1971-05-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in the two official languages-Mr. Les-sard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: 1
should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures on unemployment among young Canadians, which is now at the rate of 13.6 per cent actual and 12.3 per cent seasonally adjusted. In view of these figures, and bearing in mind the fact they are relevant for a period before the exodus of students seeking summer employment, is it the intention of the government to announce any new programs designed to meet the problem of summer unemployment particularly and unemployment among young Canadians generally?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not our present intention. We never preclude the possibility of the government announcing new programs if and when they appear desirable, but we have no present intention of doing that. I might remind the Leader of the Opposition that some w,eeks ago we announced we were spending $57 million to meet this problem, which was considerably more than the few millions we had allocated last year, which was more than the zero of previous times. As the hon. member knows, the Secretary of State announced $10 million additional to the $57 million, bringing the total to $67 million for the summer months. We feel that this is a considerable improvement over all past programs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the figures that were released yesterday do not in fact indicate a much more serious condition than the government had anticipated, based upon all previous
forecasts made by the Minister of Finance, and whether this does not create a new context in which the government ought to consider the problem of summer employment and employment for young Canadians generally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It does, Mr. Speaker, and as the Minister of Finance said yesterday we are concerned about the new figures released yesterday. We shall be looking very closely to see whether they indicate a change in the favourable trend that has been established since last September. But I must guard the opposition, who supported not only the $10 million that the Secretary of State announced a few days ago but indeed said the amount should be more, against the danger of concentrating only on the young and failing to realize that there are a lot of heads of families in Canada who must also be thought of. Therefore, with the naturally not unlimited resources of the country we must not only think of spending money on the young people, as the opposition seem concerned to do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will have the figures for longer term employment within a few days and the government has to accept responsibility for them as well as those for our youth. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not reconsider the imposition of an additional portfolio on the Secretary of State, who is responsible for implementing the program of summer employment for students? Would he not relieve the minister of that responsibility in view of these alarming figures, or does the Prime Minister believe that the additional responsibilities imposed on the minister will not interfere with the implementation of this program any more than the writing of a book by the minister interfered with the development of the program originally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly consider that, Mr. Speaker, but I wish that the opposition would consider passing the government organization bill which would permit us to name additional ministers.


Mr. Woolliams:: That would not help.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not easily see how the opposition can argue, on the one hand, that the government is trying to establish too many ministries, talk about a pork barrel and try to defeat the organization bill and, on the other hand, suggest we should establish today a new ministry for youth, the other day a new ministry for women, and the day before a new ministry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as usual the Prime Minister misrepresents the position. He
5810

May 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
knows that the opposition has offered to co-operate on the government organization bill provided the House of Commons is given the final word. Once that is done the Prime Minister can proceed as fast as he is able to.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on the same point of order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That bill has been before the House since the month of December, and I hardly call it co-operating when they stall the passage of the bill until well into late spring.


Gerald William Baldwin: That's a lie.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that is a lie. I should like the hon. member to explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will not withdraw. It is a lie.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not asking you to withdraw, I am asking you to explain what the lie is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure what the exchange was between the hon. member and the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said it was a lie and that he will not withdraw. All I want to know is what the lie is.


Mr. Speaker:: Whatever the hon. member for Peace River said did not come to the Speaker's ear. The right hon. gentleman tells me that the hon. member for Peace River used words which are clearly unparliamentary. I did not hear them so I am not sure whether he said them. It is difficult for me to charge him with having uttered certain words when I did not hear them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister charged the opposition with certain tactics. The charge is not correct and I said that was a lie. That was the statement I made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River knows as well as I that he cannot say that. The hon. member holds a very responsible position in the House and I think he has to accept that responsibility. I would say there is a very heavy onus on him to respect the rules and traditions of the House. I should think that the hon. member for Peace River would want to take that into account and perhaps say that the words he used went beyond his thought. The hon. member knows that the word "lie" cannot be used. The matter is as simple as that. If a member of this House who has the responsibility held by the hon. member for Peace River is allowed to use such language, I am not sure whether there is any purpose in going on at all.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw the word and substitute the words "terminological inexactitude".


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I was sure he would appreciate the position. The words used now are
much better so far as the Chair is concerned and the Standing Orders and the traditions of the House. I have recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I realize there are a number of supplementary questions and if hon. members will be patient they will be recognized in due course.



PLANS TO PROVIDE WORK FOR THOSE UNEMPLOYED MORE THAN SIX MONTHS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister along the lines to which he alluded in his reply to the Leader of the Official Opposition. In view of the fact that the number of people who have been employed for six months or more has risen from 78,000 in April of last year to 152,000 in April of 1971, an increase of almost 100 per cent, is the government giving consideration to new plans in order to find work for these people who are really suffering as a result of the government's policies of restraint?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Finance and myself said yesterday.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, along the same line, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would elaborate on the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs the day before yesterday to the effect that for the past 10 months he had been waiting for the federal government's signature concerning the development program for eastern Quebec?
Because of the unemployment situation now prevailing in Quebec, would the Prime Minister tell the House when the government will be in a position to sign this agreement which might help improve the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon.
member would specify which agreement, Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to give an answer but I am not aware of what he is talking about.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I refer to the eastern Quebec development program, cost of which has initially been established at $250 million and which, according to the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs would now reach $350 million. Apparently they are still awaiting the signature of the federal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a mistake. An agreement does exist providing for an eastern Quebec development program, which we signed a little over two

May 14, 1971

years ago. Credits will be available as soon as the province of Quebec manages to agree with the federal government as to the adequate manner of spending the funds.
As far as dates are concerned, information should be requested from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who is in charge of that part of the program.



WELFARE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the cities and the unprecedented burden placed upon them as a result of rising unemployment which has in fact caused the number of people on the welfare rolls to increase at an accelerated rate. Since I understand the Prime Minister accepts responsibility for the high unemployment, is he now in a position to advise the House whether he has changed his mind in terms of assisting the cities and provinces to meet this very significant set of facts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to get the opposition to consent to the passage of the organization bill so we can establish a ministry responsible for housing and urban development. I hope they will get on with the job.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether at this particular time the Prime Minister would direct the minister in charge of housing to call at his early convenience a tri-level conference, as was undertaken recently, in order that the cities can come together again with the minister's colleagues from the provinces so they can all sit down together to see whether they can solve the problem in the very near future and place a lot more Canadians back at work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio is perfectly able to do these things if required without direction from me, but he will do them all the more efficiently if he is provided with the tools to do it by the opposition which has been preventing the passage of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the government House leader and I and the other House leaders have been trying to negotiate and discuss ways and means by which this bill can be passed. Certainly these improper and incorrect interventions by the Prime Minister do not assist negotiations of this kind.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a lie.


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


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat.

I apologize to the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I shall recognize him in a moment.

The hon. member for Calgary North rises on a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago an objection was made by the Prime Minister and by you, Sir, with reference to the use of unparliamentary language. Now the Prime Minister has said to the House leader on this side, "It is a lie".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would think that in his responsible position he should withdraw those words. He has been guilty of other kinds of unparliamentary language for a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair, of course, is in the same position at this time as it was a moment ago when the Prime Minister reported that the hon. member for Peace River had used an unparliamentary word and the hon. member for Peace River was gracious enough to recognize that and change his language. As I say, now I am in the same situation. I did not hear the exchange which took place between the right hon. gentleman and someone else, but if the Prime Minister has spoken that word certainly he also is in the same position as the hon. member for Peace River and should alter his language.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did use the word and I used it in the same sense as the House leader of the Official Opposition used it which, as you know, means something else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I of course cannot agree.


An hon. Member:: That is not a withdrawal.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest, with great respect and kindness to all hon. members and to the right hon. gentleman, that the task of the Speaker is difficult enough and that task should not be made more difficult. We are dealing, after all, with the use of words but there are traditions which must be respected. Again, as I say, the hon. member for Peace River made it possible for the Chair to accept a correction. I think the words he used were "verbal inexactitude". I am not sure whether I am using the exact words. However, there are some words we all know which should not be used because we have to respect the word of every member. It is unfair and unparliamentary and wrong in many other ways-


An hon. Member:: Remember there are children in the gallery.


