a delegate but as an observer. Later he did not see fit to join the party.


Gerald William Baldwin: He made an even worse choice.


John Gilbert: In 1965, he made the decision to join the Liberal party, I would assume on the basis that he wanted to do something for Quebec. He may have thought that the NDP were not in a position to wield power and bring about the changes that he had close to his heart to help the people of Quebec. That was a serious mistake. The result was that in due time he was appointed minister of immigration. I may say that he had a fair success in this portfolio because he appreciated some of the problems of immigrants. The record shows that he did a good and a fair job as minister of immigration. As Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, he has not been as successful. I have often thought that he should have been appointed minister of labour. It would have been more in keeping with his talents, his compassion and the fine instincts he possesses. But he has not had that opportunity to exercise some of his fine instincts. He has been almost totally dependent on his economic advisers, and this has cramped his style because he is not used to the jargon of the economists which is so difficult to understand at times.
Hon. members may recall that a year and a half ago he was responsible for passing the Regional Development Incentives Act. Today, we have before us Bill C-205, to amend that particular act. In his speech the other day he indicated that 15,945 permanent jobs had been created as a direct result, and also that for each of these jobs two additional jobs have been created, bringing a grand total of 48,000 jobs as a result of the act. I think that all of us should know that as of November 30 there were 476,000 unemployed people in Canada, and the minister said in his speech that in October the figures for Quebec showed a grand total of 159,000 people unemployed. The minister then said quite rightly that the legislation was far from enough with regard to meeting the unemployment situation in Canada. I happened to interject right then and the minister told me he had reached that figure far quicker than I had. It is really what is known as a plea of guilty to the charge that not only the act but the implementation of the act has been far from successful.
I am the last person to blame the likeable Minister of Regional Economic Expansion for the total unemployment picture in Canada, because the first reason for unemployment is the government's over-all economic policy regarding inflation which allowed a high level of unemployment to develop. This is the weapon that the government has used to meet inflation. The minister knows that most of our inflation has been imported from the United States, and one of the things that must strike him-certainly it strikes me very hard-is that the Prime
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
December 14, 1970

Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has attempted to place the problem of inflation at the door of trade unions in Canada. I am sure the minister knows that, so far as trade unions are concerned, only 35 per cent of the working force in Canada is organized.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I am sure he knows that the inflation has been caused by high prices for goods and services, doctor's fees, lawyers' fees, and high interest rates over which the government has had no control. Yet the government speaks of unions, and demands that they conform to guidelines. I am positive that if the minister were a trade union leader today he would have refused to accept the 6 per cent guidelines imposed by the government, for the sole reason that trade union members should not be made to bear the brunt of inflation. Then, we had the Prime Minister telling the auto workers that they were screwing the people of Canada, which is both vulgar and wrong.
The second point to be made concerns not only the government's over-all policy with regard to inflation but its policy with regard to the provision of too much aid to foreign companies. To allow grants and give-aways to foreign corporations is a sell-out of the development of a strong and independent economic framework for Canada. If the minister supports the continentalism of most of his colleagues he will throw away the political, economic, cultural and linguistic freedoms of the people of Quebec, submerging the people of Quebec in anonymity. I ask the minister, do we have a quid pro quo with regard to aid to Canadian companies operating in the United States, with the U.S. providing assistance to them in the same way that he wants to help foreign companies operating in Canada? He knows as well as I do that the answer is absolutely no. He knows as well as I do that at present our American friends are attempting to set up barriers against the importation of goods into their country. To provide foreign companies with give-aways on the basis indicated in the minister's speech, that it is really for the purpose of creating jobs, is really a short-sighted view.
The minister has been in this House since the days of the Gordon theory of economic independence. He has been in this House since the receipt of the Watkins report. Now, he is anxiously awaiting the report from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) with regard to foreign control. But he knows full well that any report brought down by the Minister of National Revenue will be soft and lenient with regard to foreign control in Canada. I would have thought the minister would have taken some lead from countries like Japan and Sweden which exercise direct control with regard to foreign ownership.
A third reason that the minister has had a short fall of success in his department is that he has placed too much dependence upon private enterprise. It seems to me that the corporations have the government by the throat, simply by financing political campaigns. I always remember the minister saying that he had to determine where the moneys came from to support his party, and that when he did know he would take action. I do not know if
Regional Development Incentives Act he has decided where the moneys come from, but I can tell him they come from the corporations that directly control the party in power. Therefore the minister, like many of his colleagues, is just a marionette for the corporate manipulators. The minister is also a prisoner of his own officials, whose main aim is not to rock the economic boat. This is like asking the minister to swim across the St. Lawrence River with both arms tied behind his back.
The minister has some knowledge of what happened in my riding with regard to the Dunlop Corporation. He has seen how futile it is at times to depend on private enterprise, and in particular foreign controlled private enterprise, to solve unemployment problems in Canada. In the case of Dunlop, he knows that a very quick decision was made, not by the Canadian division of the company but by the English division, to close its plant in Toronto, thereby laying off 600 men, many of whom had long service with the company. He also knows that even though it stopped its operations in Toronto, Dunlop continues to operate in another country where labour and material costs are much cheaper than they are in Canada. Yet he continues to place an almost blind faith in the operations of private enterprise firms.
There are two main proposals in the minister's bill, one covering grants and the other covering other incentives on a short-term basis. But the lesson to be learned from all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that private enterprise has achieved a record of failure in creating and maintaining full employment in Canada. I would have thought the minister would have gone further with one of the basic socialist principles of over-all economic planning, and within such a framework could set guidelines to achieve the desired result.
The minister, Mr. Speaker, has a perfect right to ask me, "John, what is your answer to the problem"? In a very few minutes I shall attempt to set forth what I think should be the approach to unemployment in Canada. First, Mr. Speaker, I would not designate practically the whole of Canada as designated areas, but this is what the minister has done. I would prefer to concentrate on particular areas, where incentives would place industries in a strong competitive export position, and also enable them to charge reasonable domestic prices. The minister is quite sensitive about spreading out the moneys at his disposal across Canada. I think he is making a mistake. He is quite sensitive to the charge of showing favouritism to Quebec, but I think he has substantiated the fact that there is not any favouritism to Quebec. The minister should know that there are serious economic and social problems in Quebec. If he feels he should direct the moneys at his disposal to the solution of those problems he should not worry about the charge of showing favouritism. Quebec has a tremendously high unemployment rate, and it has tremendous social problems. I hope the minister has the boldness and courage to meet those problems head on.
On another point, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see the minister allowing companies to establish themselves in small towns, pay low wages, and not encourage trade union development. One must be very careful that com-

December 14, 1970
Regional Development Incentives Act panies applying for loans do not have the intention of modernizing their plant in some small town, paying low wages to the local people, and going on to ignore trade union development. The minister should not be taken in by corporation directors on this point.
As reported at page 1,928 of Hansard, the minister said that as a result of the implementation of Bill C-205:
The decisions will get increasingly more complex and important. That is why I suggest the creation of a board comprising senior officials of my department, representatives of the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as specialists from the private sector.
You, Mr. Speaker, coming from the town of Cornwall, knowing the importance of the textile industry to Cornwall and the importance of trade union development, would have hoped, I am sure, that the least the minister could have done would have been to include trade union officials on this board to help in the determination of the decisions. I am surprised and ashamed that the minister would not include trade union officials on the board. He is a prisoner of the officials of his department. Why would he not include trade union officials from the Canadian Congress of Labour and from the CNTU in Quebec, which he did so much to develop and maintain? I would ask him to give serious consideration to including trade union officials on the board who might help in arriving at some sensible decisions.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Third, Mr. Speaker, I would develop Crown corporations and encourage Canadian enterprise. The minister is very familiar with the Polymer Corporation, with Air Canada, with Sidbec Corporation in his own province and with DEVCO. These have been very successful companies. These Crown corporations were set up to meet a particular requirement.
I should like to address the minister for a few minutes with regard to Industrial Estates Limited in the province of Nova Scotia. That province attempted to meet a situation in the Maritimes by setting up the industrial estates to train men in particular industries. One industry that they helped develop was the electronics and television industry, as a result of which Clairtone had a special arrangement with the government. The purpose of this enterprise was to try and capture some of the northeastern market of the United States. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that there are nine television companies operating in Canada, seven of which are American owned and two of which are Canadian owned, those being Clairtone and Electrohome in Ontario. Clairtone's efforts to capture the market of the northeastern section of the United States have not been too successful. From what I have heard in the Finance Committee, this was because the American companies threw a block in its way. It was easy for them to do this; they just said that Canada could not meet the service requirements, thereby making it very, very difficult for Clairtone to operate with success. If Clairtone fails, Mr. Speaker, that will not only create unemployment in Nova Scotia but it will mean also that Canada will have only one company left to develop the television, radio and electronic business in this country.
Where is all the research and development done? For the American firms, it is done in the United States. Where is the advertising done? That is done in the United States as well. We may become captives of our American friends, not only with regard to television sets but also with regard to a series of other appliances such as refrigerators. I think the minister will have to give new initiative, new help and a new look to the development of Crown corporations in Canada if he wants to increase employment. These American companies set up branch plants in Canada to serve our domestic market and have little or no interest in the development of an export market. It is difficult to create employment with branch plants whose main purpose is to sell only to the domestic market.
I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would have developed a Crown building corporation, something like General Motors. We could have looked to CMHC for financing and could have specialized in building housing for senior citizens, public housing and cooperative housing across Canada. We could have applied pressure to the banks and trust companies for the direction of investment moneys. There is no reason why we should not do that. We could have used all the building techniques developed by the National Research Council, bulk buying and so forth, and perhaps we could have solved the problem that prevails across this country. When considering the housing record of the city of Montreal, we realize it is no wonder that organizations such as FRAP and movements such as the Separatists come into being. They see no future in the federal system for Canada.
I would hope that the minister would develop a Crown corporation to manufacture drugs, thereby bringing down prices and helping to create employment. Polymer Corporation and its chemical techniques could be used to provide some of the basic drugs. Thus far, the minister is depending on private enterprise. As a final challenge to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that he would develop a new Canadian car. It is shocking that small countries such as Sweden, Italy, France and England are sending cars to Canada and that the Renault Company is assembling cars here. Surely, we have the talent and resources at Sidbec Corporation in Quebec to provide the steel required. We have young engineers with talent. But the minister sits idly and allows American, European and Japanese concerns to capture the market.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister could use some of these ideas which I have advanced for the spending of moneys rather than just depending on private enterprise. If I were minister, Mr. Speaker, I would not give one penny to foreign corporations. The minister has given a large share of these moneys to foreign companies and this is hurting Canadian enterprise. Surely, the trend to foreign ownership should be curbed. When companies apply for grants, I suggest to the minister that he scrutinize any contracts made between those companies and the government to make sure that the companies pay fair wages and have some trade union representation. Should this not be the case, then the purpose for which the moneys were allocated is being ill served. All I am saying

December 14, 1970

to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is, "Don't sell yourself to the fat cats. Return to your role as spokesman for labour." This is his rightful place in the cabinet; his place is not as spokesman and apologist for corporate fat cats. "Rise up, Jean Marchand; be done with lesser ideas and men and give your heart and strength-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to rise up and remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just on my final piece of poetry and through you I would say, "Rise up, Jean Marchand; be done with lesser ideas and men. Give your heart and soul and mind and strength to serve your fellow men."


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).


John Stratford Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister is going to close the debate. A good many questions have been raised and if the minister could enlighten the House on some of them, I think we would save a great deal of time on subsequent proceedings.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I intend to answer, before the committee, the numerous questions which have been asked during this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Marchand (Langelier), seconded by Mr. Munro, moved that Bill C-205, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the motion needed a seconder.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that the Chair is now referring to the motion which was moved when the bill was introduced on second reading.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-174, to establish a tax review board and to make certain other
Tax Review Board Bill
amendments to other acts in relation thereto, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Napier Turner: I move
That Bill C-174, an act to establish the Tax Review Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in relation thereto, be amended by striking out line 13 of subclause 22(3) at page 13 and substituting the following:
'controversy does not exceed $2,500 the'
On page iii at the back of the order paper, will be found a revised recommendation. This was inserted at my request. It was done after there had been certain consultations, to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on second reading. I think there would be some disposition in the House to allow that recommendation to be changed by unanimous consent. Perhaps the amendment that has just been put might then be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the recommendation has now been so amended, may I say that this particular amendment was suggested in committee by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan), I think. The committee agreed unanimously. Obviously, a minister's approval was necessary because this matter affects ways and means. I have agreed. This amendment reflects the unanimous decision of the committee. You will notice that the recommendation has to be amended accordingly.
Motion (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-174, to establish the tax review board and to make certain amendments to other acts in relation thereto, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: By leave, now.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I once more thank the House for its courtesy. Also, may I correct my reference to the hon. member who suggested the amendment referred to previously. It was the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode).
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Canada Grain Bill INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL
December 14, 1970



FILING OF STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION, QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES OF AUDITORS, TRANSFER OF SHARES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, respecting investment companies, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-3, respecting investment companies, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: By leave, now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA GRAIN BILL


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-175, respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,
there are some amendments to be moved, are there not?


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) is not in the House, perhaps hon. members will agree to consider motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I move:
That Bill C-175. an act respecting grain, be amended by deleting Clause 41 and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members will lend an ear to what is said on this important amendment. Clause 41 of the bill as now drawn would constitute an entirely new approach to legislation affecting grain in Canada. There is nothing like it in the old Canada Grain Act. Perhaps I ought to say, first of all, that the bill sets out the powers and objectives of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Clause 41 constitutes a new departure inasmuch as it includes a new provision under which the Board of Grain Commissioners may stop payment on stored grain if there is a labour stoppage on the part of
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).J
certain employees. The idea here is that if grain is not in a position from which it can be delivered, the fault must therefore lie with the elevator companies and storage payments to them ought to be stopped. This clause will seriously affect the whole question of wage negotiations conducted through the process of bargaining. Clause 41 provides that storage charges will be paid for the first seven days, but if there is a dispute they will not be paid thereafter. From my reading of subclause 2 ox clause 41, it is apparent that the payment of storage charges will cease after seven days under certain conditions.
At present, the government is greatly concerned about holding the line on costs in our society. It wishes to hold the line on cost inputs and, without doubt, labour costs are part of these inputs. In my opinion, clause 41 strengthens the hand of the unions and those negotiating on behalf of labour. It would strengthen their hand at the negotiating table. The clause provides categorically that, under certain conditions, storage payments will cease after seven days. In other words, the clause would encourage elevator companies to come to a settlement in any dispute before seven days, so that the storage payments would not be cut off.
The Manitoba pool elevator companies submitted a brief to the Standing Committee on May 26, 1970. On page 7 of the brief there is a reference to the question of wage negotiations. Also, United Grain Growers Limited, which has its head office in Winnipeg, wrote to the minister. A copy of the letter was sent to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The letter contains this reference to clause 41 of the bill:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Section 41 of Bill C-175 could provide unions with undue advantage over terminal operators in any wage negotiations. We would suggest that while the holder of a warehouse receipt could be inconvenienced by an elevator labour stoppage, the elevator operators continue to incur the bulk of storage expenses throughout the period of a stoppage; and it would be prudent for the Act to limit specifically the Commission from reducing maximum storage charges to less than fifty per cent of the regular charge. We would further suggest that in the interests of producers, who in the final analysis pay the cost of elevator employee wages, maximum tariffs must be set at a level sufficient that undue bargaining leverage will not come into force.
The letter as written and signed by Mr. Runciman, the president of United Grain Growers Limited, and was sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am sure the minister has a copy. The Manitoba pool and the United Grain Growers are owned by the producers. I quote what the North-West Line Elevators Association had to say:
Section 41 of the proposed Bill is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is the opinion of this Association that this entire Section should be removed from the Bill rather than amended. Our reasoning for so recommending are fears of the harmful effects that this Section will have in promoting higher wage settlements to the detriment of producers. It should be noted that the bulk of the expenses incurred in storing grain in terminal elevators continue to be incurred whether the plant is operating or not.
The North-West Line Elevator Companies Association operates a series of elevators in the three Prairie provinces. They primarily operate under the title, the Pioneer Grain Company. I could read many, many submissions
December 14, 1970

with regard to this particular clause. Most elevator companies have indicated their grave concern to the committee. There was nothing similar to this in the old grain act.
What has been the situation in the past? The last major work stoppage was at the Lakehead two years ago. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was not very sympathetic to the producers and the elevator companies at that time. I will paraphrase a newspaper clipping concerning that situation. The minister said that if the grain trade had made a reasonable offer in the first place there would not have been a strike or the strike would have been shortlived. This is what he told the western farmers.
Two years ago the terminal grain handlers at the Lakehead were offered $1 an hour increase after much bargaining. Members of the office of the Minister of Labour intervened. A settlement was reached with $1.05 increase. The Minister of Agriculture cannot say that a reasonable offer was not made. Originally $1 was offered and the final settlement was for $1.05.