Mr. Speaker:: May 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
rection in the same way as the hon. member for Peace River and other hon. members have done in co-operation with the Chair in the past.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem at all. I really want to co-operate with Your Honour. When I used the word "lie", I repeat I used it in the same sense as the House leader of the Official Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that he says it is a-I stumble a little over the word

terminological-


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister did not stumble over fuddle-duddle.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I meant is that he used the words "terminological inexactitude", Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: We understand each other now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that is exactly what I would have liked the right hon. gentleman to do. I would think he has gone half way, but I would have liked him to follow the good example set by other hon. members who normally are prepared to cooperate with the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a last supplementary question. I do not intend to become involved in a confrontation with the Prime Minister, but I think he continually drags red herrings into very important topics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I say this seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor at this point but not to make the situation worse. It is bad enough now. I would hope that hon. members would limit themselves to questions. Yesterday there were so many points of order and questions of privilege during the 40-minute question period that a number of hon. members

I noticed the hon. member for Red Deer in particular-did not have a chance to ask their questions. If we pursue these points of order and questions of privilege, we shall again be placed in the same situation. I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West for one more supplementary, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to be responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since the cost of living index has been removed as a factor in old age security payments, I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that inflation is continuing and rising and is undoubtedly affecting these payments, would seriously reconsider the removal of the cost of living index factor from these payments in order that we may give some relief to our needy senior citizens?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I missed the first part of the question. I assure the hon. member that I will read it in Hansard and see if I can provide an answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, now that the children have finished playing, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since he has been saying for some time now that adoption of the bill enabling the government to create new departments would solve the economic crisis in Canada, I would like to ask him how this would effectively help the fight against unemployment in Canada?
My second question is: Is the government receiving all the co-operation needed now from private enterprise across Canada to find summer jobs for students?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As regards the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that were he less busy making clever remarks, he would have grasped a little better what I said.
As regards the second part, Mr. Speaker, the co-operation of private enterprise was requested and, to the extent it is granted, we are satisfied.



UNEMPLOYMENT-INCLUSION ON AGENDA OF FORTHCOMING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the original question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West. With respect to the very crucial problem that faces not only urban centres but the provinces as well, I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in view of his imminent departure, has made any arrangement to meet the requests of the Prime Minister of Ontario and others that unemployment be included on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I told the Prime Minister of Ontario, and I propose to put it to the other provinces, that if they wish to prolong the stay in Victoria we are quite prepared to do so and discuss unemployment or any other matter. I want to impress on everyone, however, that the task which we have set ourselves to achieve in Victoria is essentially the constitutional one. I am trying to get agreement that we will give priority to this to make sure that any other subjects we want to discuss will be discussed after the end of the constitutional debate.

May 14, 1971



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding his recent statement concerning the amending formula of the Canadian constitution.
He said he was confident that all provinces would accept the formula, but since Quebec's premier, Mr. Bourassa, said that this formula was unacceptable, would the Prime Minister clarify this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is misquoting Mr. Bourassa. I would like to know where he said that this formula was unacceptable.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the high unemployment figures and the low rate of economic development within the Canadian economy, will the government call off, at least for the immediate future, the program of depopulation of the rural sector as set out in the paper "Agricultural Adjustment or Development Policy for Canadian Agriculture" of March 8 this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that this is not the kind of thing you call off. People have been moving from the rural areas of Canada to the cities for more than a generation now. The aim of the government is to make sure that this movement, this abandonment of certain rural areas, is not met with the hardships it would be met with if there were no government program or assistance to help to do this. It is not the government that decided that the Canadian population should move toward a higher concentration in the cities. As the hon. member knows, this has been happening for generations.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Has the minister been consulted by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, in regard to the impact of the proposed agricultural adjustment or development program on the urban sector of the economy in respect of housing and job opportunities?
Mr. Speaker? Order. The hon. member's question is not phrased correctly. The hon. member asks whether a minister has been consulted by another minister. That is not a question which is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. Is the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing a
Inquiries of the Ministry
party to this total policy, or has he been consulted in regard to this total policy that is under review?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the
Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a few moments ago the Prime Minister was emphasizing that the aim of his government was to avoid undue difficulties for those who have to move from the countryside to the towns, I would like to ask him whether this explains the great efforts he has been making to maintain full employment in the cities?
* *



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, since the latest unemployment figures still show an increase in the number of unemployed, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
As war solved the unemployment problem in Canada in 1939 and as the government is unable to fight unemployment, does the minister intend to increase the armed forces for this purpose?



MANPOWER


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that 40 per cent of the Canadians who are unemployed have been unemployed for more than four months and that most of these are middle-aged Canadians still raising families who have not had the technical training needed for the present day and age, is there any special program planned by his department to try to assist these Canadians?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is fully aware of the many programs which are designed to assist these and all Canadians who have unemployment difficulties, including the placement services and the training and upgrading facilities when those are logically the right move for the particular individual in question. These are all available, and of course the manpower offices throughout the country are doing a very full job in attempting to place the available people in the jobs that are available.


John Howard Lundrigan: ln view of the fact that officials of the Department of Manpower in the Ontario region and the Atlantic region have described the April unemployment rise as some sort of a freak caused mainly by the severity of the winter and the lateness of spring," and in view of the fact that spring was at least a month early in the Atlantic region, can the minister say if this is the official position of his department so far as an explana-

May 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion of the unusual increase in April unemployment is concerned, and was any directive given to these manpower offices to come up with this kind of explanation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no direction was given to them whatsoever. This is simply a reflection of their reactions as men who are fully aware of conditions around them. They saw conditions generally in the country improving. Therefore when attempting to explain the figures for the week ending April 17 they noticed, for instance, that the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway was one of the latest on record, the snow stayed on the ground longer than usual-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -and in this way many factors may have contributed to the fact that there were only 51,000 new jobs in that month when we ordinarily would have expected many more. We naturally hope these will show up in the next set of figures.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again we have to try to proceed in an orderly fashion. We have about ten minutes left before the end of the question period and we should try to limit supplementary questions to individual members. If the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will allow me, I shall recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a supplementary.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this question is really related to an answer of the Prime Minister-I was going to ask him the question in another way-to the Leader of the Opposition and his reference to the government reorganization bill being held up and preventing government reorganization. Is it fair to conclude from his remarks that, notwithstanding the fact that we have a Department of Communications and had a Minister of Communications, he is going to wait until the government reorganization bill is passed before he puts a separate minister in charge of the Department of Communications, or is that department going to reside permanently in the hands of the Secretary of State?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the hon. member a supplementary and then try to move on.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister seems to be in a very receptive frame of mind today I am going to be in a very positive frame of mind too. When he makes his trip to Russia, will he investigate whether culture and communications are a positive or negative
thing in so far as developing unity in a country is
concerned?


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that he is going to ask a question supplementary to the one which has just been asked. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Prime Minister said the government must consider not only the needs ot unemployed youth but also the heads of families. I want to ask the Prime Minister what the government proposes to do about heads of families who are unemployed. Since well over 350,000 of the unemployed have been unemployed for more than four months and many of them have used up their unemployment insurance benefits, and since the only recourse left is for them to go on welfare, what program does the government have in mind to help the heads of families who are unemployed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question was dealt with yesterday by the Minister of Labour.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour did not deal with the question any more than the Prime Minister has, and since the only alternative for these people seems to be to go on welfare, does the Prime Minister intend, at the forthcoming Prime Minister's conference, to discuss with the provinces the possibility that the federal government will assume a larger share of the welfare costs as long as unemployment is above a stated figure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will recall the decision of the February conference he will remember that there was a request by the first ministers to have the welfare ministers report to them at the June conference, and this will be done.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TAX REFORMS AND REDUCTIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has talked about his feeling for the heads of families and I have listened to his answers in reference to programs. In light of the increasing unemployment in manufacturing and related industries-they employ, of course, heads of families-is the government going to or is it prepared to make a specific statement of intent with regard to tax reforms and reductions in order to stimulate and expand the economy now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the kind of thing that is done in the budget, Mr. Speaker,

May 14, 1971

and we will bring it down as soon as we feel it is appropriate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With all his feeling for the heads of families, does the Prime Minister feel that they can wait a month for this government to bring in a budget?



STUDY OF NEW FORMULA TO LIMIT DEBATE

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Would he tell us if he has studied the new formula concerning the duration of the debates that the Quebec government has put into effect this week? In order to ensure greater efficiency here in Parliament, would the Prime Minister consider, with the opposition parties, the adoption of a similar measure, which would be in the best interests of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is rather timely. However, the hon. member will recall that we tried, over a year and a half ago, to introduce measures restricting the duration of debate with the consent of the opposition parties. I must say that all our efforts to obtain the consent of the opposition parties to limit the length of debates under Standing Order 75 were of no avail.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister and I want to assure him that it is apart from the government reorganization bill. In the proposed cabinet shuffle and the resultant vacancy, can the Prime Minister indicate which department of government will become vacant?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary? The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will put my supplementary in a way which I hope the Prime Minister will understand. What department of government does the government intend to give to the by-election candidate in Nova Scotia as minister of that department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is obviously out of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The privilege, Mr. Speaker, comes very close to the word just ruled out when it was made quite clear by Your Honour that the word "lie" is not to be used in the House of Commons. I do not want to use the word "lie"
Inquiries of the Ministry
in the sense that I am directing it at any one individual, but I would say to the Prime Minister that it is time he took hold of the Liberal party and stopped them from using the big lie technique of advertising candidates as ministers-elect.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is misleading because they will never be elected.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A terminological inexactitude.


An hon. Member:: It will ruin the candidate.
*	& H*



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I directed a question to the Minister of Justice in the absence of the Solicitor General. I see the Solicitor General in the House today. I wonder whether he could answer the question which was as follows:
What was the reason or purpose of the RCMP inquiry into the procedure used by western ranchers and farmers of dropping literature from an airplane protesting against Bill C-176 at several rural points in southeastern Alberta?
I hope the minister received that question from the acting minister.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicilor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member, but I think that the question should be put to the Attorney General of the province involved.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had time to look into the question. I should like to inquire why it should be directed to the Attorney General of the province? I thought the Solicitor General's department had control over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, of necessity we have contracts with the provinces in connection with the services of the members of the RCMP, and while those members are bound by contract, they are under the direct jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the province concerned.
I think that the case raised by the hon. member comes under the provincial authorities.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Solicitor General to give me an assurance that this inquiry was not originated by the federal government.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes, I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.

May 14, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was beginning to be afraid I would never catch your eye.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the labour statistics show that women are bearing a disproportionate share of the increase in unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald MacInnis: -will the minister discontinue the present discrimination against women in the training programs under his jurisdiction?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that there is discrimination. The programs available in the department are available on principles which apply equally to men and women. In each case an attempt is made to offer training to those who will be most helped by it toward finding jobs which may be available at the end of the training period.


Donald MacInnis: May I inquire why it is that so many more men are judged to be helped by training courses than women?



FINANCE


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In doing so I assure him that we are all aware that he is as concerned as all of us about the deepening unemployment and inflation crisis. In view of this situation, has the government considered replacing the Department of Finance with a sort of super ministry, for example, a committee composed of successful, experienced, practical people who would be responsible for co-ordinating all economic decision-making in the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is the type of man who is running for the Liberal party in Nova Scotia in the by-election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-I believe the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has a supplementary.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member, but the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: They never seem to learn, Mr. Speaker, they keep walking into it. My question of privilege arises from the fact that the Prime Minister has violated the rules of the House by answering a previous question when another member has asked a different question altogether. He took the opportunity to refer to my previous question. I will now ask him to take a good hard look at his cabinet and especially the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and find out from that minister why he is allowing this false advertising to go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent may ask a supplementary, but I point out that there is only one minute remaining in the question period. I will then recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister did not understand my question when I asked him about a committee. I am sure it is not a committee that is running in Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: You never know; it may be.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he planning to investigate or has he investigated the allegations that large numbers of people of Italian origin are entering Canada as visitors and then, at high prices, are being smuggled into the United States to be exploited there?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course the question of people entering Canada for a purpose other than that stated at the time of entry and a purpose which is therefore not fully legitimate is always of concern to us. We are always watching the matter and examining ways of improving our procedures in this connection. We also have some special investigations in hand in connection with some recent allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Order, please. We have a few points of order before we go on with the business of the House. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my point has reference to the answer given by the Prime Minister. He will be leaving the country shortly-

May 14, 1971


An hon. Member:: To Russia with love.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -And I know he is concerned about our senior citizens. Since inflation is eating up the old age security payments to our senior citizens, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would give serious consideration at this time to replacing the cost of living index-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that this is an abuse of the rules of the House of Commons. Since The Standing Orders provide 40 minutes for the question period, an hon. member should not be given an opportunity to ask a question under the guise of a point of order. He should wait until the next sitting day. If on questions of privilege or points of order an hon. member asks a question after the period has expired, it is unfair to other hon. members when they are not recognized. Why should this not also apply to the other five or ten hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask a question? I really think this is not a legitimate point of order. I respectfully suggest the hon. member that I should not be required to rule on the point in any event.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege. With respect, the only reason I rose is that the Prime Minister indicated he would look at Hansard to see what my question was and then give me the answer. The Prime Minister is going abroad. I did not mean to breach the rules, but I thought I would ask him the question in order to get an answer before he leaves the country.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully draw to Your Honour's attention that I have risen many times in my place for three days and have failed to be recognized. I trust that this position will be recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member. He knows that I have tried to recognize him. If the hon. member will look at Hansard for the past month or so, I feel that he will see that he has had his fair share of questioning time. I believe that very sincerely.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, related to the point raised two days ago in regard to the length of the question period. This morning the Prime Minister was made aware of an official representation that he should discuss the Atlantic fishery when he visits the Soviet Union. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe was about to raise that question with the Prime Minister today, but the question period expired before he had an opportunity to do so. As a result, the Prime Minister will not have had an opportunity to respond before leaving for the Soviet Union as to whether he will accept the representation officially made to his office to discuss the Atlantic fishery. In view of the fact that other members have raised a similar question, this is an appropriate time to ask if the House leaders and Your Honour will consider extending the question period beyond 40 minutes, in view of the fact that the serious unemployment crisis is taking up most of the question period, so that members may have a chance to ask their questions.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the request of the hon. member. He is suggesting that the House agree. But that is not a decision for the House leaders, or for the hon. member or the Chair to take. If hon. members are unanimously agreed to ask questions and receive answers all day, that is their privilege, but it has to be unanimous. That is the only way the Standing Order can be amended. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. As the hon. member knows, this is the only way that the question period can be extended. If hon. members wish to change the rules in order to have a longer or a shorter question period, as the case may be, it would have to be done in the usual way, that is, by a motion after the 48 hours notice as required by the Standing Order, or by means of a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to which hon. members may want to give some thought. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present my views on Bill C-244 or what is commonly referred to as the prairie grains stabilization act. Before doing so, I would like to compliment some of my colleagues from western Canada, including the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), for their very comprehensive review of this bill. They have expressed many of the opinions to which I would have referred, but I will not bore the House by repeating them.
The proposal to introduce this legislation was first brought to the attention of the House on October 29, 1970, when the minister responsible for the wheat board released a 20 page brief to members and the public entitled "Proposals for a Production and Grains Receipts Policy for the Western Grains Industry". The reception of these proposals by western farmers has been very cool, to say the least. After their experience with the Lift program, the present difficulties which the government is

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act encountering with Bill C-176 on marketing and production, the long, dragged out hearings and amendments to Bill C-175, an act respecting grain, and a further piece of controversial legislation now on the order paper entitled "An act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act", it is little wonder that farmers are looking with a jaundiced eye at all of the present government's agricultural policies and wondering what is coming next. Bill C-244 is no exception. It leaves unanswered more questions than it answers.
Generally speaking, everyone in Canada should be in favour of a stabilized farm income and a viable farm industry. It has always been a well recognized economic fact that if agriculture, the second most important industry in Canada, is in a healthy state, the whole Canadian economic scene is above par. In reading this bill for the first time, it almost appears that the government's proposals are to stabilize farm income at a poverty level due to the criteria used in the three to five year averages of previous crop years immediately preceding the proposed stabilization payments. One only has to look at the low income of grain farmers to appreciate the point that I am making. Of course, this formula does not take into account the ever accelerating input costs such as high interest, higher taxes, higher living costs, machinery and fuel costs, labour costs, etc., plus the extra financial burden of farm grain storage costs that are bound to arise with the government's proposals for the storage of more grain on the farms.
The original plan of last October was to place this legislation before the House much earlier and to have $100 million in the hands of western farmers early this spring to help compensate for the very low cash income over the past several years due to lower sales of grain at lower prices. The program is quite late. We in the opposition have suggested several times that the $100 million acreage payment, which is so greatly needed, be made available to farmers at once. The House, and representative farm organizations, would then have time to examine Bill C-244 in committee and suggest amendments that would make this a much better piece of legislation; but no, the government would rather use this $100 million as a bribe or political blackmail to try and push this bill, with all its faults, through the House at once. In other words, we should take the bitter with the sweet. The minister responsible for this legislation has already lost credibility by crying wolf just as we started to examine this bill. He tried to accuse the opposition of obstruction in a release to the press.
Many farmers to whom I have spoken feel that the present plan of income stabilization is an illusion or a political mirage. In fact, this is the way Mr. Roy Atkinson, head of the National Farm Union, described the bill. He suggested, as did opposition members, that the $100 million be divorced from the bill and paid out at once to compensate for the recent shortfall of farm income. Then, we could go on from there to examine the bill more closely.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented a brief to Members of Parliament on May 7, 1971, on Bill C-244. After reviewing it closely, I find that it corresponds very closely with my present opinion on the bill. I would like to read some excerpts from that brief. I might say that I do not always agree with the philosophy of the Canadian Confederation of Agriculture as it affects western Canada because this organization is Canada-wide. Sometimes its viewpoint is directed more toward the benefit of other segments of society than the members of the agricultural industry. But in this case it reflects the views held by most western farmers and also the views, I might be permitted to suggest, of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The Federation of Agriculture has this to say:
noon)
Bill C-244, the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act, must be judged and dealt with against the reality of the depressed income position of prairie grain growers and the need for adequate measures of income protection as well as grain receipts stabilization, not only today but in the longer term.
The bill itself must be dealt with in two parts:
1.	The vitally necessary payments to be made to prairie producers as so-called "special transitional payments" in the amount of $100 million. These payments are urgently required.
2.	The long term stabilization and storage policies contained in the bill. These require much improvement.
I emphasize the Federation of Agriculture's assertion that these policies require much improvement. The statement continues:
The federation can in no circumstances view these two parts as conditional upon one another in dealing with this bill. They should not be, and need not be, conditional. We cannot accept the assumption, as a ground rule set by the government, that to get the immediate payment the long term policy must be accepted. It would be highly improper for us to temper our criticism of the long term grains policy in this bill-and we do have criticisms, and very serious ones-out of a feeling of fear and urgency respecting a possible delay of these essential "transitional" payments. It is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long term proposals contained in the bill.
The last sentence in that statement by the Federation of Agriculture is underlined. The statement continues:
The urgent necessity of immediately supplementing the incomes of prairie farmers is clearly seen in the disastrous figures on farm income recently released by Canada Statistics.
While official statistics do not separate grain and livestock on a net income basis, there is little doubt that grain growers are operating on a net loss basis or close to it in western Canada. The net realized income, for example, to all Saskatchewan agriculture was $200 million in 1970. In the years 1963-67 it averaged $435 million. If "income in kind" is deducted from these figures the change was from $368 million to $131 million. If you were to allocate one-quarter of the total net ($92 million) in 1963-67 to livestock-a not unreasonable assumption-this leaves a net of $276 million to grain growing. If you allocate the same $92 million net to livestock in 1970-which is likely conservative- you reduce the net from grain growing to about $40 million. In short, grain growers as a group are operating virtually at a loss, and they must in fact try to survive on depreciation and the consumption of farm perquisites (income in kind) valued in the statistics for 1970, at $69 million for all Saskatchewan farmers including livestock producers. The Saskatchewan example is used because it illustrates most clearly the grain grower's disastrous income position, which for grain growers will be the same in the other Prairie provinces.