Mr. Olson:: They did not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister may speak when I have concluded my remarks. A substantial increase was made two years ago. The contract is up for renewal this fall. Perhaps the end of this year will be the deadline. They are now asking for another 20 per cent increase in wages. Surely, the hand of the union does not have to be strengthened in today's economic set-up. I do not have anything against unions. They have played an important part in bringing about greater equity to those employed in the major industries in Canada and throughout the world. However, it is not the time for Canada to strengthen their hand at the bargaining table. Their hand does not need strengthening with regard to the handling of grain.
The hand of the union does not need strengthening in Vancouver or the Lakehead. Approximately 400 workers tied up the entire prairie economy. This was as the result of what happened in Vancouver a year ago. The entire prairie economy was affected when over 200 workers went on strike for a period of 26 weeks, half a year. Approximately 200,000 farmers were affected by slightly over 200 workers. Farmers repeatedly threatened to go to the coast to load the boats themselves, although they did not actually do this. After being on strike for 26 weeks in Vancouver, the workers finally settled for a 70 cent an hour wage increase with fringe benefits. The total cost to the companies was 87 cents an hour. This contract does not expire until the end of 1971.
Greater strength is being given to the unions at the bargaining table at a time when they are not acting like good Canadians. In his guidelines, Dr. Young proposed a 6 per cent wage increase and a 6 per cent price increase. We were told that the companies made a sincere effort to comply with this. However, they made no real efforts to comply with the suggestions and stated quite categorically that they would not comply. At times they deliberately went out of their way to prove that they were stronger
Canada Grain Bill
and more forceful than the government. They convinced
the government that wage increases in excess of 6 per cent were necessary.
A short time ago the grain trade settled for a huge increase. The grain trade can have serious effects on the whole matter of grain marketing. Hon. members know that the problems of grain and grain handling can create a massive financial problem for the producers of that commodity. A strike is only called when that industry is in a position to create economic chaos. For example, they do not strike when navigation on the St. Lawrence River is closed. It is to their advantage to strike when they can create the most pressure at the bargaining table.
The government has stated that labour must somehow control its wishes. A Prices and Incomes Commission was established to study price and wage increases. Huge sums of the taxpayers money were spent for this commission to travel across the country. On the other hand, government wage settlements indicate no attention was paid to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who stated the purposes of the commission. As I have said, the government puts forward a bill containing a clause which positively assists the unions at the bargaining table. This is what the United Grain Growers think; this is what the Manitoba pool thinks; this is what the North-West Line Elevator Company thinks; this is what the Federal Grain Elevator Company thinks-I could name a whole host. These are the people who will be negotiating on behalf of the producers for fair wage settlements. Hon. members can ask themselves: was there any provision of this kind in the old act? Remember, the old act was successful for 40 years; for 40 years it was conducive to peaceful wage negotiations and proved relatively satisfactory. I contend that this clause is an afterthought, included to meet the wishes of the board and in particular of the sobcitor for the Wheat Board, Mr. Monk, I am told, who was tired of negotiating these arrangements and preferred a fixed pattern, going automatically into operation at the end of seven days. There was nothing in the old act along these lines and I urge the government to take the clause out of the bill before us, in line with my amendment. Such a provision has not been necessary for 40 years, it is not required now, and the amendment urges that it be removed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wish the minister would hide his prejudices. I know he favoured the unions at the negotiating table at the Lakehead two years ago when he suggested that the grain growers had not made a fair offer in the initial instance. Hon. members should bear in mind that we may be setting up a system here which will last another 40 years. A time may come within the next 10 years when some provision such as this will have to be written into the bill to give the unions greater bargaining power, but this is not the occasion on which to do so; this is not the time to say to the unions: You do not have sufficient economic strength in our society so we must ensure that a body of men numbering some 200 employed in the Vancouver terminal can tie up the produce of about 200,000 farmers trying to get their grain to export mar-

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill
kets. Why should we go out of our way to write into this bill a completely new clause to strengthen the negotiating hands of 200 people who could, in some circumstances, tie up the incomes of 200,000 producers, as they did two years ago for a period of 26 weeks? In all fairness to the people I represent, I cannot allow this bill to be passed without putting the onus squarely on the government if they fail to remove this clause.
It is a clause whose effect will be to aid the unions at the bargaining table. This has been done deliberately. Just as sure as can be, there will be difficulty in the years ahead in settling grain handling problems at the Lakehead and at Vancouver; as sure as guns there will be difficulty, and this clause, if passed, will contribute to that difficulty, because no one can say he is serving the agriculture industry by strengthening the hands of the unions at the bargaining table. To my mind, this is a basic issue and I urge all members to take it very seriously before they vote on my amendment. For my part, I shall do my utmost to bring the matter fully to the attention of the farmers the next time we run into grain handling problems either at the Lakehead or at Vancouver. The farmers will want to know who assisted whom. All members should weigh this issue carefully before they vote on the amendment, because we can be sure that negotiating problems will develop in the years ahead.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to speak only briefly on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) calling for the deletion of Clause 41. This particular amendment has been moved on two occasions in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and has been defeated on both.
The argument which is advanced about strengthening or weakening one side or another as far as labour negotiations are concerned is not a valid one in my view.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The grain companies think so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, I know. If I owned a grain company I would like to collect the full storage charges from the farmers while elevators were shut down, but in my view it is not fair for farmers to have to pay full storage charges during periods when there is a major stoppage, because farmers have the right, by reason of the grain tickets they hold, to have access to that grain, and to have it delivered into a vessel or into any other means of transportation, when it is called upon.
So the reason for the inclusion of clause 41 in the Canada Grain Act is clear. It provides authority for the Board of Grain Commissioners to set a special maximum storage charge for grain held in an elevator when the licencee is unable to deliver the grain because of the condition of the elevator or because the employees are not working-in other words, when the elevator is not operating. This clause makes it plain that the regular storage charges can continue for seven days but that afterward a special storage charge shall apply, and that this lower charge may be set for specific periods of time after the first seven days.
In addition, subclause (3) of clause 41 specifies that to make this new charge operative, the regulations must prescribe it in advance. This is so that everyone, including the farmers who have grain stored in these elevators, is in a position to know in advance what the charges will be in the event of a work stoppage for any of a number of reasons.
I wish to be as conciliatory as I can, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me this is a perfectly logical clause. In my view the charge should not be applicable in full during a period when grain is not available for delivery on request, for example, from those people who act on behalf of the farmers holding warehouse receipts. I do not think holders of warehouse receipts should be called upon to pay full charges when their grain is not available to them. This is, essentially, the reason for the inclusion of clause 41. If an elevator is not operating, because of a labour stoppage, obviously the cost of running that elevator is significantly reduced. This is another argument in favour of my contention that it is not reasonable to continue charges at the full level. I might add that the commission is responsible for determining the approximate maxima.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As required by clause 80 of this bill, the commission is obliged to hold public hearings on such a tariff if it is requested by the licensee, and in this case the licensee would be the owners and operators of the term nal elevators. I hope the House will not accept this amendment on the basis of the arguments which I have just made because I do not believe it is fair to ask the farmers to pay full storage charges under such conditions as I have mentioned. That is what clause 41 is about and I want to completely reject, as kindly as I can, the interpretation the hon. member put on certain comments I made as long ago as a year and a half and again a few weeks ago.
I said that management, during the first four or five weeks of the strike at the lakehead in the fall of 1968, had not made a reasonable offer to the labour unions. That was not a $1 an hour increase. They offered 42 cents an hour during the first four weeks, which both labour and management knew was an unreasonable offer in relation to what they had already settled for at the Vancouver terminals. The hon. member is putting a completely distorted construction on what I said. While I do not want to argue with him this afternoon, I do not think his remarks ought to stay on the record unchallenged. We can argue this across the country, and no doubt we will, from time to time, in the next couple of years.
In conclusion, the application of clause 41 does not change the relative position of management vis-a-vis labour. What it does do is create an element of justice on behalf of farmers who have grain stored in these elevators in that they will not pay the full storage charges while some other parties are involved in a dispute.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief comment. As a farmer, I quite naturally cannot be in favour of any strike which

December 14, 1970

would interfere with the delivery of grain from farms to terminal elevators in Canada. I feel that by removing clause 41 we would perhaps be placing an unjust burden on farmers who ultimately pay the storage charges. I must oppose the amendment on the basis that this clause does provide an element of justice to those who ultimately pay these charges. For this reason I will vote against the amendment.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent there are two sides to this question. This is what the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) had in mind when he introduced this amendment. A few years ago we were faced with a strike by grain handlers. Negotiations are still progressing at this time. If these negotiations break down, we will face the possibility of a strike which I am sure all farmers do not want. I am also sure that the government would not want such a strike at this particular time. One cannot predict what will happen because negotiations have not progressed to the point of breaking down.
Perhaps the minister had some changes in mind when the bill was first drafted. Perhaps he has had some afterthoughts, as a result of the suggestions regarding grain policy made by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. He left the impression throughout the country that he intends to make substantial changes.
This particular amendment relates to the payment of storage charges which, up until now, have been looked after by the government in so far as the amount in excess of 178 million bushels is concerned. This has had the result of giving higher returns to the producer. Last year the amount the federal government paid was in the neighbourhood of $70 million. It is now proposed that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act be eliminated. In that event, the farmers will be the ones who will pick up cost of this storage if sufficient money is not earned by the elevator companies, which in some cases are owned by farmers and farm organizations.
The only alternative to this proposal is an increase in handling charges. Such an increase will again have to be negotiated. I cannot envisage a commission defying the elevator companies which could quite obviously justify an increase because of insufficient revenues from storage charges. In any event, it would be the farmers who would pay.
The minister's suggestion is that under clause 41 the elevator companies would not get paid. It seems obvious to me, regardless of the protestations of the minister, the pressure will be on the elevator companies to settle disputes. In the last year or so, the Prices and Incomes Commission has suggested certain guidelines. The government, in its fight against inflation, has suggested a guideline of 6 per cent. I do not have to remind the House and the country that it was organized labour which did not subscribe to these guidelines. Through their spokesmen, organized labour suggested we could not control the demands of their membership.
As a result of this clause, organized labour will be placed in a better position when negotiations are in pro-
Canada Grain Bill
gress. The longer grain handlers are inactive, the greater the pressure will be on the elevator companies to settle because of the loss of revenue. I can readily see the kind of situation that could develop. At a time when we were possibly negotiating a grain sale to another country, following years of congestion and a lag in the movement of grain, grain handlers could put us in the position of having to renegotiate contracts. This could result in another strike if these grain handlers felt the time was ripe to again make these demands. It could well be said that this clause could definitely work against management. I think management might be able to look after itself.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However if, for example, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers or any other elevator company should end up paying a higher rate than they consider to be reasonable, the net result would be that any earnings the farmers might expect to have from their participation in their farm owned elevator system would naturally be reduced. Last year we had a situation in respect of the wheat pools. They were in a very sound financial position. However, with the removal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act the elevator systems eventually will show reduced income and I fear what will happen is that the elevator systems will deteriorate and, in fact, to a large extent be eliminated. I have pointed this out in this House before. I am not convinced by the argument of the minister or any of those who subscribe to the policies the present government is pursuing, because it would seem to me that the only person who will stand to lose eventually is the farmer.
If some of the elevators should be removed, this would mean higher transportation costs for the individual producer because he would have to deliver his grain to more distant points. The total cost of his production will increase and, in that round about way, the effect will eventually be felt by the producer. Despite anything the minister may say at this time, I am convinced such a clause tips the balance against business negotiations, if you wish. I am sure the elevator companies are quite aware of the effect of this particular clause since they raised the matter in their submissions. Although the minister might wish to suggest one thing or another, I have already pointed out that in a round-about way I feel the bus stops right at the producer's door because eventually he will lose his elevators and his transportation costs will increase. I will support, and I urge others to support, this amendment, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia) moved:: 
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this amendment because the words ''other than a primary elevator" raise some serious problems concerning the definition of a primary elevator in another clause, I believe clause 2. I think the addition of a subclause to clause 12 does, in fact, meet all the arguments advanced in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I believe it is fair to say the argument advanced were to prevent the Canada Grains Commission from operating a primary elevator for the purpose of making sure the commission does not become involved in the business of competing directly with the elevator companies. Therefore, the addition of subclause 2, as provided in this amendment makes clear that the commission will not be in the business of buying grain directly from the primary producer. The existing Board of Grain Commissioners at the present time does operate a number of elevators, particularly interior elevators, which could and indeed would come under the definition of primary elevator if there should be direct deliveries from some farmers to those elevators.
I am sure hon. members will have no objection to the kind of facility which would permit these elevators to receive, for example, truckloads of grain. The reason we would not like to include the words "other than a private elevator" is that this would prevent the Board of Grain Commissioners receiving this grain directly from the producers or indeed directly by motor transport or truck delivery. Therefore, the addition of the words suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) "the commission shall not, in operating any elevator as a primary elevator.. .purchase grain", I believe would
meet the arguments that were advanced in the committee and at the same time allow the commission to do those things that may be needed and which may be reasonable in the operation of interior elevators. There is a situation now, with rapeseed coming into some of the interior elevators, where we would be willing to accept grain directly by truckloads lots at those elevators, even though it came directly from the producers, provided it is assigned to these interior elevators by a grain company.
We do not intend to get into the grain business, and indeed the additional clause specifically prevents that. The problem is that under the definition "primary elevator", the grain commission would also be prevented from accepting these truck lots of grain directly from the producers, notwithstanding that it had come through the account of some grain company or grain co-operative. For those reasons, I would hope the House would be willing to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I commend the minister for his explanation of the amendment, and I am inclined to support it. However, I think I would like to question the procedure here. Why did we not hear from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) who is purported to have moved the amendment? Why do we engage ourselves in this hide and seek? Undoubtedly, the minister handed this amendment to the hon. member for Assiniboia to move, but why did he not place the full load on the hon. member for Assiniboia and have him explain it to the House? I do not understand this business of trying to pass on a little favour to the hon. member for Assiniboia so that he can get credit for moving the amendment, when in reality it is the brainchild of the Department of Agriculture and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). With those words, I tentatively wish to bring about corrective action by the Department of Agriculture. The minister need not be ashamed of moving this amendment. If it is his wish and his brainchild, he should put it forward.
If the hon. member for Assiniboia wants to boldly second the amendment or even take credit for this brainchild of the minister, he should rise and make a speech on the amendment, rather than expect the amendment to be passed without giving us his explanation of it and telling us why we should support it.
Now, I should like to speak to the amendment. This clause was debated at length in the committee on two previous occasions. Last June, the committee saw fit to vote the amendment down. The bill did not pass in the old session, so the amendment was put forward again. During the past summer recess, the committee saw fit to accept the amendment and voted in favour of it. As I remember it, the count was substantially in favour of the amendment.
What was the purpose of the amendment? The amendment is to clause 12, line 18, to delete from paragraph (d) the words, "other than a primary elevator,". It is no