May 14, 1971

As a direct result of world market conditions over which he has no control and little possibility of predicting or anticipating, plus heavily subsidized competition from other exporters, the prairie grain producer has undergone, and continues to undergo, this vicious and disastrous shrinking of his income. We must insist that improved support of the level of farm income among prairie producers, and continuing, major support to prairie income from the federal government in face of present and prospective world conditions, is a necessity.
It must be recognized that this bill is clearly designed to place definite limits on the federal obligation to support prairie income, even in the face of chronic income inadequacy.
It is also a policy which has as a major objective the protection of the prairie and national economy-the businessman and the farm supplier-from the impact of sharp income fluctuations. It would be a great fallacy to view it as anything else.
Consider that the likely federal financial obligation under this policy (which includes the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act with no replacement of it by an alternative and better national storage reserve stocks policy with federal sharing of costs) is less than has been undertaken by the government through the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act alone in the course of the last 15 years.
Consider that there is no government recognition or undertaking, as we understand its attitudes, to assume direct responsibility for protecting the level of farmer returns through minimum price guarantees, although some element of such a policy could be introduced in the context of the Act on a two to one federal-producer sharing of the cost.
Consider the consistent refusal of the federal government to introduce an adequate two-price system so that farmers could gain from the domestic marketplace some semblance of an adequate price for grains used by Canadians for human consumption. The federal attitude that such a system could in some sense be regarded as a federal subsidy to the farmer is absolutely false and insupportable.
I should like to repeat those words. The federal attitude that such a system could in some sense be regarded as a federal subsidy to the farmer is absolutely false and insupportable. The Federation's statement goes on:
Consider that in the early years of application of this policy, at least, grain receipts are starting at such a low level that there is likely to be little or no stabilization payment to grain producers to supplement their income. Instead, that level will be further reduced by the 2 per cent levy on their gross.
Consider that unless major and more generous efforts are made to extend crop insurance effectively across the Prairie provinces, the termination of P.F.A.A. will add yet another element of loss and uncertainty to the prospects for many producers.
Consider that inflation can, and probably will, unless special provision is made to compensate for it, continue to erode the income position of grain growers, offsetting and more than offsetting any benefits of the stabilization proposal.
The plan as proposed in the bill goes only a small way to meet the federal responsibilities as we defined them to the Canadian Agricultural Congress in our position paper of that time. Commenting on the initial proposals of the Hon. Otto Lang for a prairie grain receipts stabilization plan we stated these responsibilities to be as follows:
1.	The national responsibility for government sharing of costs of adequate reserve stocks of grain to meet market needs.
This is one of the major bones of contention. It is necessary for the welfare of our economy as a whole, and especially of the agricultural economy, that adequate stocks of grain should be on hand at all times to meet world market demands. They should be available for quick movement. This supposes the existence of a
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act positive storage plan, and I do not think the farming industry should be called upon to bear the whole cost of such a storage program. I find myself in wholehearted agreement with the position taken by the Federation of Agriculture. The Federation's statement goes on:
2.	The national responsibility to protect the farmers' prices when these are especially depressed as a result of competitive subsidization, and world surpluses in relation to commercial demand.
3.	The national responsibility to reasonably protect farmers and the business community from excessive fluctuations in receipts from grain.
4.	The national responsibility to compensate farmers for the chronically low level of returns to grain growing as a result of rapidly rising productivity in the industry, and world market conditions.
5.	The national rseponsibility to return to farmers a fair price for grain used for human consumption in Canada.
These are some of the recommendations the Federation has to make:
1.	The "transitional" payment must be made immediately and not be made conditional either upon acceptance of the rest of the bill as it stands or upon its rapid passage.
2.	Aside from the "transitional" payment, the bill is not acceptable as it now stands. While supporting the principle of a stabilization policy, the Federation position is that the following minimum modifications to the policy are required to make it acceptable:
(a)	Replacement of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act (which we agree in its present form does not best meet the needs of the marketing system) by a new national grain reserves stocks policy, with federal sharing of costs. We propose the federal government share in the costs of carrying necessary reserve stocks of grain by paying carrying charges annually, for the full year, on about 400 million bushels of all grains, at the rate of one-half cent per month for storage and one half of the interest costs involved in carrying the grain.
(b)	A change in the calculation of the stabilization payment by adjusting the five-year average upward by the amount of inflation which took place over the period.
Then follow some tables to illustrate the situation. I shall not bother the House with them but they reinforce my argument.
3.	We propose that in view of the present very low level of prairie farm income, and the extreme difficulty grain farmers are already having in making ends meet, that in the initial five-year period of operation of the act at least, at which time review is provided for, that the federal-producer contribution ratio to the stabilization fund be three to one and the producer contribution set at 1| per cent.
4.	We propose that the amount of stabilization payments, in their aggregate, which may be made under the legislation, be included in the calculation of the five-year average of grain receipts. By this we mean that any stabilization payment will be included in the five-year average, attributable to the year on account of which the payment is made.
We think it is consistent with the stabilization objective to include stabilization payments in the grain receipts totals in calculating the five-year average. The stabilization payments received by individuals should not and need not be included in the three-year average calculations.
5.	PFAA should not be phased out in any area until availability of crop insurance is ensured. We recommend that provision be made for a more adequate sharing of administrative and premium costs by the federal government, under the crop insurance program, and major efforts be made to ensure general

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
introduction. Otherwise the termination oi PFAA will create real additional hardship for many individual producers.
These are very modest proposals in relation to the size of the need for improved income protection, which is very great and will continue to be so. The point must be stressed that the stabilization storage/PFAA policy as it now stands in the bill is an unacceptable package. If not improved as we recommend, the initial impact of the act will likely be for a period to in fact reduce the level of income available to the producer, because of the deduction of the levy and the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Moreover, the protection afforded to the level of farm income will be altogether inadequate over time.
We would also stress very strongly the need for price protection to the producer, through the initial payment system. We recognize that the present bill does provide in effect that shortfalls in initial payments are paid two-thirds by the federal government. We think that maintenance of an adequate level of prices is in principle a direct responsibility of the federal government because of the helplessness of the prairie farmer in the face of severe and subsidized international competition. We are however inclined not to quarrel with the cost-sharing feature of the proposal. Our point is that initial payments should be used as an income supporting mechanism.
Finally, an adequate two-price system must be made a part of the total policy package with respect to income protection for western grain growers. It is just not right that we should be the only, or virtually only, wheat producing nation that accepts world price levels as an adequate guide to prices that should fairly be paid in the marketplace by domestic consumers. It is a shocking fact that in the entire post-war period since the Second World War there has been essentially no increase in grain prices and therefore no increase whatever in the amount the farmers receive from flour and cereal products sold to the consumer. This must be corrected by substantial increases in the price received by the farmer for grain used for domestic human consumption. The impact on the consumer would in any case be very small. The great bulk of the cost of cereal products to the consumer is transportation, processing and distribution.
I have done some personal research, Mr. Speaker, as a result of which I should like to make the following remarks. Firstly, this proposal is not an income but a receipt stabilization plan. The proposal will not affect the deteriorating net income situation of individual producers and the western farm industry generally. The decline in prices of wheat and the inflation in the cost of such production inputs as equipment and land will continue to deflate the incomes derived from cash receipts.
Second, this proposal will not supplement the income of the producer who does not have generally sufficient cash receipts to sustain a reasonable standard of living or for any additional cost of adjustment. The proposal will only maintain his past level of receipts whether that level was reasonable or not. By itself the proposal will not be of any positive assistance to the poor farmer in rationalizing his production or in vacating the industry.
Third, this proposal will not protect the individual producer from changing market realities and thus retard "adjustment", but, in fact, will exaggerate market pressure on the producer. It provides an incentive to the producer to employ market forecasts to best match his production to anticipated market realities and conversely penalizes the producer who does not. Payments to individual producers will be made in relation to their average marketings for the three years ending in the year in which their payment is made. If an individual were able to keep his receipts up, despite a genera]
decline in the industry, his base on which the payment would be made would be higher and his payment correspondingly greater. Conversely, the producer who was negligent about market trends and made a bad guess- and guessing might accurately describe accepting government forecasts-or who was a marginal producer who could not finance an efficient response to market conditions, would receive a correspondingly smaller payment. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the serious inadequacies of the legislation as it presently stands.
Four, the plan is really aimed at stabilizing the cash receipts of the yet undefined viable-sized farm unit. Excess cash receipts will not be stabilized and inadequate cash receipts will not be supplemented. Clearly, the government is interested in protecting an optimum unit of some sort as the cornerstone of the grains industry.
Fine, for normal times it appears the government leans toward the principle that this receipt stabilization plan should be self-financed by producers. Producers' contributions will be paid as a regular deduction from receipts from sales, while government contributions will be made as grants whenever the payments to producers exceed the accumulated producer contributions. Government grants will not be repayable from future producer contributions.
Six, since we have not received a schedule of payments or contributions for an individual producer, it is not possible now to be certain of their incidence. However, the plan appears to be based on neutral insurance principles. There is no principle in the plan that suggests either a progressive or regressive intention regarding the burden of contributions or the effect of benefits to the individual producer. Again, receipt stabilization is its focus, not income maintenance or income supplementation.
Seven, this proposal will not inject "more than $100 million" into the grain industry for 1970-71. The government will save almost that amount by terminating the storage payments for wheat under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. For the 1969-70 crop year that plan cost the federal government $66.3 million and likely would have cost more for 1970-71. As with the Lift program, the real contribution will be far less than the initial suggestion. On looking closely at the bill, it appears there are one or two technical deficiencies. For that reason I intend to conclude my remarks by moving an amendment. To clarify the objective and reason for the amendment, I should like to make the following remarks. Because of the inconsistencies in the principles of this bill, I propose to move an amendment to the motion before the House.
You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that this bill proposes an expenditure of public funds and is therefore based upon the recommendation of His Excellency that public funds be appropriated to particular purposes set out in the recommendation. The provisions of the bill must carry out the purposes of the recommendation.
The Governor General's recommendation is printed opposite page 1 of the bill. One of the purposes set out in

May 14, 1971

that recommendation commences on the fifth line from the bottom and reads:
-to provide that all moneys remaining in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund be credited to the Prairie Grain Stabilization Account.
That statement is clear and unequivocal. That, however, is not the way this purpose appears in the bill. Clause 34 purports to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. On page 21, subclause 3 of clause 34 provides that a new section is added to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to provide that:
All moneys remaining in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund immediately prior to the repeal of this act shall be credited to the Prairie Grain Stabilization Account established by the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act.
The words "immediately prior to the repeal of this act" are qualified by subclause 4 of clause 34 which provides:
The said act is repealed effective on such day after December 30, 1973, as may be fixed by proclamation.
In other words, there is no provision in this bill which carries out the recommendations of His Excellency that all moneys remaining in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund be credited to the Prairie Grain Stabilization Account. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, there is a definite prohibition in subclause 4 against making such a transfer of funds before December 30, 1973. After that date, there is a discretion in the Governor in Council to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He may or may not repeal it. The Fish Inspection Act was on the statute books for the best part of 20 years before it was proclaimed. Part II of the Narcotic Control Act, which was enacted by Parliament in 1960-61, has yet to be proclaimed by the Governor in Council.
An authority given by Parliament to the Governor in Council to proclaim the coming into force of a bill is a grant of discretionary power. The grant of power is discretionary in two aspects. The Governor in Council has a discretion as to whether he will exercise the power at all and, if he decides to exercise it, he has a discretion as to when he will do so. The restriction on his discretion in this bill is not upon the discretion to exercise or not exercise the power; it merely provides that if the Governor in Council does exercise the power he shall not do so before December 30, 1973.
The Governor General, by his message to this House, has recommended that the funds in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund be credited to the Prairie Grain Stabilization Account. The government asks this House to pass a bill that does not give effect, indeed, may never give effect, to that recommendation. The official opposition must oppose a principle that where His Excellency recommends the use of public funds to a particular purpose that recommendation is carried out by delegating to the Governor in Council a power to implement that recommendation if and when the Governor in Council so pleases.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Bill C-224 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to consider the principle expressed in the message and recommendation of His Excellency that the measure "provide that all moneys remaining in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund be credited to the Prairie Grain Stabilization Account" and the opposed principle expressed in clause 34 of the bill, lines 13 to 23 on page 21, that such moneys be so credited on such day after December 30, 1973 as may be fixed by proclamation.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member's presentation and argument in favour of the proposed amendment. I am prepared to make a ruling as to whether the amendment is procedurally correct. I have some strong reservations about the form in which the amendment is proposed. The hon. member, as well as other hon. members in the House, admit that this is a novel form of amendment. I am open to suggestions from hon. members on either side of the House who might wish to enlighten the Chair. I will listen to them with pleasure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief. I recognize the difficulty under which Your Honour labours. I know that we are groping toward working out a type of jurisprudence in the House based on certain changes in Standing Orders, adapted as far as possible to precedent and practice of the past. We have had this trouble for a long time, ever since the new Standing Orders became effective.
The government, in its recommendation from His Excellency, has seen fit to insert, as coming from the Governor General, certain particularized and detailed recommendations. Then, as I see it, all too often there is no attempt to bring about any conformity between the recommendations and the bill itself. The opposition is in a very difficult position because we cannot interfere with the recommendation. Time after time these details in the specific recommendations being brought down and attached to bills consistently contain variation. We are faced with the kind of problem confronting the hon. member who has moved this amendment. I have recognized this problem in the past when trying to convince Your Honour of this.
If Your Honour should rule against the amendment, and I hope you will not, I urge you to include in your remarks at least some obiter dicta to the effect that there should be a responsibility on the government to bring in a recommendation in simple form. I have urged this before. I would state simply that His Excellency recommends to the House a bill dealing with certain general matters. That would cover it. We would then have the bill as an extension of the recommendation. The government attempts to limit certain specific items in a recommendation, but time after time there is no conformity between that and the bill.
The members of the opposition, in attempting to see that the Standing Orders are complied with and that the rules of financial responsibility are lived up to, are faced

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
with this sort of difficulty. I simply limit my remarks to suggesting that Your Honour look upon the responsibility of the government to see that this situation does not arise. I have urged that as strongly as I can, because this is the sort of situation which prompted the hon. member to move this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for the opinion he has expressed and the advice which he has given the Chair. As he and other hon. members of the House know, we have had the same argument on a number of occasions since the rules have been changed. The problem to which the hon. member refers is a very real one. I am not sure that it has been compounded to any extent by changes in the rules.
The general procedure, as it affects amendments, has not changed that much. The rules, precedents and practices of the House as they apply to the form of amendments have remained substantially the same over the years, even after the rules were changed. In my view what the hon. member is attempting to do is amend a part of an act, and I would think in this way he anticipates a later stage in the proceedings on a bill. It may well be, that this kind of amendment or the idea behind it might be achieved by an amendment at the committee stage or at the report stage, but I do not think it can be done at this stage of our proceedings. Such an amendment could be either that the bill be not now read but that it be read six months hence, which would be an acceptable or reasoned amendment, or it could be an amendment which would object to the principle of the bill. However, this amendment is neither; it is a combination of the two. The hon. member does not object to the principle of the bill but objects to the principle in clause 34.
If we allowed amendments on second reading based on this premise, we would become involved in considerable difficulty because I would think it would be difficult to imagine a bill of 20, 30 or 40 clauses which would not contain a number of specific clauses with which hon. members would want to take exception. The amendment they would wish to propose would be a reasoned amendment in respect of one specific clause. I suggest to hon. members that in this way the amendment would not be in order.
The hon. member has suggested, that in the form of an obiter dictum, the Chair suggest to the government that we should look a little more closely at the form of the recommendation. I have done that before. The hon. member knows I have on a number of occasions expressed an opinion about the form of the Royal recommendation. As a result-and this is strictly obiter dictum-I do feel that perhaps what should be done is that there should be a very general recommendation, say, to the effect that His Excellency has looked at this measure and this is the measure he recommends. Then, in my view, this offers many difficulties. This is the argument suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, but I have heard other hon. members, even on his side of the House, argue just the opposite. They say that His Excellency should have a recommendation which is very detailed and that we should not go beyond what is specifically recommended to us by His Excellency. There are obviously two sides to the question. My sympathy, however, is with a simple recommendation to the effect that His Excellency the Governor General has looked at a measure and, in so far as its financial provisions are concerned, this is what he recommends to this House. Any amendment which would go beyond the terms of the bill itself, or try to impose an additional charge on the treasury, would then be out of order but anything which would be within the recommendation of His Excellency would be acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
I therefore confirm that I am in sympathy with the hon. member for Peace River in his approach to the problem. I have expressed that view before to hon. members. I am not sure whether it has been expressed to the hon. member in his capacity as House leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I will do this in due course, and perhaps he might use his influence a bit in that capacity to see that this new procedure is adopted by His Excellency. Perhaps the hon. member in his very important capacity might be able to influence His Excellency, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, to change the form of his recommendation to the House of Commons. I am not sure whether I gave a conclusion in these rambling remarks, but the conclusion the hon. member will have suspected at least is that the amendment cannot be put.