December 14, 1970

secret that, as the minister suggests, under the Board of Grain Commissioners the government is managing inland terminals at Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Lethbridge, Calgary, Edmonton and so on, regardless of whether they are called inland terminals or transfer elevators. In any case, they are other than primary elevators. As I see it, they could continue to be operated under paragraph (d) as it is now worded. However, the minister wishes to put forward this amendment. To my mind, the amendment clouds the issue a little. It states that the commission shall not, in operating any elevator as a primary elevator pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection 1, purchase grain. In other words, if they operate as a primary elevator, they cannot purchase grain. That is my interpretation of the amendment. I do not believe this wording clarifies the clause.
However, if it makes the minister feel better to include these words, we would have no objection. I know the minister supported wholeheartedly the amendment to clause 12 when it was discussed in the committee, so we on this side of the House can support this amendment. I may say that the committee also put forward five amendments to the bill which substantially improved the bill. This act had not been amended for about 40 years and it needed careful examination, which it received in the committee. Although it was not passed in the last session, it has been substantially improved in this session. This being the last amendment before the House, we on this side are prepared to accept it. I think we should pay tribute to the minister for accepting so many amendments brought forward by the opposition in the committee, both in the last session and in the present one. 1 think the grain trade and the producers will be substantially better served as a result of the exhaustive study which the Committee on Agriculture gave to this bill, both in the last session and in this one.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, we support the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). It seems logical in this day and age of specialty crops. Frequently, when not enough grain is grown to fill a boxcar, it is logical that it should be delivered to terminal elevators. I think that this amendment should be passed so that grain could be delivered to these elevators. It makes sense to me.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the deferred division on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Call in the members.
Division



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members' Notices of Motions:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the introduction of legislation to abolish poverty by redistributing income and planning productive resources so that the wealth created by modern technology may provide a much more equal standard of living for Canadians, regardless of who or where they may be, and may also be used to enable Canada to contribute a fair share of this country's wealth toward greater equality of living standards throughout the world.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is agreement to let this Notice of Motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) stand and retain its position.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-175, respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


Gerald William Baldwin: By leave, at eight o'clock. May I call it five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the third reading motion will be put at eight o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment will be as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Health-Inclusion of paramedical services under medicare; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Health-Inclusion of paramedical services under medicare; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)-Grain-Barley-Price spread between deliveries to country elevators and feed mills.
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 and Public Bills.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members' Notices of Motions:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of making regulations, pursuant to paragraph (r) of section 273 of the Customs Act, so as to facilitate airplane tourist traffic at Canadian airports of entry by providing for the deputizing of qualified personnel now employed as management or administrative officers to handle customs clearance to such tourist traffic.
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, could this motion in my name stand today and maintain its position on the order paper?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Motion stands.



POLLUTION


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate a national research and development program in respect of methods of proper and economic solid-waste disposal, including studies directed to the conservation of natural resources by reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources in solid wastes: and provide technical and financial assistance to provincial and municipal governments and multi-governmental agencies In the planning, development, and conduct of solid-waste disposal programs.

December 14, 1970

He said: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member of my party who is to my left said to me, as you were reading the motion, that I could not lose with a motion of this kind. I told him that it is exactly the same kind of motion as I had moved previously, and my previous motion had not been accepted. May I say this now? The growth of our urban regions is being intensified and accelerated to such an extent that by 1980 about 80 per cent of our population will be urban oriented. I, therefore, believe it is necessary for me to continue to bring this matter before the House. I shall do that. I made a speech on this subject on February 2, 1970. May I refer hon. members to my remarks made between pages 3094 and 3103 inclusive. There I discussed the technical background of the problem involving the disposal of solid waste. This problem has grown much worse since that time. We shall continue producing waste in ever greater abundance. Citizens of urban areas are now producing one ton of solid waste per person per year. This fact must be considered. Because of the magnitude and importance of the matter, I submit that the House ought to be prepared to agree to a motion such as is before it now.
We now face a double problem, Mr. Speaker. We must adopt measures to take care of the accumulation of the neglect of past years and establish, as well, effective measures to clear up current problems. The seriousness of the problem is and was accepted on both sides of the House. I should like to emphasize and underline that statement. As I say, both sides of the House accept the seriousness of the problem. May I say that being against pollution is probably politically safer than being for motherhood these days. The question that is still asked is, what do we intend to do about pollution?
After my speech of February 2, I was pleased to see that the forty-fifth annual report of the United Church of Canada Board of Evangelism and Social Services, published in 1970 and entitled, "It's a big responsibility" upheld my views. I was glad to learn that that organization considered the problem I had placed before the House and the Canadian people as one which is important, which calls for an immediate answer and which calls for the involvement of the federal government.
My present proposal, Mr. Speaker, would, if accepted, encourage the government first to support research and training programs and, second, to make grants for demonstration projects in the area of the control of solid wastes, thus encouraging the implementation of existing technology to remedy current practices. I cannot understand how we can approach the problem of air pollution and water pollution to the exclusion of problems involving solid wastes. At page 3095 of Hansard for February 2, 1970 I am reported as saying:
Although it seems possible, it really is not practical to separate problems involving solid-waste disposal from those involving water and air pollution. For example, air pollution can be aggravated by the burning of solid wastes. Household grinding of garbage eliminates solid waste but increases liquid waste. Solid-waste disposal by means of land fill can produce problems relating to ground water supplies.
Therefore, any over-all policy involving the disposal of solid wastes must be developed in association with any policy relating to liquid waste and atmospheric conditions. Accordingly, it
Pollution Research
is necessary for the federal government to adopt some unified standard.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The research aspect of the proposal would emphasize recycling rather than dumping as the preferable method of disposal. Recycling includes all methods of disposal which have as a definite end the return of the materials to use. Where dumping is the only feasible alternative, the research would concentrate on those methods by which disposal is carried1 out without creating health hazards or further environmental pollution.
The financial aspect of my proposal is equally important to the research aspect. As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) pointed out in the debate last year, in many cases we already have the scientific knowledge to deal with certain aspects of this problem. All that remains is the need for funds to apply this knowledge.
There is a need for federal action. We all realize that the federal government cannot be expected to solve the problem by itself. Nor will it be solved by attacking a particular industry or level of government. As the comic strip character Pogo so aptly described the problem of pollution, "We have met the enemy and he is us". However, our experience has demonstrated the cities and provinces, unaided, will not be able to invest the funds urgently needed to meet the rising cost of solid-waste disposal and will lack the means to take advantage of improved methods now available and being perfected. Furthermore, there will be nothing gained in the long run if one city or province merely hurls the refuse into someone else's backyard.
I received a communique, probably from someone in the Ottawa office of the United States information services. It is dated March 24, 1970. It indicates that three departments of the United States government, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare have announced a project to reconvert solid waste. I quote from the communique:
The Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare today announced the establishment of a joint research and development pilot project aimed at helping the nation's cities reconvert solid wastes into useable materials.
The project is being conducted at Madison, Wisconsin, to develop the technology needed to transform discarded cans, bottles, plastics, paper and other solid trash into materials that can be re-used in the economy.
Later on, the Departments hope to build a full-scale demonstration facility capable of demonstrating to cities and towns across the country one way to handle their solid waste production. The design of this facility will begin this year.
The disposal of solid wastes is one of the nation's most pressing environmental pollution problems. Last year, municipalities across the United States spent about $4.5 billion to collect and dispose of nearly 350 million tons of solid wastes, much of which went to open land dumps, creating new health and pollution problems. By the early 1980's solid discards are expected to exceed one half billion tons annually.
The United States is apprised of the situation to such an extent that it is prepared to have two departments face this problem and to accept what I have indicated in my motion, research and financial assistance. It is beyond

December 14, 1970
Pollution Research
my comprehension to understand why this government has not taken a similar stand.
A few of our municipalities have begun to take steps to upgrade their efforts in this regard. Various industries, including the Packaging Association of Canada have begun to demonstrate greater concern with the problem. However, as the current chairman of the program, "Keep Canada Beautiful", referred to as KCB, a program of the Tourist Association, has pointed out:
"KCB has been made aware through Its efforts that a spot by spot antilitter program is not enough. There is little sense in cleaning up one area when the region or area directly connected to it is without any kind of campaign. A national attack on litter is needed-one that stretches from one end of the country to the other with the support of the provinces and the Federal Government."
I wish to point out that the research and financial aspects are very important. I am concerned because the government has not at least moved in the same direction as the United States. As far as I have been able to determine, the federal government has done nothing in this field.
In the debate on this motion on February 2, 1970, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) referred to an advisory committee on public health engineering which was supposedly preparing a report on solid-waste disposal problems in Canada. According ten the hon. member, this report was supposed to be available by the spring of 1970. My enquiries reveal this report has not even been started, yet alone completed. The report, on an area of such magnitude and importance, has not been started.
In conclusion, it would be most detrimental for this country if hon. members opposite agreed in principle with my sentiment, then lessened their credibility by talking out this motion. If a special committee on environmental pollution does not do anything else of significance, I hope it will refer to the February debate and the debate of this afternoon and accept holus bolus my motion as one of its recommendations.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it may be some time before we get to the point of accepting holus bolus various recommendations of the hon. member. However, this is certainly one which we can look upon with sympathy and understanding. He has zeroed in on a problem that is well recognized. It is one of the major problems in our increasingly urbanized society.
One of the outstanding lessons in this century is that the capacity of our environment to decompose waste materials to harmless levels is not infinite. While the ability of the environment to assimilate our wastes is finite, the production of wastes is accelerating as we aspire to newer amenities and ways of life. We are rapidly overtaking the capacity of our environment to handle the waste that our way of life generates.
A diseased environment, such as results from the conditions described by the hon. member, means distress to all of us in a variety of ways. This extends beyond the

physical well-being of man. It proliferates into the psycho-social and economic realms, not to mention the delayed, subtle impact on the ecology of our earth which sustains human life as we know it today. Granting that human activities must result in residues, and granting that all these residues will not be useful, or capable of being decomposed by nature, there is a real need, as the hon. member has suggested, to define both the nature and the momentum of the danger facing our society, to identify existing and potential hazards, and to develop a strategy to control them.
[DOT] (5 .20 p.m.)
It seems that humanity reacts to environmental hazards only when a crisis has been reached; we usually perceive the dangers of environmental pollution only when the hazards have become obvious through human illness, economic changes, obvious damage, or insults to aesthetic values which cannot be ignored. It is time we realized that the detrimental effects of environmental pollution are the ultimate distress signals and that the type of research which is recommended is necessary and highly desirable in order that these symptoms may be identified and suitable action taken before the failsafe stage is reached.
Some preliminary work has been done in the Department of National Health and Welfare, as the hon. member has mentioned, in the division of public health engineering, to indentify the areas in which research might be properly undertaken. In view of the fact that the country is in transition from an agrarian to urban population, traditional approaches are becoming more obviously inadequate. The concentration of population in the urban communities and the upsurge in industrial development have accentuated the deterioration of our environment, for instance, by raising grave problems of waste disposal.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has recognized the urgent need to develop a system to protect the total environment. Such a system, it is proposed, should involve closely integrated studies of methods of preventing, controlling and abating the pollution of all the elements of the environment-air, water and soil. Attention is being paid to environmental contamination by solid wastes. The department has been provided with a lengthy series of recommendations concerning areas to which research might well be directed. I should like to record them at this time. Research needs are identified in terms of management and regulation of disposal practices, disposal methods and environmental effects. Under the first category, it is suggested there is need for:
1.	Comparative evaluation of existing solid waste disposal regulations in Canada; the assessment of need for uniform regulations; and the development of standards and criteria.
2.	Feasibility studies for the development of a mathematical model or systems approach to waste management with special reference to design and operation of disposal systems.
December 14, 1970

3.	Development of a blueprint for comprehensive surveys of wastes.
4.	Assessment of legislative and enforcement problems, and the development of solutions.
5.	Assessment of factors of solid waste disposal with particular reference to town planning, land utilization and management aspects.
6.	Feasibility studies and assessment of factors related to (a) levy of a disposal fee on the sale of non-degradable and non-combustible containers and packaging materials,
(b)	establishment of a solid waste monitoring system, and
(c)	establishment of a system for the reclamation or salvaging of wastes of economic value.
7.	Development of national guidelines for solid waste management in Canada.
The second general heading is Disposal Methods. Here again, we are certainly in need of further information, including:
1.	Feasibility studies on pipeline transport of solid wastes, including solid wastes from water and sewage treatment plants.
2.	Studies on composing of degradable wastes with special reference to fertilizer value.
3.	Studies on methods of incineration of combustible, pathological, and radioactive wastes with a view to achieving their neutralization without at the same time creating an even more serious risk for the future.
4.	Methods of sampling and analysis of solid wastes, particularly from urban areas.
5.	Methods for collection, treatment and disposal of animal wastes including feed lots and livestock farms. Recent publications have indicated the serious damage to water courses and to underground water reservoirs by effluence from modern feed lot operations.
6.	Methods for composting agricultural, vegetative refuse.
7.	Methods for the disposal of solid organic wastes and determination of bio-degradability, with particular reference to wastes containing biocides.
8.	Studies on sanitary land fill under varied conditions of location, construction, operation and post-operative utilization of land.
9.	Studies on reclamation of non-degradable wastes and associated problems.
10.	Research for the development of new kinds of packaging materials and containers.
The heading "Environmental Effects" recommends a number of studies in areas where more information is desired. These include:
1.	Studies on microbial hazards of disposal of pathological wastes from hospital and clinical laboratories.
2.	Studies on micro-organisms active in refuse decomposition.
3.	Studies on factors affecting oxidative conditions of buried wastes such as moisture, temperature, nitrogen, phosphorus, minerals, etc.
Pollution Research
4.	Studies on gas production and composition of gases from buried wastes.
5.	Studies on composition of wastewater drainage from land-fill areas, and its significance in relation to water pollution at the surface as well as underground.
6.	Disease transmission, and nuisance aspects of garbage disposal practices.
7.	Studies on volatile constituents of refuse.
8.	Studies on beneficial and detrimental effects of organic decomposition with special reference to soil and water quality.
9.	Fate of biocides in composted agricultural wastes.
10.	Chemical cycles and ecology of solid waste composting.
11.	The impact of solid waste disposal on the total environment of man-studies on interrelationships of individual effects.
I trust that this lengthy litany of detailed items will satisfy the hon. member that the department has a broad, comprehensive interest in the question he has raised.
The hon. member mentioned that research programs being carried out in the United States were ahead of anything we have in Canada. It is my view that one of Canada's shortcomings in terms of the economy and its resources has been a reluctance to utilize the results of research done elsewhere.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is an insistence by many Canadians that we must do basic research here which is, in fact, a duplication of efforts being exerted elsewhere. I would be most reluctant to see the government launch a research program nearly as comprehensive as the one indicated as being necessary, without having full knowledge of what is being done in other countries and of the savings we could make for our own taxpayers by using the research of others rather than undertaking our own.
At the same time, we do have very extensive areas which it is desirable we should pursue. It is quite possible that some of these areas are not being satisfactorily or adequately pursued in other countries. Then, certainly, Canada would have something to offer not only itself but the world through pursuing these areas. I do not think for a moment we should attempt-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rising to ask a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether I am right in assuming that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that we must wait until the United States completes its research and develops the necessary solutions before we move into the same type of programs initiated there?
2356S-57