Mr, R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, while I am not a member of the Agriculture Committee, I do represent a constituency that is basically an agricultural producing area. I am compelled to participate in the debate at this time on the grain stabilization plan because of the tremendous concern that many people in the farming community have relating to this particular bill and the over-all program of grain price stabilization. I believe it is well that we remind ourselves of the fact) that Canada is an agricultural nation. I believe it is fair to say that one hundred years ago, basically, agriculture was the most important industry in this country. Three-quarters of our people at that time were involved in agricultural production or distribution. This picture has changed in the intervening years. Today, basically Canada is urban. While it is true that now the greatest part of our population do not live in agricultural areas, agriculture is still vitally important. In fact, I think the production of food is still the basic industry of Canada.
My fear, so far as some of the measures the present government is introducing relating to agriculture, is that this very important industry might be damaged to such an extent that the whole wellbeing of the nation might be affected. Certainly, it is not just the livelihood of those engaged in agriculture with which I am concerned. I am also concerned with the more than 21J million people who are the consumers of food. Recent statistics tell us that Canadian consumers spend over $8 billion a year on food alone. This amounts to something like $400 per person or about 21 per cent of all personal expenditures which can be designated for goods and services. Perhaps,

May 14, 1971

in this age of urbanization, in this age of convenience food, the close relationship between agriculture and food is easily forgotten. It has been said that Canada has the most efficient agricultural industry of any country in the world. I believe this is true. Therefore, while we must remind ourselves of the importance of the agricultural industry and the production of food, it is also very important to understand that there is a limit to the level of efficiency the agricultural industry can reach.
We are dealing now in this bill particularly with the production of grain. But, in order to have an idea of the handicap which the producers of grain in Canada have, we might compare the income received for, shall we say, a bushel of wheat in the United States where there is a heavy federal subsidy and the income the Canadian farmer receives for a bushel of wheat. In the United States at the present time the combined domestic and export price under their modification of a two-price system gives the United States farmer $2.83 a bushel. Yet in the year 1969, we find that the Canadian farmer received $1.50 a bushel for wheat that is exported and $1.95$ a bushel for wheat consumed on the Canadian domestic market. We are still expected to compete, in respect to the standard of living with a nation like the United States where the farmers receive nearly double the amount our farmers receive for the same bushel of wheat. This illustrates the problem the average farmer faces today in respect of the production of grain.
More than that, I believe the grain farmer-we will limit our remarks to the grain farmer at this particular time-has had to face a price-income problem which has not been faced by any other industry in this country. Certainly, no other segment of industry, whether producing manufactured food, implements used in agriculture or goods used either personally or in the area of clothing and shelter, would produce at below cost. You cannot do that if you expect to survive. Yet we are aware today that the income of Canadian grain producers as well as the income of agricultural producers in general has gone down each year for the past eight years, although the cost of living has gone up. It is tragic that the farmer is not able to do anything about this. The manufacturer of clothes will not sell his clothes for less than the cost of production; neither will the manufacturer of a tractor sell that tractor for less than it cost to produce. He will try to recover its cost of production and distribution and make sure that he has something left over, or else cease operation. That is not true of the farmer in these circumstances. He cannot do that.
In its recent submission to the government, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that while statistics do not separate grain and livestock production on a net income basis, there is little doubt that grain growers are operating on a net loss basis, or close to it, in western Canada. The net realized income, for example, for Saskatchewan agriculture was $200 million in 1970. In the years 1963 to 1967, the annual income averaged $435 million. If income in kind is deducted from these figures,
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
the change was from $368 million to $131 million, or a decrease of $237 million. To be exact, the farmer's income has gone down by 65 per cent. That illustrates the magnitude of the problem the farmer faces. He cannot control it and can do little about it.
I want to be fair to the government and to the minister responsible in this area. I hope that the government's motivation in bringing forward this grain stabilization bill is to help farmers overcome their problems. I hope that its function will be to bring some degree of financial equity to the farmer. Having said that, may I now say that I do not understand how the provisions of this bill will do that. Some farmers in my constituency, in particular, are particularly concerned about certain provisions of the bill.
The government states that this program is designed to establish policy with an initial, interim payment of $100 million to western farmers for the current crop year. That is its short term objective. It is also basically designed to hold cash farm grain receipts at a predetermined level. That is my understanding of the program, Mr. Speaker. The program is to be based on a two to one ratio, the government contributing 4 per cent of total receipts for each year and the farmers contributing two per cent of their totals, up to an average cash receipt of $15,000. This will mean that the maximum that any one farmer will end up paying in any year is $300 to the stabilization fund. The plan would pay to grain farmers who hold Canadian Wheat Board permit books, in a year for which the payment would be made, an amount equal to the difference between the total eligible farm cash receipts for the crop year and the average of such receipts for the preceding five years. The total payable would be divided among the eligible permit holders on a proportion of each individual's average eligible cash receipts for the preceding three years.
This sounds all very well, Mr. Speaker, but I want to emphasize something that previous speakers have referred to. It is of great concern to me. The government contends that it is giving $100 million to the farmers. That is not the case. The $100 million which, in the short range aspect of the program, will be provided to the grain farmers and to the agricultural industry is not for the most part new money. Rather it has been obtained by the elimination of two other programs which over the years have put considerable money into the agricultural and grain industry. I am, of course, referring to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Although $100 million is to be paid out by the government this year, the cost to the federal treasury will be considerably less than that. I think it is necessary to make that fact clear, and I propose to do so. For example, let us look at the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We know that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act program, in the 30 years it has been in existence, has collected over $207 million and paid out to the farmer over $383.5 million. In 1969, the last year for which there are records, a total of $5,281,000 was paid out. I understand that the PFAA assistance program will be replaced by the grains stabilization program, when it takes effect.

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
The second program to be eliminated when this legislation is implemented will be the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act program. That will be entirely lost to the farmers. At present that program covers, basically, the cost of storage. In the years 1968-69, of the $101 million paid for storage, $22.3 million was charged to the producer and $79.7 million to the Treasury. This program will be eliminated altogether, and in that regard real difficulties will be created for the farmer, because in future the farmer will have to pay the whole shot for storage.
The government is planning basic changes with regard to general transportation and storage matters, the net result being that farmers will incur greater costs for transportation with the establishment of regional terminals across the wheat producing area. The program will not only mean that the farmer will pay increased costs for storing grain; he will also pay increased costs for transporting grain. Whereas in the past he may have had to haul grain five, 10 or 15 miles, he will, after this storage program has been introduced, need to haul his grain 20 miles, 30 miles, 50 miles or even farther. That will create greater difficulties and greater expense for the farmer than he experienced in the past. Thus, I am greatly concerned about that aspect of Bill C-244.
In looking at and considering the over-all problem that is before us, we must consider it against the reality of the depressed income position of prairie grain farmers. There is a need for adequate income protection for farmers as well as the stabilization, in the longer term, of their receipts. This bill stabilize their incomes at a minimal level which, at today's prices, I submit is below the cost of production. Farmers must be induced to produce food, at a locked-in price level and I submit that farm incomes ought to be stabilized at a higher level and not at starvation or minimum levels. That, to my way of thinking, shows another fault in this program, and I am concerned about it. If we were talking about an ordinary industry, let us say, of the sort that produces farm implements, clothing or shoes, the matter would be altogether different. You might argue that you do not need new tractors or new implements this year. But food must be produced. While we can take satisfaction in the fact that Canadian farmers can produce more food for more per capita than probably any other farmers in the world, the fact remains that food production is something that we must maintain not only for our own needs but also for world needs.
In recent years there has been a great deal of talk about what we should be doing with our surpluses. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to our own people, but it seems to me that in an ever-shrinking world we have an obligation that goes much further than that. It is not just a case of exporting know-how but of building up reserves that inevitably will be needed by hungry people, whether they live in Canada or elsewhere. It is my concern that we are looking at this from the view of the short-term approach.
We can go back to scripture, to a man who became a great agricultural expert in his day even though he himself was not a farmer. This was Joseph, who worked as prime minister for the Pharaohs of Egypt, who was wise enough to accumulate a great storage of grain in the good years in order that there might be sufficient food during the bad years. That story from biblical times in the Middle East is not too different from the pattern of things as they happened in the generations since then. In this regard, I have to agree with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its statement with respect to the vitally necessary payments to be made to prairie producers, special transitional payments of $100 million. These are very important, but basically the long-term stabilization and storage policies contained in the bill are of questionable value and must be considered from the long-range rather than the short-range aspect.
I would like to say just a word in regard to world market conditions. The farmer himself has little ability to control, and little possibility of even predicting or anticipating what the world market situation will be. But what the Canadian farmer does face, as I mentioned earlier, is a competitive situation from a very heavily subsidized agricultural program in other food producing areas of the world, which places him at a very serious handicap.
I am not advocating that we should follow the American pattern, which is one of heavy subsidization by the federal treasury through various agricultural programs. But while saying that, and being convinced it is true, this does not mean that we can eliminate the responsibility we have toward the agricultural industry in Canada. The fact remains that the farmer himself cannot survive unassisted in the face of the subsidized competition that he meets from other countries. Therefore, while I agree with the principle of the bill, I think its provisions leave something to be desired.
Certainly the vicious and disastrous shrinking of income faced by the western grain producer is something that cannot continue. Again I refer to a comment made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
We must Insist that improved support of the level of farm income among prairie producers, and continuing, major support to prairie income from the federal government in face of present and prospective world conditions, is a necessity.
In this regard, Bill C-224 is designed to place definite limits on the federal obligation to support prairie income, even in the face of great chronic income inadequacy. Therefore, while agreeing with the principle, it seems to me the philosophy behind the bill is wrong if we desire to have a viable agricultural industry and to continue the production of food.
So, Mr. Speaker, I bring these points to the attention of the minister responsible, and to those of us who are vitally interested in agriculture, because it is in these areas that I see the basic problem of food production so far as agriculture is concerned.
Now, I wish to say just a word in closing with reference to the situation so far as farming units are concerned. Whether it be from the short-term approach in