December 14, 1970
Pollution Research


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: If I understand the hon. member correctly in the context of his motion, that research development programs should be instituted, then he indeed may be interpreting me correctly. I would be most reluctant to duplicate programs being carried out in the United States, in terms of research, simply for the sake of having our own programs. If that is the sense in which the hon. member asked the question, then certainly he has interpreted me correctly. On the other hand, I would not for a moment advocate a deferral of immediate action on research programs of our own in areas that are not presently being handled elsewhere. If on investigation of what other countries are doing we find that research is not being conducted, or we will not have access to the results of that research, we should initiate our own programs. I appreciate the hon. member mentioning that point because it emphasizes the conclusion to my remarks.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to endorse the motion currently before the House. I do not think there is any doubt that there has been too little national research and development in respect of proper and economic solid-waste disposal. There is also an absolute necessity for conserving the natural resources we have in abundance in this country. The problem in respect of solid-waste disposal is only part of the whole problem. It seems to me that governments over the years have failed to realize that population, pollution and resources must be taken together as components of a single and indivisible system. It does not matter what you do as far as population, pollution and resources are concerned, they are tied intimately with each other.
In the mad rush in this and other countries of the world to gain material things, I believe mankind has generally overlooked the need for recycling a lot of solid-waste materials which now constitute major pollution hazards. I should like to speak very briefly on this aspect of the pollution problem. When the last Apollo space flight took place and the astronauts were circling the moon, people in Canada and all over the world received with bated breath the news that the oxygen supply of the space ship was running out. Everyone followed with close attention the astronauts' struggle to get back to the safety of the earth. I point out that the earth upon which we live is a spaceship large in size but needing similar resources whether they be in the form of oxygen, pure water or minerals. If we waste these resources or get into trouble because of their misuse, we will find that mankind will have to pay a price in years to come.
Statistics are readily available to all who search them out which indicate that if all the resources we have knowledge of in the world today were put into immediate use, those people living in underdeveloped countries could never enjoy the standards we have today in Canada. There are just not that many resources to go around. Projections indicate that over a period of time an increasing number of these resources will be used in this nation and the nation to our south. This leaves us with a problem. What have we done, or what are we going to
do to recover a great deal of the material which has already been extracted, for example in the form of minerals? Much of this material has been discarded by Canada and other nations. I will not take the time of the House today to give the time cycles regarding how long these minerals will last, but they are extremely limited. This is why it is so necessary for us to consider the question of solid-waste disposal and a program of salvaging material that in the past has been thrown away.
A tremendous amount of pollution arises from the extraction of new minerals to take the place of those which we are currently throwing away. Statistics indicate, for example, that as far as the pulp industry is concerned there would be no need for new pulp mills for a number of years if we salvaged the paper and waste material which comes from pulp. The tragedy is that in the wasteful society which has grown up around us we are causing further pollution by getting rid of waste paper. We burn it and thereby pollute the air and environment with toxic fumes. I am not going into this matter in any great detail because I would not like to see the motion talked out. I am firmly convinced that not nearly enough research is being carried on, despite the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. Not enough financial assistance is being pumped into these research programs. We must become more aware than ever that prevention is one of the keys to pollution control.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If we are to have abatement of pollution in this and other countries we must get down to the simple philosophy which ties pollution, population and resources together. If we do not integrate this program, I am afraid we will not be very successful in over-all pollution abatement programs so far as this or other nations are concerned. I urge the House to adopt this motion so that we may get at the basic cause of pollution in this country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us this afternoon in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate a national research and development program in respect of methods of proper and economic solid-waste disposal, including studies directed to the conservation of natural resources by reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources in solid wastes; and provide technical and financial assistance to provincial and municipal governments and multi-governmental agencies in the planning, development, and conduct of solid-waste disposal programs.
As I read this motion, it would seem the hon. member is recommending that we undertake more research in respect of the problem of solid-waste disposal. I think we all recognize the urgency of such research. I am sure that this week hon. members opposite will wish to co-operate with regard to the government's reorganization bill so that we can establish the new department on the environment and renewable resources, because certainly coordination is required. Much of the research which has been carried on under the federal government has been funded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

December 14, 1970

Perhaps the new department on the environment and renewable resources would wish to fund and co-ordinate the activity which is taking place. Therefore, I am sure hon. members opposite will want to see this new department established and will co-operate fully in passing the bill this week so that the department will be able to get under way early in the new year.
This motion also envisages the provision of technical and financial assistance in respect of the planning and development of solid-waste disposal programs at the municipal level. The hon. member for Hamilton West, who spoke most eloquently this afternoon, told us ah about the need which exists in our great metropolitan areas. I agree with him wholeheartedly, because many of our great metropolitan areas such as the city of Montreal still pour nearly 100 per cent of their raw sewage into waterways such as the St. Lawrence River. So the need exists in our large metropolitan areas, because even cities such as Montreal with the great financial resources they should have find it too expensive to establish proper sewage or even primary sewage treatment plants.
The problem also exists in the smaller communities of the country. Ontario, which perhaps is the richest province, still is not providing an adequate program for the small communities and the 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 people who live in each of them in respect of establishing adequate sewage treatment programs. Some communities have such programs but most communities are being badgered by the Ontario Water Resources Commission to establish these facilities, when the proper amount of money is not being made available to them with which to establish the necessary facilities.
In many districts in my constituency, if the communities were to establish proper sewage and water treatment facilities the tax load would be doubled and in some cases tripled. These communities are left in a limbo situation in which the OWRC, which is the regulatory body concerned, is demanding that such facilities be provided so that the watercourses will not be polluted, but the necessary financial assistance is not being provided.
Perhaps through increased research we would discover ways to handle waste. Perhaps self-contained units of a recycling system could be applied to each house. This would mean that the cost of sewage treatment would be reduced and the smaller communities, which after all are just as important on an individual basis as the large metropolitan areas, would not be involved in tremendous additional cost.
Recently I read of a program, I believe in Japan, in which solid waste was incorporated into building blocks for construction purposes. This would seem to be a very permanent way to dispose of solid sewage waste. I believe that in the province of Ontario a program has been developed under which it is demanded that all garbage dumps throughout the province be licensed and controlled by the department concerned with pollution. This is to make sure that the dumps are not immediately adjacent to small streams or waterways which run into areas where the water is used for drinking.
23568-57i
Pollution Research
In the province of Ontario a sanitary land-fill program is being developed so that garbage and solid waste produced by small communities is not only disposed of but is covered up so that it does not create an eyesore in the area. In Belleville, for example, there has been a very imaginative program involving sanitary land fill: they have been able to fill in a large marsh area and create a park. In this way, not only do you eliminate marshy, swampy areas which are infested with mosquitoes in the summertime, but you also create a park area which is of long-term benefit to the community. This is another way of disposing of garbage and solid waste while at the same time creating parkland or new industrial land for the benefit of the community.
I think the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) is very important. He suggested that we should not duplicate the research being carried on in the United States or in other countries. I think it is fitting that he should be concerned about costs, because that is the kind of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance we want. We do not want a man who is a free spender and who would throw away the government's money; we want a man who will think of the cost to the taxpayers of this research.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Since the Parliamentary Secretary is quite alive, I do not think I should develop this speech into a eulogy; but I think it is very fitting that we should consider the question of economy because the federal government has responsibility for research in this nation. In most cases the provincial governments carry out the regulatory aspects of pollution control but the responsibility for research has always traditionally fallen on the federal government. It is therefore very appropriate that this motion be put before Parliament this afternoon so that hon. members can debate it. Certainly it would be the responsibility of the federal government to carry out this research if the motion were carried.
I do not want to be responsible for talking out the hon. member's motion, so I will conclude with the hope that when the motion is passed a suitable program will be developed to ensure that proper research is carried out into the problem of solid-waste disposal.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in talking on the hon. member's motion-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why?


An hon. Member:: Let us have action.


Eugene Whelan: If the hon. member has to ask that question he has no business in this institution. I have had tremendous experience with the different departments in Ottawa that are concerned with this problem; that is why I feel I can talk on the subject and even go further than the thrifty Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) by telling hon. members that a

December 14, 1970
Pollution Research
lot of research is being done. As was mentioned by the hon. member who just spoke, we are creating a new department which will bring all research under one roof. What the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is asking for will be done. I am sure he is aware that some areas of Canada have carried out a great deal of research into the processing of solid waste.
In my own area, including the city of Windsor and the county of Essex, every municipality will have put in either sewage treatment plants or lagoons by the end of 1971. I would say that it is probably much further ahead than any other area in Canada, not only with regard to the control of solid waste that comes from sewage treatment plants but solid waste that goes up from smokestacks or that we try to bury in the ground. Solid wastes include many products other than sewage, as was mentioned by other hon. members, and therefore could be recycled. There are many ways in which this can be done and, as the previous speaker said, we know that other countries are doing it.
I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton West is aware that research is being carried out at the institute at Burlington of solid waste coming out of Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair. This waste is composed of the richest soil and the richest nutrients that one can imagine. It also may contain some pollutants which we would not want in our plants if we are to use the product of the plants for human consumption. This waste could be treated and used in many parts of Ontario and many areas south of Lake Erie, especially the areas where open-pit mining was carried out. It has been suggested to me by people from Ohio that it would only take a short pipeline, about 400 miles long, to reach this horrible-looking landscape which has been pockmarked by mining, and waste could be pumped there to fill in the holes and turn the area into a parkland which could be used by humans.
A program of reforestation could then take place. We know what young forests can do to produce oxygen. Research carried out at the Burlington Institute of waste out of Hamilton Bay shows that vegetables grow twice as fast as normal when fertilized with this waste. The mineral content of these plants when harvested has not yet been analyzed, but it will be and the results are anxiously awaited. I do not know whether the standard of living in the Hamilton area is much higher than that in the Lake Erie area, but according to tests the wastes are much richer in content than the waste from cities which have no sewage treatment plants.
We also know that algae grows wild as a result of the tremendous fertilization in the lake. It grows ten times faster than it would under normal conditions. The algae continually adds a high protein content to the waste. We are dealing with a substance which is unknown to us because insufficient research has been carried out to determine how valuable it is. The very thing we condemn may turn out to be one of the best things we could use in many parts of our nation. It could be pumped back to make productive lands that have been eroded to such an extent that they are completely unproductive at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It
being six o'clock-


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You were probably going to notice that the clock was pointing to six o'clock, but I would like to draw to the attention of the House that one of the few democratic propositions remaining to the private member is private members' hour. This period is one hour long. Today private members' hour started at 5.08 p.m., and I deplore any effort, by accident or otherwise, to downgrade or shorten private members' hour. We on this side would not under any circumstances preclude any hon. member from speaking. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to see the clock so that members opposite can have an opportunity to complete the discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As the hon. member knows, the Chair must abide by the rules of the House. Only by unanimous consent could we continue this sitting for a few minutes longer. Are hon. members agreeable to pursuing the debate?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope there is disposition on the part of hon. members to giving unanimous consent to carry on for seven or eight minutes longer, to make up for lost time. But I should add that this afternoon we voted on an amendment put forward by an opposition member, and that the voting went past five o'clock. There has been no effort on the part of anybody to downgrade private members' hour. I believe members on the government side will give unanimous consent to extending the debate for another seven or eight minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous agreement to continue the sitting for seven minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you rose, Mr. Speaker, you were under the impression that it was six o'clock. You were quite right. Perhaps you were going to indicate to the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) that his time had expired, and if that is so perhaps you should do so now. That is the only point I have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) still has the floor and has not completed the time alloted to him.