May 14, 1971

this $100 million interim subsidy program or whether it be on the basis of the long-term program, I believe that the answer to our agricultural and food needs in Canada does not lie just in building industrial farms. I think there are many examples throughout the world today which prove that industrial farming, or big corporate farming, is not the answer to a viable agricultural industry.
There has been a great deal said, and I am concerned about the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in this regard, that it is inevitable that the family farm unit will disappear, and the larger economic unit will take over. This is not the answer. If this is the reason the government, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, is moving to centralize authority in the hands of the federal government-and this refers to Bill C-176 as well as this program, the two being inseparable-then I think it is wrong.
There must be an approach whereby the growing of living things can roll with the punches, can meet the various crop conditions and various market conditions in such a way that the farm unit itself is not destroyed. It may be a cliche, and it may be in the minds of some a reactionary approach, to say that just because the farm unit has been the secret of our farming efficiency and our ability to produce food in the past, it does not follow that it must be so in the future. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that a real, viable agricultural industry in Canada can only come about when the basic rights of the family farm unit are protected vis-a-vis the industrial or farm approach.
Certainly Russia, with its corporate farming approach of communal farming, has illustrated this fact. It is a most interesting fact that in spite of all modern equipment and efficiency the actual per capita production of grain in Russia was more in the so-called incompetent and corrupt time of the Czars than it is now through communal farming. This is why the Russian agricultural pattern is changing back to individual units, or at least reversing itself in a very definite way, and it is evidence of the fact that the Russians have not found the answer in communal or corporate farming.
My concern, not only with respect to this bill but with respect to Bill C-176, with respect to the various utterances of the minister responsible for the marketing of grain and of the Minister of Agriculture himself, is that this whole philosophy of building up federal control is a wrong approach which will cause irreparable harm to our agricultural industry. It is wrong for the federal government to think it knows the agricultural situation so that it can tell the farmer when he can sow, what he can grow, when he can harvest and what he can market. This is the trend facing the farmer today, and that is why I am so much concerned with regard to the grains stabilization program set out in Bill C-224.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the commencement of consideration of this bill today this House had already spent two days in debate on it. We are now on the third day of debate and I think, for a number of reasons, it is entirely proper and necessary that the House give some close and careful consideration to the legislation.
The first reason is that the problems facing rural Canada are very closely integrated with some of the fundamental economic problems facing Canada which have been under debate in the past two days, in particular the new unemployment figures. The fact is that there is a malaise in the Canadian economy. We see it demonstrated in the urban sector of the economy with the unemployment figures which are well known to all hon. members. We also see that malaise in the rural sector of our economy and our society. I suggest there is a relationship between those two sectors, and the malaise that exists in each countributes to a further accentuation or intensification of the problems facing each of the major sectors.
The second reason is that rural Canada is in a crisis situation. A process of disintegration is under way that could result in its complete destruction. Parliament has a responsibility to stop that destruction and to take steps to help construct a healthy rural society.
Bill C-244 will have an effect on the future of the Prairies. It is not clear whether the effect will be a healthy one. This bill contains a permanent plan which the government now intends to rush through Parliament, using the transitional payment of $100 million as a carrot and a stick-a mighty big stick. For that reason, I think we need to consider very seriously just where we are going with respect to this legislation. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who introduced this legislation, has insisted that the two aspects of this bill be considered together. In terms of the power available to the government he, of course, has a right to persist in that course. I suggest to him, however, that he is being too clever by half in some of the schemes that he tries to foist on the prairie farmer and on this House. I think it is time he started to think of the interest and the future of the prairie farmer, rather than his own political future when dealing with these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Stratford Burton: The problems are too great and serious to be fooled with in the way the minister has demonstrated in dealing with this legislation. It is reprehensible that the minister chose to issue a press release last Friday concern'ng the debate that had taken place in the House on a previous piece of legislation. Before making his own speech in the House on this particular bill, he issued a press release accusing the opposition of filibustering the stabilization bill. This illustrates an element of

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act authoritarian outlook on the part of the minister. The minister has the attitude that he, and only he, knows best. This reminds me of those spoiled children who say, if you don't play the game my way I will run home to my mommy and cry. This attitude is possibly exemplified by the other saying, I will go home and take my bat and ball with me. If the minister went back to his law school, many western farmers would be better off.
This plan is a permanent one and has far reaching implications. The minister does a disservice to western agriculture when he tries to blackmail Parliament into approving this bill because of the transitional payments. The $100 million in transitional payments provided in the bill are urgently required. They should be higher. I will deal with this later in my remarks. This is the reason my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), moved an amendment earlier this week. The amendment was ruled out of order by Your Honour. I do not propose to take issue with lhat ruling. I simply want to point out that the motivation behind the amendment was to try to find a way of getting this money into the hands of the farmers quickly, and to allow time for adequate consideration of a permanent piece of legislation.
We have to relate our consideration to what is happening at the present time to the agricultural economy. Farm income in Canada has dropped at a disastrous rate. The income for 1970 was $1,198 million or 23.9 per cent lower than the 1969 figure of $1,595 million. The 1970 income was approximately 30 per cent lower than the 1968 figure of $1,714 million. 1970 net farm income in Saskatchewan was $202.7 million, a drop of almost 50 per cent from the 1969 figure of $402.9 million and a drop of over 55 per cent from the 1968 figure of $462.3 million. The transitional payment of $100 million provided in Bill C-244 only represents one third of the drop in farm net income in the Prairie provinces from 1969 to 1970. In one year, Prairie farm income dropped by $296 million. In Manitoba, it dropped by $39 million; in Saskatchewan, $200 million and in Alberta, $57 million.
The plan before us is based on gross cash receipts. Every farmer knows that these do not count for much. The farmers are handling a great deal more cash today than 10 or 20 years ago and, in some cases, five years ago. What does count is what the farmer has left after he has finished paying his expenses and other costs. The plan before us, based on gross cash receipts, bears no relationship to farm net income. A plan related to farm net income would take account of the rising costs of production. We can expect that these costs will continue to rise. This fact has been demonstrated by some indicators announced this week.
I do not know whether we can expect any firm action by the government to reverse this trend or bring it to a halt. One example I can cite is the lack of action on farm machinery prices as a result of the Barber commission report. This bill goes as far as charging wheat board deficits against the fund. It should be fairly obvious to all hon. members that when the board or the government makes a miscalculation in its initial payments, and this
could conceivably happen in an election year, it is the farmer who will pay the shot. In the long run, the farmer will pay for the mistake out of moneys that should be available to him.
What we have in the plan before us is part and parcel of the philosophy of the task force on agriculture. The basic approach of the task force on agriculture was to get the government out of agriculture and out of its commitments, particularly its financial commitments to the agricultural sector of our society. Such an approach and philosophy ignore the realities in the world today. The government is now accepting the philosophy of the task force. On the basis of its actions, one is forced to conclude that the government is writing off agriculture in Canada. We should take note of the consequences of these actions, because what we are witnessing today is the destruction of our rural society. There is no question about the fact that rural society has to change. The rural economy must change and adjust to keep abreast of changing times and conditions.
We are witnessing the destruction of our rural society and economy. What is the government doing about it? It has come up with this plan which means a far lesser commitment to agriculture by the federal government than what it has done to now. I suggest that when the government speaks piously about wanting to do something for rural Canada, action speaks louder than words.
Let us examine what has already happened. The present government abandoned farmers to the mercy of the world grain markets through the process of the International Grains Arrangement and the International Wheat Agreement negotiations. The government is now repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which meant an average of approximately $40 million per year for the farmers over the past 15 or 16 years.
We should compare the plan presented to Parliament in Bill C-244 with the recommendations of the task force on agriculture. I do not intend to go into this in detail, but it is important to note two fundamental differences in the plan before us in this bill and the plan proposed by the task force on agriculture. The task force on agriculture presented its own ideas and recommendations. I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily hold a brief for the recommendations of the task force on agriculture. However, they pointed out some factors that should have been given greater consideration by the government in making its decisions. I quote from page 119 of the task force report:
The Task Force believes that the marketing of the grain must be separated from the general Income issues of Prairie agriculture if a highly competitive system of grain marketing is to be developed.
This statement has a good deal of validity when dealing with the world marketing situation as it exists today. The plan presented to us by the government faik to adequately separate the marketing component of the situation from the income component, certainly with respect to gross cash receipts.
What are the two factors involved in gross cash receipts? One is the actual physical volume of grain which