Eugene Whelan: If the hon. member for Hamilton West wishes to add a few more suggestions to his point of order, I am perfectly willing to allow him to do so if it will take up part of the time that I have been allotted. There are many more things I could say but I notice that two or three members wish to talk about the treatment of solid waste. Many hon. members may think that the

December 14, 1970

waste in the House today is not so solid, that it is probably in the atmosphere. Anyone who suggests we are not undertaking research in our country has not delved into the work of different federal departments. I repeat that what the hon. member has asked for is being done by the federal government in creating a department of the environment. We are putting all these people under one roof so that we can tell what research is being done on behalf of the nation, for the benefit and use of municipalities and for anyone who wants to take advantage of it. I am not going to say any more at this time, Mr. Speaker, but once again I would state that we are doing this, and will be doing it to a greater extent than ever in the past with the new department and with the minister who is to be in charge of it.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, today we find the House at its best during private members' hour. It is in a constructive mood. Forward-looking, forward-reaching suggestions have been made on both sides of the House. I submit that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) hit the nail on the head when he suggested that we should not embark upon a great research program, that we should not build up a great research task force costing hundreds of thousands of dollars when south of the border there is expertise available to us where untold amounts of time and energy already have been spent. In other words, we should collate the facts already available, we should investigate the work that has been done and we should urge that Canada make its voice more effectively heard at the United Nations in developing a world environmental policy.
An environmental conference is to be held in Sweden within the next year or so. Is Canada to be represented at that conference? Mr. Speaker, I am told by one of my colleagues that it is. I am glad to know that. Mr. Maurice Strong of Canada is the convener of this conference. This is the sort of step we should be taking, working with other countries on a universal problem and getting the benefit of all expertise in those countries through the United Nations, through treaties, through joint enterprise and the exchanging of evidence. To launch an individual program would be chaotic. It would be like trying to develop the expertise of the Japanese in cooking their native foods. We have not the techniques and the ability to develop an oriental approach to the matter.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the Hamilton area we now have the Inland Waters Centre which the Liberal government finally established. I am proud to say it is one of the marvels of the world in examining clean-up problems connected with fresh water. Much has been done at the Inland Waters Centre. Experiments are going on; tests are being conducted; intelligent research of all kinds is being carried out at a practical level.
We should send a group of concerned people to the United States and to European countries simply to gather information already available there. Perhaps in the future this could be done by computers. I do not know if
Canada Grain Bill
this is the type of information that can be gathered up simply and easily by engineers and experts, because here we are dealing with an area of scientific research as well as straight, factual research. In developing our techniques of gathering such information we must look first to the United States. What is being done in this regard in the United States appears to be accelerating. We have been critical of great cities like Detroit and Chicago for dumping their industrial spillage into the rivers and the Great Lakes. Apparently we are ahead of them in many respects.
But is not the problem in the United States more than a desire to do the job? Is not their weakness the fact that industry is too powerful for government to control? In other words, has not industry simply got the whip-hand over the individual? I think that in Canada there is a better balance. I think we are moving in the direction of pollution control in a planned, orderly way but without holding the big stick over industry. We are trying to get industry to co-operate. I think industry is gradually swinging into the spirit of anti-pollution techniques and even industries realize that if they do not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. The House agreed unanimously to extend the private members' hour, but the time appointed for the consideration of private members' business now having expired, I do leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock p.m.
At 6.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-175, respecting grain, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't be too hasty, gentlemen. Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substance of this bill I find it my painful duty to bring to the attention of the House, and particularly the government, a very fatal omission in the bill. I must lay the foundation for my point by reciting some parts of the bill. Clause 108 purports to amend and change, and to some extent repeal, section 11 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which provides as follows:
Where any licensee-

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill
That is, a licensee established in the act.
-becomes liable to the penalty imposed by subsection (10) -
Subsection (10) provides for a penalty where a licencee fails to comply with certain provisions of the act.
-the commission shall, by order, require the licensee to pay the penalty to the commission-
I ask Your Honour to bear those words in mind.
-to the credit of the Receiver General.
Subsection (12) provides:
An order made under subsection (11) is enforceable and may be appealed-
Subsection (13) provides:
Notwithstanding subsections (11) and (12), the commission may waive all or any part of the penalty imposed by subsection (10) in any case where, in its opinion, the circumstances so warrant.
This particular clause also drives us to consider clauses 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83. I will not take the time of the House by repeating those, but they provide that the penalties fall into the hands of the Queen in right of Canada. What we see, because of those two clauses being taken together, is a provision for penalty. There is provision that such penalty becomes the property of the Queen in right of Canada, and there is provision that the Canadian Grains Commission which is purported to be created by this act can waive the penalty.
With that as background I should like to point out to Your Honour that it is a principle of parliamentary law that where a bill affects the Crown prerogative in any particular, the consent of the Crown must be given by a Privy Councillor prior to or at third reading and passage stage. In other words, it is quite competent for the government to debate this bill as they have and take it through first reading, second reading and report stage before the bill is given third reading and passed. But I propose to convince the Chair and, hopefully, members of the House that through the medium of a Privy Councillor there must be the consent of the Crown to this particular disposition of the prerogative which normally belongs exclusively to the Crown.
There are a number of authorities for this. I would first bring to Your Honour's attention some extracts from May's Parliamentary Practice. I refer to the decision of the Speaker on the protest of the leader of the Legislative Council of the province of Quebec. The extract I have is dated April, 1885, and deals with a decision given by Mr. Speaker in the following words:
Bill (No. 87) intituled: "An act to amend chapter 27, of the Act 46 Victoria... be now read a second time, and objection being taken by the Honourable Mr. Flynn that the consent of the Crown was necessary to continue to deliberate upon this bill:
Mr. Speaker ruled as follows:
An objection has been raised that the question for the second reading of this bill cannot be put, because the bill is one for which the consent of the Crown is required and because the same has not been signified.
The recommendation of the Crown is necessary for all resolutions or bills involving grants of money, while the consent
As distinct from recommendation.
-of the Crown, is required for bills which concerns its rights, patronage, or prerogatives.
I think there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the right to waive a penalty-the penalty is in the form of moneys payable to the Crown in right of Canada-cannot be assigned to an individual or a corporation to deal with unless and until the Crown has signified its consent in the usual manner, in this case in the House by consent of a Privy Councillor. I waited and hoped that this government, despite its disregard for the rules of parliamentary procedure and its detachment and contempt for the parliamentary process, would not have omitted the very substantial requirement necessary to make this a good bill.
The example I have just given is a provincial precedent, but I have gone far back and there are others. The U.K. Commons Journals, volume 166 (1911), 8th August, at page 390, reads:
A motion being made, That the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven bill be now read the third time;
The Deputy Chairman, by His Majesty's command, acquainted the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think
at.
A later precedent in U.K. Commons Journals, volumes 202-204, 1946-49, 21st July, 1949, at page 323, reads:
A motion being made, That the Dover Harbour bill be now read the third time:
Mr. Secretary Ede, by His Majesty's command, acquainted the House, That His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Not many years ago, on July 14, 1959, I had occasion to be in this House when Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough, who was then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, moved the second reading of Bill S-6, which was to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick respecting Indian reserves. That matter involved Indian reserves and lands in which the Crown had an interest and which had been disposed of by the federal government. For purposes involving the title of the people who had purchased the land, it was necessary to enter into an agreement between the two governments involved and to confirm what had been done by act of the Legislature of New Brunswick and of the Parliament of Canada. The matter is recorded in the following way on page 5960 of Hansard for July 14, 1959:


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick respecting Indian reserves.
She said: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purpose of this bill, has given consent so far as Her Majesty's property rights are concerned, that the house may do therein as it shall think fit.

December 14, 1970

By virtue of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, our Parliament has given to the Governor in Council the right to waive certain penalties under certain conditions. That right is given to the Crown's representatives. It is given by virtue of an act of Parliament with respect to which the consent of the Crown had to be given in the first place. Here we have a situation in which a money penalty may be assessed against individuals or corporations. Therefore, moneys which would normally belong to the Crown in right of Canada may be disposed of to the Canadian Grain Commission. I recognize that Parliament can do this; nevertheless, because these are moneys at the disposal of the Crown, the consent of the Crown must be given.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who I am sure is knowledgeable in this matter-I see him nodding and therefore I am almost certain that he will agree with what I have to say-may signify that consent. Either of them may say, "I have been in touch with His Excellency, who has been graciously pleased to say that the Crown gives its consent to disposing of assets in the form of money or, in some instances, to waiving the penalty." Until that is done, I submit that the government cannot proceed as it now seeks to proceed. I have a large number of precedents to fortify my argument. Until that is done, I submit that even if the government were to proceed with this bill and even if Parliament were to give it third reading, the bill would be null and void. It is not null and void at present because only at final passage does this consent becomes absolutely essential.
There are some good points to the bill. Like most government measures, it is not very effective, but it has some good features which we feel might be passed. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said earlier, some aspects of the bill are bad. The government, of course, approaches many of its measures like an old man approaching a young bride, full of fascination and apprehension, yet sluggishly. Nevertheless, because there are some good aspects to the bill we are prepared to pass it. But we want to see it passed in the proper form.
Your Honour may want to consider this issue. I could cite a great many precedents. I will not take up the time of the House by so doing because I am sure the President of the Privy Council, supported by the Minister of Agriculture, will say that the government is prepared to proceed with third reading now and that it will obtain the approval of His Excellency, on behalf of Her Majesty, by tomorrow.
I should like to quote one or two brief authorities. May's Parliamentary Practice, Seventeenth Edition, at page 615 reads as follows:
In the case of bills which affect the royal prerogatives-
The royal prerogatives include the right of waiving penalties, of granting commutations, and so on.
-a more complicated formula is employed, varying slightly to suit the circumstances of each case, and including the statement that the Queen places her interests at the disposal of Parliament-
Canada Grain Bill
The Queen's consent is signified by a Privy Councillor, but the communication of the fact that the Queen has placed her interests at the disposal of Parliament is made orally, generally by a minister of the Crown.
Beauchesne's Fourth Edition reads as follows at page 231; I am quoting from citation 283:
The consent of the King or Queen, as the case may be ... is given by a Privy Councillor to bills ... affecting local and personal interests which concern the royal prerogative-
And so on. In this bill the government is attempting to dispose of moneys which normally are at the disposal of the Crown in right of Canada. That may only be done after there has been given in this House a statement by a Privy Councillor that the Governor General has given his consent to it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is well aware of the fact that when this bill was first introduced into the House during the present session, there was a recommendation from His Excellency.


Gerald William Baldwin: Oh, yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think only a few days ago His Honour ruled that the recommendation is an indication that His Excellency has seen the bill and recommends it to this House, and that any further action in this regard is unnecessary. I should also like to draw to Your Honour's attention, while raising this point of order, that the provisions the hon. member alluded to in clause 108 are to be found also in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Those provisions are the same with respect to penalties and the remission of penalties and are to be found in section 11 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Therefore, there is no change in those provisions. I think Your Honour will recognize that this is-I was about to say a phony argument but I will not say that.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wouldn't, if I were the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, it is a redundant argument which has no place in this situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a yuletide argument.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was presenting a valid, effective and useful argument and I was sorry my previous argument was dismissed by Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, there is no comparison between that argument and the point I am now trying to make. It is true that a recommendation was brought in, but that recommendation is related to the spending of money. What I am now saying is that this bill contains clauses which interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown with respect to the waiving of penalties and fines. There is a distinction between the two points. I am sad indeed that the Minister of Agriculture has missed the point, because I thought I had submitted a fairly good argument.

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 11 or 12 years and never before have I heard the argument raised by the hon. member.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister can always learn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a yuletide argument.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It must have been presented as a result of the Christmas spirit.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Does the hon. member agree that the bill shall be carried?


Gerald William Baldwin: Come, come; my Christmas spirit does not take me quite that far.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I must say that his is an ingenious argument. I think I have followed it. I should like time to consider the references and authorities which the hon. member cited. In regard to the rebuttal argument of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), I can see the distinction that he makes, that the point of order raised by the hon. member is covered by the recommendation of His Excellency. I admit to hon. members that this point may be clear to others more learned and with more experience than me. I would ask hon. members to give the Chair time to consider the point and rule on it later.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: That would be all right, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture might consider discretion the better part of valour. He might be able to approach His Excellency tomorrow in order to get the required consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the debate be adjourned by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: The debate might continue, and before the question is finally put on third reading Your Honour may have had an opportunity to consult the eminent and wise men with respect to this issue. If it is satisfactory to the government, the debate on third reading could continue. Hopefully, Your Honour will reach an affirmative conclusion in respect of my point of order before the question is finally put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be better if we continued the debate. When the debate is ended we can postpone the question on third reading until this point of order has been resolved. When it is resolved we can put the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the debate continue and that no final determination be made until the point of order has been dealt with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this grains bill, C-175, has been thoroughly examined in committee.
Many useful amendments have been made and I think the bill is better as a result. If the government had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) this afternoon, the bill would have been considerably better.
The immediate urgency of this bill is in the necessity to upgrade the act so that protein grading will be a factor in making our sales of wheat more acceptable to all countries. Although it seemed on the initial examination that this would be simple, the recent appearance of the Board of Grain Commissioners before the Standing Committee on Agriculture indicated that although grading of grain by protein analysis is relatively easy, with large quantities it becomes extremely difficult to transfer the payment of this to the individual producer. It appears that on pay-out to the producer, the Wheat Board may only be able to make payment on the delivery point basis. It is obvious from the testimony of the Board of Grain Commissioners that it will probably be a long time before individual producer payments for quality of protein will be perfected.
If under this new act protein grading is to be a major factor in our wheat sales, presumably a new set of variables will be introduced as far as payment to the individual grain producer is concerned. Insofar as the final status of the application of protein grading is concerned, it remains obscure and unsettled. The government, particularly the Department of Agriculture, will be charged with the grave responsibility of administering the act in the interest of the producers and with respect to the saleability of our wheat.
The new bill, in a general way, seems to give the government board the authority to control and direct the day-to-day operation of grain elevators. During the representation made by both the line elevator companies, those privately-owned and the farmer-owned companies, I sensed that this possibility was uppermost in their minds. Some restrictions have been placed on the wide general authority envisaged in the original bill. Many clauses of the amended bill will give the board authority beyond that which should be necessary. It is, of course, true that the wide powers specified in the bill will not be particularly restrictive if the regulations under which the act will be administered are reasonable and efficient. I believe it would be in the interest of the government and the grain trade if there were a certain amount of consultation with the farmer-owned elevator systems and the private systems with regard to the possible effect of the regulations.
In submissions presented by the Manitoba and Saskatchewan pools with regard to the white paper on tax reform, they indicated concern about possible changes in taxation proposals that would be of some significance in the future. There is no doubt that a massive amount of capital will have to be injected into the grain handling facilities of the elevator companies in the not-too-distant future.
To some extent the grain trade has been existing on capital and handling facilities expended many years ago. It is important that under the proposed tax reform laws

December 14, 1970

enough capital be injected into a rebuilding program in order that the grain trade will remain viable. The low price for Canadian grain on the world market makes it imperitive that our handling and transportation costs be kept to a minimum. In conclusion, this bill seems reasonable. It is an improvement on the orignal bill presented to Parliament last spring.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on third reading of this grains bill. I wish to point out that we must assess the whole situation. The reason the bill is only being dealt with at this late date is summed up in the submission to the Standing Committee on Agriculture by the United Grain Growers. The submission was made on May 27, 1970, in connection with the original Bill C-196. I quote from the submission:
The Canada Grain Act Relative to National Policy.
If one of the main purposes of the Canada Grain Act is to foster increased grain trade, should not extension changes in the act be delayed until a national grains policy has been defined? We are thinking here of the report of the federal task force on agriculture. For the first time in our history we have an overall grain policy recommendation in writing; one which farmers and Members of Parliament will criticize and rewrite. Presumably this report will form the basis for a new national policy for agriculture. We cannot help but wonder if a major change in the Canada Grain Act, as proposed by Bill C-196, is not an attempt to do things right before it is decided what is the right thing to do.
I repeat the last sentence:
We cannot help but wonder if a major change in the Canada Grain Act, as proposed by Bill C-196, is not an attempt to do things right before it is decided what is the right thing to do. We would, therefore, request delaying passage of the bill.
This submission was made to the Standing Committee on Agriculture by the United Grain Growers of Canada. The president of the United Grains Growers, Mr. Runci-man, chairman of the Canada Grains Council, an eminent body established to advise the Canadian government with regard to a correct formula for grain handling. On page 5 of the submission they sum up the reasons this bill is taking so long to pass. They explain why the bill has had so many amendments in committee and why it has not yet passed the House of Commons.
The bill is really a measure which sets out clearly the powers of the Board of Grain Commissioners, It states, in effect, that the rights of producers shall be protected; that their wheat will be fairly graded and accurately docketed; that they will be credited with accurate shrinkage. In essence, the board is the policeman which supervises the marketing of the farmers' grain, and generally speaking over the years it has done a good job. I have no complaints and I do not think the committee had many complaints on this score.
In the last session of Parliament, Bill C-196, as it was then called, was subject to a number of amendments. I have attempted to count them; there were well over two dozen. The number depends, really, upon what is taken to be a full amendment: can each amendment to an individual clause be counted, or should several amendments be grouped together and counted as one? In any
Canada Grain Bill
event, some two dozen clauses were amended during that session of Parliament.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In the present session, five major amendments were made, the first being to clause 11. This clearly restated the objects of the Board of Grain Commissioners. According to the old bill, the objects were to protect the rights of producers. In the new session of Parliament the committee saw fit to spell out in the objectives clause of the bill the provision that the directives issued by the Governor in Council or by the committee should at all times be in the interest of the grain producers. To my mind, this is a substantial amendment. From that point on-I am paraphrasing the words of clause 11 to be found on page 12 of the bill-no direction can be made by the commissioners, the Governor in Council or the minister other than in the interests of the producers. This is one of the substantial amendments made this session which I wholeheartedly applaud and which the committee wholeheartedly supported.
Another substantial amendment was made to clause 12. I am sure the former president of the Manitoba Wheat Pool, Bill Parker, will be pleased to see it. He presented a brief in opposition to clause 12 (d) which gave the Board of Grain Commissioners power to operate any elevator, primary or otherwise, in competition with the grain companies now in the business. The amendment accepted by the committee, and the rearrangement of the amendment accepted by the House, makes it clear that the government is not to be placed in the position of operating primary elevators. As I say, I am sure the former president of the Manitoba Wheat Pool, an eminent figure in the handling of grain, will be pleased to see the amendment accepted today in the bill before us. I am sure Bill Parker will be pleased to see that the House of Commons has declared that the government cannot get into the business of operating primary elevators.
The next amendment approved by the committee was moved by a government supporter and was to clause 15 of the bill. In essence, it states that grade changes can be made readily, but that basically no change which is made shall decrease the value of the grain unless some special reason exists for doing so; the value of the grain must be maintained or enhanced by the change in grade unless an extraordinary case arises.
As a result of a further amendment, clause 38 was changed to exempt a licensee from having to take out insurance protecting him in the event of an act of God or the Queen's enemies. This did not completely meet the wishes of the opposition but it went part way toward bringing the bill into relationship with the protection provided under the old grains legislation. In accepting this amendment the committee merely excused a licensee from having to obtain insurance against acts of God or acts of the Queen's enemies.
The other major amendment gave a producer or a given company which had bought grain the right to appeal the grading given to the grain, whether or not the grade given was in respect of what is called visual characteristics or non-visual characteristics. In the bill as it
2036

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill
was ready to be passed last session, the producer or grain company could appeal only with regard to the statistics which pertained to the visual characteristics of the grain. The committee said this did not go far enough and that account must be taken of a non-visual criteria such as protein content. I was pleased to see the committee accept this amendment also.
This bill has had unique parliamentary experience, Mr. Speaker. It was first brought in as far back as last February or March. It went to the committee in early June, and politicians were whipped into supporting it by the prospect that were it not supported protein grading could not be implemented immediately and our grain sales would fall off tremendously. In fact, this did not happen. However, this was the prospect held out across the country to politicians and producers, in an attempt to secure passage of a rigid bill which at one time gave powers to the Board of Grain Commissioners to bring about a greater degree of rationalization in the grain handling system as an authoritative body. Protein grading was the carrot.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Politicians were whipped into action to support the bill because we had to have protein grading. Protein grading was needed because sales could not be made on the international market without it. The bill received slow passage, but in spite of that fact sales increased and we were told early in August that we were faced with a substantial movement of grain at the Lakehead and in Vancouver, and everything had to work at capacity or we would not meet our commitments. This only points up the fact that governments are not above attempting to use politics to put forward legislative concepts or ideas in proposed legislation.
One might well ask what was the real intent and purpose of this bill. It certainly was not strictly to implement protein grading or reinstate the Board of Grain Commissioners, because the old bill never expired. This bill was implemented in its initial form for the one reason, to help speed up or bring about an authoritative body to use government powers to expedite the evolution of our grain handling system on the Prairies, with a resulting saving to the railway companies. I say this only after an exhaustive study of the bill and a careful analysis of the evidence of witnesses and the briefs submitted.
Let me quote from a brief presented to the Standing Committee on Agriculture on May 28 by George H. Sellers of the Pacific Elevators Company and the North-West Line Elevators Association. The brief referred to Bill C-196 which was identical in form, except for the last two clauses, to Bill C-175. The brief has these words on the first page:
-Bill C-196 delegates to the Canadian Grain Commission complete authority to determine which community in western Canada will live and which community in western Canada will die.
He was speaking of rural communities and delivery points. The brief continues:
R. J. Shepp, special adviser to the grains group attached to the Honourable Otto Lang, minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board, envisaged in a speech in Winnipeg just a few weeks ago that the country elevator system should consist of only 20 to 40 country elevators in place of 1,800 shipping points now in operation on the Prairies.
I cannot emphasize those words too strongly because they spell out the situation. When questioned by members of the committee on this point, a number of government authorities shugged it off and said that a reduction to 20 or 40 was too great and that it probably would be reduced to 100 points. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) quite gleefully said that some delivery points had to go because there were too many. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), who is not in the House tonight, said it stands to reason that a lot of delivery points would disappear. I feel that as a result of evolution, many delivery points will disappear.
As a representative of a rural region, I will not for one minute let 1,800 delivery points be reduced to somewhere between 20 and 40, or even 100. This is ridiculous on the part of bureaucracy. Surely no one representing a part of rural western Canada could buy that theory. This does not matter a hoot to any representative of rural eastern Canada. Many of them just laughed and added whatever contribution they could to the serious study of this bill by the committee.
There is no doubt that in the next few years, perhaps 10 or 20, evolution will reduce the number of delivery points from 1,800 to perhaps 1,000. Western farmers have not forgotten their democratic rights and how to express them. They will not allow any bureaucracy to reduce this number to such an extent. Such a thought is sheer nonsense on the part of the minister piloting this bill and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I cannot help remembering the words of the president of the United Grain Growers, who when referring to this bill asked whether it was not an attempt to do things right before it was decided what was the right thing to do. We should request a delay in the passage of this bill, because tonight we are in its final stages and we do not yet know what is right.
There have been a few studies of the grain handling system in western Canada. One was chaired by the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Another commission was set up by the Canadian Wheat Board under the minister from Saskatoon. Another study was made by Menzies, who gathered together some of the world's experts on wheat handling as well as some importers from Europe and representatives of export agencies in Canada. These authorities are to advise the government what the Canadian Wheat Board should be doing, how it should be changed and how Canadian producers should be marketing and handling grain. I understand their proposals will be submitted to the minister early in the new year, yet we are tonight considering passage of this bill before having an opportunity to receive the views of these people who have made an exhaustive study of the grain handling situation. The Standing Committee on Agriculture has seriously studied this bill but has been denied the advice of these experts. Are we not really putting the cart before the horse? One can only assume that we are doing just that.

December 14, 1970__________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________ 2037
The committee heard from witnesses with great knowledge and ability in the handling and marketing of Canadian wheat in particular. That committee, under the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the chairman and government henchmen, denied the repeated requests of members of the opposition to have representatives of the Wheat Board appear. I do not know what they were afraid of. Western newspapers have given the Minister of Agriculture, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a great deal of credit for appointing the former chairman of the Wheat Board to the other place. Mr. McNamara is knowledgeable in respect of grain handling. I would not in any way detract from the reputation which he has built. Western farm papers repeatedly referred to him as being a great contributor to our parliamentary system. He has been referred to as a man with a great grasp of the agricultural marketing system and one who could contribute his knowledge to the legislative processes of Parliament.
The committee proposed that Mr. McNamara be requested to appear. A vote was taken, and the chairman of the committee broke the tie. The government members thought it was nonsense. They indicated Mr. McNamara was appointed to the Senate to get rid of him and they did not want to take advantage of his knowledge of the situation. The chairman-and I acknowledge his wisdom and his spirit of co-operation-voted in favour of having Mr. McNamara appear, but lo and behold, when Mr. McNamara was consulted he declined to appear. The very next day he went to Regina and spoke about the danger of our losing barley sales unless the farmers were prepared to sell it to the elevator companies. He also spoke about the great danger facing the Wheat Board today. Yet he failed to appear before the agricultural committee. This is a man whom I have admired over the years. I have appreciated his wisdom and experience. He has done a disservice to Parliament by failing to appear before the committee. I know he could have contributed a great deal to this situation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
A grave situation faces western Canada. Two concepts very vividly stare the farmer in the eye in respect of the marketing of grain. There is the initial concept enunciated by the president of the Alberta Wheat Pool some time ago when he spoke at the annual convention; he said there is the concept of building up the inland terminals to which the primary elevators would deliver their grain by truck or rail. The full train or unit train system would be used to deliver grain from the inland terminals to outport terminals such as Vancouver and the Great Lakes. The unit train system would be established, farmers would deliver to the primary elevators and the railways would deliver from there to the inland terminal. This is the one concept that was outlined.
The other concept was that the primary elevators eventually would disappear completely and the farmer would deliver to the inland terminals. That would automatically increase the cost of transportation for the farmer. By means of the other system, the railways would absorb the cost through a great deal more
23568-58J
Canada Grain Bill
mechanization. These two systems were clearly enunciated. These are the two systems which were incorporated in clauses 34 and 36 of the grain act. Wisely, the committee brought in amendments to those two clauses of the bill which would make it more difficult for the Board of Grain Commissioners to enunciate those ideas.
I believe we are debating a very important principle. Under clause 36, the provision in respect of the licence to an elevator was reconsidered. Under clause 44 the question of type and size of elevator was thoroughly discussed. Clause 34 was also thoroughly discussed. The Committee considered that these clauses would bring about greater rationalization of the grain handling system. The committee wisely recommended that the word "type" was all right when applied to elevators and equipment, but that the word "size" should not apply to elevators in particular but only to handling equipment in the elevators.
I can only hope that attention will be paid to the situation which is prevalent throughout western Canada. It would appear to be evident that the government is attempting to save money by a reduction in the amount of grain in storage. It is common knowledge that the elevators are now operating at less than 60 per cent of capacity. I shall give you, Mr. Speaker, the minister and the House figures to illustrate what I am saying. The Manitoba grain elevators today have 24.1 million bushels of grain in storage. In 1969 at this time of year they had in storage 45.1 million bushels. Their total capacity is 52 million bushels.
This is a deliberate attempt to reduce storage so that on July 31 or August 1 next year the amount to be paid out by the government in cash to western producers can be greatly reduced under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the money spent in other provinces. I need not mention in which other provinces. Let us look at the situation in Saskatchewan. The present holdings are a little better. There are 155 million bushels in Saskatchewan today. The amount in storage a year ago was 170 million bushels. The total capacity in Saskatchewan is 210 million bushels. In Alberta, basically the same situation holds true in respect of reduced storage as for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In fact, it is the policy of this government to keep the storage at 60 per cent of what it was a year ago. If this policy is continued, there will be in the order of $200 million less in the pockets of the farmers next July 31 or August 1. This is not deliberate thievery but it is deliberate deception by the government to prohibit farmers delivering their grain.
I see the Minister of Agriculture with a smug look on his face. He is capable of this. The point is that if this is not deliberate policy, why is the quota not increased in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? It is not increased because they want to have vacancies so that the elevators will operate at 60 per cent of capacity or less. Today in Manitoba the elevators are operating at less than 50 per cent of capacity. The present storage is 24 million bushels and the capacity is 52 million bushels. The point is explicitly spelled out. This government wishes to reduce the cost under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The government is not worried about the farmers. Members

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill
of the government believe they can bring the farmer to his knees to the point where he will leave the small farm or the big farm, or reduce him to the point where he must accept the guaranteed income the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) proposed on October 29 to this House.
I do not believe there is any argument to substantiate the suggestion that elevators can operate more efficiently at 60 per cent of capacity. I know an elevator should keep one or two bins empty in order to facilitate the movement of grain within the elevator, but no elevator which operates efficiently needs to have 40 per cent of its space empty. No real argument can be made in that regard. There is no doubt in my mind that this government is going well out of its way to bring about a general weakening on the agricultural scene. Clauses 71 and 97 of the bill were very carefully examined by the committee. I attempted to introduce an amendment to clause 97 so that the farmer would have the right to deliver to the elevator of his choice or to load over the platform.
It is commonly agreed that with the concept of reducing the efficiency of an elevator to 60 per cent of its capacity, the government will automatically increase handling charges through the Board of Grain Commissioners. One of the first things they will do within the next three months is to increase the handling charges of elevator companies. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker-I notice the Minister of Agriculture is paying careful attention-one of the first things done by the Board of Grain Commissioners will be to increase the handling charges of elevator companies. They may not reduce storage charges, but by increasing handling charges they will encourage greater handling and less storage revenue for the elevator companies. I notice that the hon. member for Assiniboia is attempting to make a remark. It is too bad he could not make it this afternoon when his famous amendment was before the House.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have ten minutes left and you will just have to listen to me. The Minister of Agriculture did not have enough faith or did not trust sufficiently the hon. member for Assiniboia to allow him to explain the amendment that was in his name. It was an attempt by the minister to discredit the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: foolish criterion would this establish? If a farmer were to receive a high price today, his neighbour would grow barley tomorrow to pick up his friend's or neighbour's losses of yesterday. To me this is nonsense. It should be automatically and categorically rejected in devising a new policy for the handling of grain.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board announced on October 29 that losses due to sales made on long-term arrangements below the commercial rate of interest should be passed on to pool accounts. This, also, is sheer nonsense because it would encourage poor salesmanship; it would encourage salesmen to sell a product and pass on the losses to a third party. I have always believed that good salesmen can substantiate the case they are making. Losses being passed on to pool accounts would further encourage dissatisfaction among good customers who buy grain every year at the commercial rate when other customers buy at a lower rate. The loss is then passed on to the producer. The salesmen, in this case the government, would be doing a great disservice to the Canadian farmers. I believe that this policy should be rejected categorically.
Next we come to the stabilization plan. No government should put forward a concept according to which producers are guaranteed, on an individual basis, a formula worked out on a national basis. According to this policy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I conclude my last sentence, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent of the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not know that my remarks were so cutting that government members would not allow me to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members would grant me their indulgence for a moment. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) at the beginning of this evening's session raised an interesting point of order with respect to the matter of royal consent and whether or not it was required in the bill now before the House. I asked hon. members if they would grant me the opportunity to look at some authorities. I now have had that opportunity and, if I may, I would like to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River and to thank him for a very novel and ingenious argument, e (9:10 p.m.)
My concern, among other things, was in keeping straight in my mind the distinction between the point
Canada Grain Bill
raised by the hon. member for Peace River with respect to the occasion when such consent is required, as he argued, and the occasion when a recommendation might have covered the particular point, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) argued in his presentation. It seemed to me that perhaps there was something I wanted to consider further to see if there is a distinction that I might bring out for the benefit of hon. members. The hon. member for Peace River argued that the consent of the Crown is required before the right can be given to waive the penalty which is referred to in clause 108 (10) and (11) of the bill. The question is whether without the consent of the Sovereign, given before the bill is passed, there can be such a waiver in the bill.
I will not take much more time of the House in making this decision. I thank the hon. member for Peace River and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for their presentations, because it seemed to be a new point__certainly to me, with my very limited experience in the Chair-and there may have been a distinction I should have considered before rendering a decision as to whether the recommendation required for what we generally
call money bills-this was the argument put forward______
was required here or whether the recommendation of His Excellency did in fact cover the point with respect to consent.
With respect, it seems to me that we have to go somewhat further in considering the argument of the hon. member for Peace River, that in this case where the right to waive the penalty is given in the bill there would have to be the consent of the Sovereign. The matter has been dealt with by Mr. Speaker and I would refer just very briefly to his decision. Before doing so, I would say that generally speaking one might say that consent, as argued by the hon. member for Peace River, is required where the personal property of the Sovereign is affected, as distinguished from property that the Sovereign may hold for the Sovereign's subjects.
I would refer hon. members to the ruling of Mr. Speaker in the 1963 session, volume 3. The matter is dealt with at page 2980 during consideration of the Municipal Development and Loan Board bill and in circumstances which did not affect the personal property of the Sovereign. Mr. Speaker, then Mr. Deputy Speaker, made this distinction which I shall read briefly:
I should like to turn to the citation which has been quoted by the hon. member, that is. citation 283. It is obvious that his whole argument, as has been suggested by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Favreau, is based on the premise that certain rights and privileges of the Crown are affected It says:
Here Mr. Speaker quotes as follows:
Tire consent of the King or Queen, as the case may be (to be distinguished from the royal assent of bills) is given by a Privy Councillor to bills (and occasionally amendments) affecting local and personal interests which concern the royal prerogative, the hereditary revenue or personal property or interests of' the Crown or Duchy of Cornwall.
I would mention, without reading them, the two other citations on which Mr. Speaker based his decision___Campion at page 329, and Beauchesne, citation 283.

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill
Therefore, in view of the distinction that was drawn in the case where royal consent is required, it seems to me that while the argument of the hon. member was a learned one, it should not prevail in these circumstances.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong this debate on third reading but I do wish to make a few brief comments. This bill contains three main points pertaining to the selling of grain, as I see it. One is the protein factor, which has been mentioned. Another is the mixing at terminals, and the third has to do with boxcar allocation, control over the shipment and movement of grain. All these things should assist in the movement of grain to market.
I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that there is more to marketing than just passing a new Canada Grain Act. For example, we should be looking for new markets, for new methods of preparing the products which we market, and at ways of providing financing for those who have difficulty buying the grain we have to sell.
In effect, what I say to the Minister of Agriculture is that we do not want any more excuses when we discover that we have a little too much grain on hand and we are not getting our share of the market. We do not want to wake up one morning and find that someone else is carrying out protein grading and we have to wait two years to pass a bill in order to do it. I suggest that we should be out, meeting the competition before it gets the edge on us. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to his point. We should be using imagination and initiative in preparing, selling and merchandising our grain. Now that the bill is being passed this evening, the minister will have a new instrument to aid him and the government in going out to find new markets, hopefully increased markets for all the grain produced by Canadian farmers.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks this evening on third reading of Bill C-175 will be very brief. As hon. members know, I have had the privilege and pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture which reviewed this legislation at some length. The original bill was C-196, introduced in the House early in the spring. I compliment the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), who are practising farmers, for devoting much time and research in preparing themselves for the committee study and the debate in the House on this very important piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Crowfoot, who resumed his seat a few minutes ago, outlined a number of our reservations and a number of the problems that we feel are still facing the agricultural industry, in western Canada in particular, in dealing with this Canada Grain Act. The minister and the government have accepted a number of opposition suggestions and amendments, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, because to my utter amazement, as a layman not very familiar with the grain act in its origi-

nal form, not having been actively engaged in farming for a number of years, Mr. Runciman, head of the Canada Grains Council, presented a brief to our committee prior to the recess in June suggesting no less than 83 amendments, 50 major and 33 minor. This, Mr. Speaker, was an indication that we as a committee had to dig in our heels and do some homework in order to come up with a better bill. If not, we would lose credibility in the eyes of the electorate no matter whether we came from the opposition or the government side.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In conclusion because of the briefs that have been referred to I think we have come up with a bill which, although it is not entirely acceptable as it stands, is much better than it was originally. On the basis of those facts, Mr. Speaker, I am content to see the bill given third reading. Hopefully, it will contribute to improving the grain market for Canadians generally and for western farmers in particular.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on the introduction of this bill and have had an opportunity to consider it at some length in committee, but
there are still aspects of it which disturb me and I feel I must express my reservations. I do not believe the bill has been changed very much because it still has some very disturbing features. As has already been mentioned, the commission at one time had the power to authorize the licensing of elevators. When the bill was drafted, western Canada was growing agriculturally and there was a great demand for agricultural products, particularly grain. People were doing everything within their power to expand their operations and open up new land, building new communities in the process. It is a pity the House did not see fit to allow the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to put a few more remarks on the record. He pointed out that the emphasis will be on the reduction of the number of grain elevators. The policy paper which arrived in my office this evening states: that any programs and policies which tend to encourage the breaking of new ground will be discouraged. I think that is a mistake. I agree that perphaps some new land is submarginal and should be taken out. There have been suggestions that the western Canada farmer should diversify and raise cattle, but to suggest that certain lands should not be opened up is taking too much into the hands of the government.
I have some land that is covered with bush, not under cultivation. No government can suggest to me that I have no right to open up that land after I have bought and paid for it and continue to pay taxes on it. No government can tell what my plans for that land may be. Eventually it may go back to grass, or it may be suited for rapeseed. There are many places where rapeseed cannot be grown. I may decide to put a crop in for a few years until the roots are rotted, before putting it into grass, so that it does not go back to bush. But a few bureaucrats sitting in Ottawa would not realize that this does happen.
With all the suggestions that have been made, I am afraid there will be a reduction in the elevator system. I
December 14, 1970

am very concerned about this because it will add to the over-all cost of production. I can visualize a situation where farmers will have to deliver grain 30 or 40 miles and we will find that many farmers will be not geared up to do it because they do not possess trucks of high capacity. There was a situation a year ago where farmers had to deliver rapeseed 100 miles away. Even if a farmer has a quota he may run into difficulty in such a case. When a truck is loading up without a scale, he may find that it is overloaded. This is a situation which the farmer is bound to run into. Last year the net result was a prosecution. But are we to be faced with a similar situation because the rule says "no quota"?
The hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out that the elevator system is running at something like 60 per cent of its capacity; Is this the pattern we are to live with? There can be no conclusion other than that the policies of this government are such that eventually the elevator operators will find their business is not a paying proposition. The commission will then tell them they must reduce their elevator system, and they will probably then face prosecution. What will happen to the producer then? Clause 35 (2) provides:
A licence issued pursuant to subsection (1) shall be
(a)	for a term not exceeding five years; and
(b)	subject to such conditions, in addition to any prescribed conditions, as the commission deems appropriate in the public interest for facilitating trade in grain.
It does not include the interest of the producer. It speaks of the public interest. What is the public interest, Mr. Speaker? The minister has told us we must reduce the effectiveness of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. That may be in the public interest but it is not in the producers' interest. If we were acting in the producers' interest we would maintain in full force the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I therefore say there ought to be a different approach to payments.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The other day I suggested in the House that the elevator system, which includes the terminal elevator system, has a total capacity of 550 million bushels. Since only about 250 million bushels are to be accepted, this will mean that the income of western farmers will be reduced by 300 million bushels. I do not see how the problem is to be overcome. If the elevator system is not to be filled, how will you get any extra money into the hands of the producer? The Minister of Agriculture of the province of Manitoba suggested that $300 million ought to be pumped into the farm economy immediately because Prairie farmers will receive $700 million less than they received in 1969.
What this government intends to do is quite obvious. Under this bill as now drafted, the commission will have the right to close down an elevator at any point as it sees fit, and it can claim it is acting in the public interest. It does not have to take into account the interest of the producer. It has been suggested that rapeseed and barley
Canada Grain Bill
will go through the system. Senator McNamara suggested that both grain and barley should go into the system. Barley ought to go into the system, because if it does not we may lose our barley market. We may yet lose it because farmers will not grow barley at a loss. They will not grow barley merely for the sake of growing it.
We obtained a share of the market in the United States because of the corn blight in that country. The corn blight gave us a temporary market. The government's grain policy was geared with that fact in mind. The minister thought it might be a good idea to slip that policy under the rug, as it were. His idea is that once you get your foot in the door, you are all right. Well, he might sell the country on that idea this year; he may say that the government will put out some money at this time, but there is nothing to suggest that next year or the year after the same government policy will obtain.
The government's policy tells me that although we are asked to produce rye, flax, rapeseed, barley, oats and wheat there will be an eventual congestion not only of wheat but of all the other commodities I have mentioned. Apparently in the interest of stability the government is to hold back money earned from the sale of some commodities. They will not even trust me with my own money. They will hold back certain sums and dole the money out to me. I give my children quarters and dimes; I do not give them a dollar bill all at one time. That is exactly how the government is treating the farmers; it is that they do not know how to spend their money and therefore it will hold some of it back.
Also, if a farmer in one area does not make a very high income, the farmer in another area who has a higher income will pay out money for the benefit of the poorer farmer. In a sense, that is like insurance. I suppose everybody wants to enter into an insurance scheme of some kind. Certainly it will bring a certain measure of stability. But I do not want this if the government is to hold back my money, if it is going to say, "Look, we have held this money for you. Aren't we good boys?"


An hon. Member:: Give them hell, Stan.


Stanley James Korchinski: Those are some of the reservations about this measure that I felt I had to express at this time. In addition, under the provisions of clause 87, I believe, the elevator companies will not accept delivery of grain which may be out of condition or contaminated. The point I am making is this: the minister has not indicated in the House, although the matter was raised on several occasions, who is to be responsible if a loss results from grain that is contaminated with the rusty beetle, and so on. I am thinking of comments made by Mr. Hamilton of the Grain Commission who said that the farmer will have to carry this load. That statement contradicts statements made in the House to the effect that the farmer will not carry that load.

December 14, 1970
Canada Grain Bill
In the particular instance referred to, although the contamination was discovered on the ship after the grain had been subjected to a series of examinations, we were told that the farmer would have to bear the loss. But, Mr. Speaker, the farmer would not have delivered contaminated grain, because when grain is delivered at the elevator the elevator agent takes a scoop of it every so often: he looks at the grain; he checks it; he wants to know where it came from; he wants to know its weight and whether it is dry; he wants to know the dockage and shrinkage that is to be allowed. That grain is subjected to a number of inspections. It is inspected by representatives of the commission at the regional terminals. The commission itself supervises these inspections. Why, then, should we expect the farmer to carry the load when grain is allowed to become contaminated? Why is grain allowed to become contaminated, as a result of which farmers are told, "You cannot deliver your grain because it may be out of condition," and so on?
In this bill there are clauses similar to the one to which I have referred. They will cause us trouble. I wish the minister would make a statement about what really has happened in matters such as I have referred to, and at the same time indicate that the government is prepared, where the commission has been negligent, to carry the loss sustained.
Another provision of the bill relates to protein grading. We now know from the explanations given that protein grading will not go into effect for at least two years. This provision has been introduced notwithstanding all the protestations of the minister. Of course, we are accustomed to the type of propaganda in which this government has indulged. The minister singles out one item, explains it to us in a way we can understand and then he slips in other measures. That is typical of some of the legislation that has come from this government. You single out one or two items which are palatable, then throw in a lot of garbage and say, "Look at the beautiful job we are doing for you." The government wanted to rush this bill through without accepting amendments. We tried to point out some of the weaknesses in the grains legislation. After waiting for 40 years, they expect us to rush this bill through. In addition to all that, the minister told us we had an important market for barley.
Mr. Speaker, I have been amused because some people think that because China bought some of our wheat, all the farmers are rolling in dough. The government changed the entire quota system. We have the three-bushel quota this year but it is on the basis of summer-fallow whereas last year it was on the basis of total acreage. If you compare the figures you will see that this year we have a quota that is slightly more than a bushel greater than the quota we had last year.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In addition, the elevators are not being filled. The government does not think the farmers need any money now; they say they will receive it later. They think they can manage the affairs of the farmers better than the
farmers themselves. I do not know what will happen if there is another cold snap such as we experienced a year or two ago. The problem was that diesels could not haul the grain to Vancouver. There is a great deal of snow in the west this year. It will be difficult for farmers to start their trucks. In spite of this, the government insists that they deliver their barley because it is required for the markets. The farmers will receive less for their production. It is ridiculous to ask them to rush out in the middle of the night to deliver grain.
The new protein grading system will create problems. There will be an even greater storage problem than at the present time. The new government policy will direct and condition the thinking of the farmers. Farmers have to accept the fact that they will have to deliver their grain to more distant points. Because there will be various protein levels of a certain grade, more storage will be required. The end result will be that as much, or more, elevator space will be required. Present government policy is directed toward the elimination of elevators.
After a study was conducted, a representative of Canadian Pacific Railway appeared before the committee. He informed the committee that the government had commissioned a study in order to work out a new system involving unit loading of trains. I admit that from the point of view of the railroads this might be a good idea. The railways like the idea of loading a complete train at one point. However, three elevator agents will be required if loading operations are carried out 24 hours a day. It would be convenient for the railways to deliver a series of boxcars to one point. However, there is no regard for the distance a farmer has to travel. When the representative of the CPR appeared before the committee, I asked him whether there were storage facilities for other commodities which they handle. He replied that there were warehouses at many points. If the end result of the new system is to be a saving for the railways, they should provide storage for the grain.
The government will require the farmer to pay for the storage of grain in the elevators. The government has no regard for the producers. Obviously this is the way they want the trend to develop. This is one more thing we have noticed in this government's pessimistic attitude toward grain. Last year the Lift program was introduced. The farmers were unable to grow wheat, not because of the program but because of wet weather. Instead, they grew barley. This was not because of any planning. The minister told the farmers that they should not grow too much barley because a glut might develop. This year there is a demand for barley. In their haste to dispose of some of the barley, the government without any regard to price grabbed the first sale and accepted a price of $1.30 a bushel. On delivery to the country elevators, the farmers receive 62 cents or 65 cents a bushel. Statements have been made to the effect that there will be no final payment. Even allowing for transportation and handling costs, there is still quite a disparity.
The government is now in a hurry to have stabilization legislation because they do not want it known that they
[Mr. Korchinski.l
December 14, 1970

have gained a market at the expense of the farmer. The farmer's cost of production will not be covered. The government felt it was a good opportunity to introduce this legislation. They do not have to live with the facts. At the same time they will be saving $60 million or $70 million which they would normally pay out under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
I had not intended to speak very long and there are still a few more points I would like to cover. I have taken longer than I thought. I want to register some of the doubts that I have. I hope the minister and the press will not state that protein grading is here from now on and that the farmers will be on easy street: this is what happened after the wheat sale to China. It will take two years to implement this system. There will be far more problems than we realize at present. Suggestions have been made from this side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) indicated that we would have been ready to pass the protein grading bill but that we had some reservations about certains aspects of it. Although I still have some reservations, I am prepared at this time to allow the matter to come to a final vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


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

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)



STATISTICS ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill S-2, respecting statistics of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words concerning Bill S-2. We are proposing to make a number of changes in the existing legislation which governs the operations of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Not long ago I picked up a piece of advertising material which informed me that our old friend the Volkswagen was to have a "nose job" and that a number of changes were to be made under the hood. The advertisement went on to say that the important changes were those under the hood. We propose making a change in the appearance of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, a vehicle which has served us well over the years but the important changes are the ones which will go on, as it were, under the hood.
Statistics Act
Before we begin consideration of the bill before us I think it might be interesting to recall a little history. The first census taken in Canada was as early as 1666 when Jean Talon, the intendant, went to work to determine how many people there were in the colony. But real business of gathering statistics in Canada began in earnest in 1918. At that time the government set up a commission to examine the methods used in gathering statistics. The commission reported, and a statistics act was passed in the same year endorsing the commission's proposal for a central statistical office to co-ordinate statistics. It then became the job of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to collect statistics, the responsibility for which had previously been scattered among various government departments. Later, in 1948, because of the numerous changes in the interval a new and revised Statistics Act was passed. It is this act we seek to amend today.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, the nature of the demand has changed considerably. Both the provincial and federal governments have expanded their social and economic policies. New departments and agencies have been created. Task forces and royal commissions, coupled with expanding universities and independent research bodies, have led to an increased sophistication of business and market research. There has been an explosion in the demand for statistics by these organizations. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has responded wherever possible to this demand for accurate co-ordinated facts. It has become a service institution with a high reputation. But service institutions, like cars or television sets, have to be remodelled from time to time to keep them up-to-date. The new concepts contained in the bill before us will make it easier for Canadian business and social institutions to supply the facts the bureau needs, faster and more efficiently than in the past. That is what the new act is all about.
Canadians and their governments have mutual obligations in relation to statistical needs. The citizen, of course, has an obligation to provide statistical data to the nation, but the state has an obligation too-to make it as easy as possible for the citizen to do so, and it is in this regard that there is real room for improvement on the part of governments. Why, for example, should the citizen fill out one form for the federal government and another form to give similar information to a province? We ought to be able to do better than that, and we can do better.
In the past, informal practices have developed between federal and provincial statistical agencies toward that end. The new act formalizes existing ad hoc arrangements and adds a new area of co-operation between these two levels of government. Canadians will be able to fulfil many of their reporting obligations by filling in one form for both governments. The saving in paperwork will permit the modernization of statistical services and provide more and better service without increasing the cost.
Perhaps I can call it ten o'clock, and proceed later, Mr. Speaker?

December 14, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on November 18 I directed the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro):
How many provinces must agree to the inclusion of paramedical services under medicare before these services will be accepted by the federal government as a cost-shared item?
The minister replied that a consensus must develop before there would be any extension of coverage. He also said this question was "never seriously considered until every province had entered medicare and that was just about the case now." I also asked the minister if the federal government was considering cost-sharing of paramedical services with any province which would include these services in its medical care program. His answer was evasive and I welcome this opportunity to clarify the situation.
May I briefly sketch the problem which exists in British Columbia? When the B.C. medical plan was set up several years ago it covered all paramedical services up to a set amount each year. These services included those of chiropractors, podiatrists, optometrists, naturopaths, physiotherapists and osteopaths. In July of this year the B.C. government cut in half the set amount of paramedical services which an individual could obtain under its medical plan. This cut was entirely the responsibility of the provincial government because it never had any costsharing agreement with the federal government concerning these paramedical services. The provincial government knew this when it set up the plan. However, it also knew that the federal plan made provision for the inclusion of these services on a cost-shared basis, without the consent of all the provinces which is apparently now being demanded by the federal government.
We now see this ridiculous situation in respect of the various paramedical services. Each group must bargain individually with each province for inclusion in its medical care plan. I presume if agreement is reached with all provinces, then the federal government will consider the cost-sharing of the particular paramedical service with the province. This process is time-consuming and can delay for years the inclusion of all these necessary services in our provincial medical care plans. I might add that this is one bad result of getting away from a single national medicare plan to cover all Canadians.
I believe the federal government should share all these paramedical costs with the provinces. If any province wishes to include these services under its plan, then the cost should be shared. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare how essential it is to include all paramedical services in every medicare plan. In respect of many individuals who

have back trouble and require chiropractic treatment, we find this is perhaps the only type of health treatment required. Why should this treatment be denied, or paid for on a limited scale as is the case in British Columbia? Why should treatment by an optometrist be denied those who need it? Again, we find this is often the only health requirement of an individual. The same applies to physiotherapists and other paramedical services. To deny these as cost-shared services under medicare would often put them out of reach of those who need them most.
Since paramedical services were cut in half by the government of British Columbia last July I have received a large number of letters from throughout my riding urging that the federal government share these services and that they be made available to those requiring them. I fully endorse this position. I point out that many of those receiving these services are senior citizens and the curtailment of the services in British Columbia has been especially hard on them. I have received letters from every senior citizen group in my riding urging that immediate action be taken. These citizens do not have the money required for treatment beyond the treatment presently allowed. We should make certain that this type of health care is not denied the people of British Columbia or those of any other part of Canada.
I again urge the minister and the government to immediately review this important aspect of health care and bring it into the area of cost-sharing. There can be no valid excuse for delaying action on this issue. The health of our people should be one of our prime responsibilities and paramedical services plan a vital role. This is why we are requesting complete clarification of the issue.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, would it not be possible for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) to make her remarks now, as they deal with the same subject to which the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has just referred, so that I can reply to both at the same time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary will understand that the Standing Orders of the House provide that a representative of the government must answer every question put to him, but if the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway agrees, 1 think we may allow the Parliamentary Secretary to give one answer to both questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since I shall not deal with exactly the same subject as my colleague.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the health insurance plan was not designed, at the time of its inception, to cover all personal health care expenses. Indeed, the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson specified, in 1965, as
December 14, 1970

did the Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1966, that the basic plan was to cover, in the beginning, a minimum of services.
The plan contained provisions designed to extend its coverage when the provinces would agree to it and when the government would see fit to include other special services in the national scheme.
In spite of these provisions, the provincial health ministers feared that the government would act unilaterally and widen the range of insured services; in 1967 and in 1968, the then Ministers of National Health and Welfare had to reiterate their assurance that the federal government would not go ahead on its own.
Finally, in 1969 several provincial ministers asked the federal government to include some paramedical services in the national scheme. It is up to the government to take a decision in this matter and not to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
However, the minister had informed his colleagues from the provinces that he was prepared to discuss with the cabinet the inclusion of some services as soon as the provinces and territories would have set a date for joining the national plan, but this has not occurred yet.
After they have joined, the Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to draw the attention of the other
cabinet members to this important matter in due course.
It should also be noted that this subject was back on the agenda at the last federal-provincial conference and it would seem that after all the provinces have joined in the national scheme, further discussions will take place.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, almost a month ago the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) and I questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in respect of the possibility of including paramedical services under medicare. His replies to our questions were extremely indefinite, not to say evasive. The same thing happened the next day when the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) tried to find out about the inclusion of optometric services.
For months now I have been receiving representations from members and organizations representing the paramedical services-optometrists, podiatrists, chiropractors, osteopaths and others. I have also received urgent appeals from people who require these services in order to carry on their work or maintain their health during their retirement, yet who cannot afford to pay for them on an individual basis.
All these people, those performing paramedical services and those who need them, have the same urgent request. They want to have these services included under medicare. They want the minister to make an agreement with their province to include such services under medicare. They are worried by his evasive attitude. They want to know why he cannot be definite and take action on the matter. There was a time when this matter was quite straightforward and not cloaked in mystery. The Feder-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ated Legislative Council of British Columbia, in its bulletin of September 4, 1970, quotes from the Canadian Chiropractic Association memorandum of August 28, 1970, as follows:
On December 6th, 1966, the Medical Care Act was amended- "to permit inclusion of paramedical services." Details of the debate which followed can be found on page 10761-66 of the House of Commons Debates, December 6th, 1966. Two excerpts from that debate follow:
"Mr. Douglas: ...I take it this means that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, can extend paramedical services in a plan in a particular province even though other provinces have not asked for a similar extension. In other words, the minister would be free under this amendment, to accede to the request of a particular province that wanted to add the services which are provided under this legislation, and it would not have to wait until a majority or a specified number of provinces, indicated their desire to have these paramedical services included."
"1 hope the minister's interpretation is the same as my own, namely, that any province would be able to go ahead with providing additional services, provided of course, that the minister and Governor in Council agree."


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think the construction the honourable member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has put on the proposed amendment is correct, namely, that it would be possible for one or any number of provinces to admit any health services. I want to assure the committee that the amendment proposed is not a pious wish."
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare was quite definite on the point that the government, on the recommendation of the minister, can make an agreement with any one or more provinces to extend paramedical services there. But what happened between December 6 1966, and the fall of 1970? Somehow, by a feat of mental prestidigitation, the minister has created the idea of consensus. Until all or most of the provinces agree to admit paramedical service he, alas, can do nothing; and the Parliamentary Secretary follows in the same vein.
In my opinion, this new policy of consensus is purely and simply a device to postpone action on this matter indefinitely. The word "consensus" does*not appear in the legislation. The minister used "une entente" which does not appear in the legislation either, to the best of my knowledge. The word "consensus" does not appear in the legislation, nor is there any hint of such a policy. The minister should abide by both the spirit and the letter of the legislation and agree to provide financial assistance to those provinces wishing to include paramedical professions in their medicare programs. Only in this way can the full resources of modern medical treatment be made available to those who need care, and only in this way can the overloaded physicians share with others the very heavy burden of maintaining the health and the vitality of the population.
I should like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the desirability of his approaching the minister to urge upon him the need of getting rid of this bogus business of consensus, because it is not in the legislation nor does it appear anywhere in the Medicare Act. As I say, we need to get back to the fundamental purposes of the act, which sets down clearly and distinctly that the

December 14, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion minister might make agreements with one or more provinces, as the case may be, who wanted to include paramedical services within their medicare programs.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the eloquent speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-fiingsway. Unfortunately, I am compelled to tell her that the answer which I gave earlier also applies to the question which she discussed and that I have nothing else to add.



GRAIN-BARLEY-PRICE SPREAD BETWEEN DELIVERIES TO COUNTRY ELEVATORS AND FEED MILLS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the minister responsible to Parliament for the Canadian Wheat Board in the hope that I might clarify the question I directed to the minister in the oral question period on December 11. It was my impression at that tune that perhaps the minister misunderstood the real sense of my question.
My question dealt with the disparity of 30 cents, more or less, between the price of barley delivered to Wheat Board elevators and the price paid for the same grain at the mills. This disparity represents in many cases the margin of profit that a farmer receives for his labour and his investment. In other words, if the average farmer in my riding delivered all his grain to the Wheat Board elevators at the present deflated price, he would end the season with a return roughly the same or less than the cost of producing the grain. He would be left with very little cash to meet current needs, and none at all with which to finance the new crop year.
This situation did not happen purely by chance, Mr. Speaker, nor was it in any way the fault of the farmer. In an attempt to make up for low volume of sales in the past, the government moved vast quantities of grain at low prices. This was done in order to be competitive and to be able to move grain out of the elevators. No one would quarrel with this as long as the farmer is not expected to accept the full burden of the lower prices. I will say more on that matter in a moment.
I would first like to point to another aspect of this situation, Mr. Speaker, where farmers find it more practical to deliver to mills rather than to elevators. Incidentally, the main reason for the price disparity is that there has been an increase in livestock herds, hogs and poultry, in Lisgar and so barley is at a premium, selling at 90 cents to $1 a bushel. The second aspect is that the elevators in my area are far below capacity with respect to stored grain, so low in fact as to present a problem in filling the needs of domestic and foreign markets. In Manitoba the elevators would normally accommodate 52 million bushels. At this time last year there were 45.1 million bushels in storage, and at the present time there are only 24.1 million bushels in storage. These figures are from the Board of Grain Commissioners report dated
December 2, 1970. In spite of the fact that elevators in Manitoba are half empty, I do not believe there will be quotas available to farmers for some time to come, and certainly not before Christmas when extra cash payments will be sorely needed.
On Friday last the minister answered my question by asking if I was opposed to the present Wheat Board marketing system. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. However, I know that the minister has the authority to act in order to meet extraordinary circumstances, and the matter to which I refer is an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore I respectfully ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider two suggestions that I feel would go a long way toward alleviating this serious problem which besets the farmers in my area. First, I would ask the minister to consider allowing farmers in my riding, and ridings similarly affected, a further quota at the earliest possible opportunity. The grain is available and the elevators will accommodate such a quota. This would remove a problem of considerable proportions.
Second, I would ask the minister to consider an adjustment by way of a differential payment to farmers who have been penalized by delivering barley to elevators at the Wheat Board price of 67 cents per bushel. This would ensure a final payment in the spring, a move that I consider justified under the circumstances. I say this because I have good reason to believe from members of the grain trade that a final payment may not be forthcoming because of the low initial price at which the barley was sold. Such action on the part of the minister would prove to all that the present Wheat Board marketing system can be made to work in a variety of circumstances, instead of only within a very constricted area.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that I did understand his question. Of course, it is only a few short months ago that members were concerned about the differential between the price being paid for barley by feed mills and the price being paid when they delivered their grain to the Board. The feed mill prices were running at least as much as 30 cents below the board prices. We called it distressed pricing and indeed referred the question of distressed pricing to a committee of this House.
Since that time the market for barley has turned around, thanks in good part to the very vigorous efforts of the Wheat Board to move Canadian barley onto the market at competitive prices, which move the hon. member says he supports. He now points to a differential in price between non-board grain in his area and board grain, but I am afraid I do not quite understand his argument that there is a problem in the differential and at the same time there is a problem in lack of opportunities in the delivery system. The two are contradictory.
The fact is that an extra five-bushel barley quota, making a quota of 15 bushels, has been opened up in all blocks in the very recent past, and I can assure the hon. member that the Wheat Board will be opening that quota further just as soon as they think it desirable in their

December 14, 1970

judgment, using the system to the best capacity. That is the plan to be followed in the future, rather than abusing the system and blocking it with grain that was not required for the market. The Wheat Board, operating under its obligation to move Canadian grain to market, in its judgment in the best possible way did in fact sell at prices below the levels in what may now be termed artificial markets.
The hon. member said he understands the reason for this. As a supporter of the Wheat Board, I am delighted to hear the hon. member say this. He should try to understand and give support to the Wheat Board in this manner of moving our grain. He should try to understand, too, that the board price and the pool price is made up of initial prices and whatever final payment there may be. He has speculated upon the final payment,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion though I would not choose to do so. The Wheat Board suggests it should not be done, for good commercial reasons, before the time when there is no longer any advantage to competitors in revealing those prices.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The idea of the pool is that those who market their grain to the board will share the price at whatever time of the year they market it. Those who choose to market to feed mills find that the mills are bargaining for barley at whatever price they can get. I am delighted that producers in the hon. member's area are able to get a higher price.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday, December 15, 1970