May 14, 1971

is marketed. This is where the marketing aspect comes into it. The second is the price received for the grain. These two components make up the total package involved in the definition of gross cash receipts. One is a price factor which is related to income; the other is more directly related to marketing considerations. The minister and the government have failed to adequately separate the marketing factor from the income factor which must be paramount in any plan presented to Parliament.
The second factor that should be noted is the recommendation of the task force that such a plan should be voluntary. The task force on agriculture also recommended that there be a wheat diversion program and that incentives be provided for it. Of course, the minister might say the government base Operation Lift on that recommendation last year. The minister shakes his head in the negative. The task force did recommend a diversion plan but in each case they made it clear that such a plan would be voluntary. When we take into account the limited commitment the government has made in terms of the stabilization bill before us, it is difficult to justify the compulsory feature. I would be prepared to acknowledge that valid argument can be advanced on both sides as to whether or not a stabilization plan should be voluntary or more comprehensive and, therefore, compulsory. The implication of deciding on a comprehensive plan is that there must be a greater commitment by the government in terms of its contribution to the plan. We have before us a plan under which the government's commitment is limited. The prospects are, in fact, that in the long run there will be a further reduction of its commitment to contribute. Under this plan it appears farmers will be asked to contribute about $15 million. The government, on the other hand, will contribute about $30 million.
The prairie farm assistance legislation is being discontinued, a program to which intermittent government contributions were made in various years. The government contribution to the grain industry will diminish after the transitional payment has been made. This will give hon. gentlemen opposite time to get through the next federal election. In my view, the transitional payment ought to be in the order of $250 million. This party has called for transitional and emergency payments at that level. Every major farm organization has called for emergency assistance to prairie farmers of that order. What do we find? A limitation on the extent of assistance the government will give to western farmers.
It must be recognized that not all of the money being provided through the transitional payments is new money. It is proposed to drop the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and PFAA will be phased out. I should also like to call attention to the situation with regard to Operation Lift, which not long ago the government said would be the salvation of western Canada. First, it was stated with a good deal of publicity that this could mean $140 million to the farmers of western Canada. In fact, only $100 million was voted for the plan, and according to an answer tabled in the House a few days ago, not
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
more than $53.7 millions have been paid out to farmers up to the present time, though there is a small amount yet to be paid out under the forage aspect of the program. The minister expressed himself as being very satis-field with this result. I asked him the other day in the House why he could not add the unspent portion of this money to the amount he is proposing to spend by way of transitional payments. It seems to me this is a reasonable proposition. It would not bring the fund up to the level we would like to see, but in my opinion it is the very least the government should consider doing by way of bringing assistance to western agriculture. Publicity having been given by government spokesmen to both the $100 million and the $140 million, this is another example of hon. gentlemen opposite misleading the people of Canada in connection with the extent of assistance being provided to prairie agriculture. Most of us cannot fail to recognize that the measures the government has brought forward are totally inadequate. There is a need for $250 million, and even this sum will not match the drop in farm income on the Prairies during the past year.
The minister has insisted on including the transitional emergency payments in the same package as the permanent plan to which we ought to give great attention. This is bound to result in a good deal of resentment in western Canada; the people there will not like the idea of this bill being rammed down the throat of Parliament and of western farmers. The government should be prepared, on its own initiative, to accept the proposition which has been put forward by a number of hon. members, that is, to divide the bill and deal with each part in turn. We recognize that certain features may be part of a general pol:cy package. The minister has talked about a policy package from time to time that is broader in scope, yet he has been able to deal with different aspects in different bills. There is no reason why the proposals before us could not be dealt with by way of two bills.
Turning to the stabilization plan as set out in this measure, may I say we approve the principle of stabilization but we do not approve the plan which the government has produced. In my view, it contains four basic defects: First, it has the effect of stabilizing poverty. A plan designed to stabilize cash receipts at current levels assumes that the income level of the past five years is an adequate base. This is obviously not good enough; second, it does not take into account increasing costs of production. A plan to stabilize cash receipts is of 'ittle value in the face of sharply rising costs; three, there will be many inequities resulting from the application of an industry-wide formula for stabilization to individual farm situations. This could have the effect of discrediting the plan before it has really begun. A wide variety of crop conditions across the Prairies that varies from year to year will make a shambles out of the plan; four, the plan is designed to limit the government's contribution to the grains industry. It would appear that the government contribution to the stabilization fund will approximate $30 million a year. Offsetting this contribution will be the elimination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which has meant an average of $41 million a year to prairie agriculture since its introduction, and

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act the elimination of PFAA which has involved a government contribution in some years.
When new problems arise in future years, the government will have an easy answer ready: "We're helping through the stabilization fund." In addition, a decrease in farm numbers as planned by the government for future years will further reduce the degree of government involvement. The problems of prairie agriculture cannot be solved by the government withdrawing major commitments to the industry. If it does, it is out of touch with the world of reality. What justification is there for such a severe limitation on the government's contribution to the prairie grain economy, some $30 million a year, when the government is, on the other hand, contributing millions of dollars a year to help private industry through its regional development program and many other similar programs designed to assist private industry? In addition, multimillion dollar tax concessions to resource industries, which are going to be continued, far overshadow the government's stingy contribution to the prairie grain economy.
There are also other aspects of the bill to which we object. One question I should like to ask is, why the 90 per cent level of stabilization? What rationale or justification is there for this? I think it demonstrates a skinflint attitude on the part of the government. The result will be that when the stabilization plan comes into operation and farmers receive payments, the highest possible level of payment they will be able to receive will be in the order of 98 to 99 per cent of the previous five years' average. At no time will the total gross cash receipts for the year in question, together with the stabilization fund payment, reach the 100 per cent level in terms of the previous five years' average.
I notice that the government is even cutting out whatever margin may exist under one per cent. If there is less than a one per cent difference between the gross cash receipts for the year and the five year average, the payment will be cut out. I suppose there is administrative justification for this, but why could it not have been added on to a future year in order to give the farmers greater benefits than they would otherwise receive from the fund? I should also like to know why the 2 per cent levy. What rationale is there for a 2 per cent levy? Why is the government taking this approach? Can the farmers stand a 2 per cent levy against their gross cash receipts? I suggest that with the information available to hon. members, as well as to the government, it can easily be demonstrated that farmers are operating either at a loss or simply marginally; that that 2 per cent levy will in many cases push farmers into a deficit position for their year's operations. I notice that the task force on agriculture said there should be a 1 per cent levy when presenting its recommendation for this particular form of stabilization plan.
Another objection I have to the bill is that the government is charging off Wheat Board deficits against the stabilization fund. This is an arbitrary action and indicates that the government does not want to spent any
more than it has to on assisting the grain industry of western Canada. Past experience has shown that seldom has there been a deficit on Wheat Board accounts. It is true that there was a substantial deficit for the 1968-69 crop year, but this was certainly an exceptional case and was far from the normal course of events.
I think we should ask the question: When is there likely to be a deficit on Wheat Board accounts? There are two basic situations when there may be. One is if somebody makes a mistake, say either the Wheat Board, the government or whoever it is. The second is when there are disastrous market conditions resulting in a sharp drop in price such as that experienced during the past several years and which was largely responsible for the deficit in the 1968-69 crop year. Considering these two basic reasons, when a deficit does occur should the government not be the agency that picks up that deficit? That is the least it can do. I suggest this added feature of the plan is an unnecessary burden on the farmer and makes the plan even more unworkable.
This legislation also provides some opportunity for manipulation. Even though the minister would deny this-and I accept his word as such-I suggest there will be a very grave suspicion in western Canada that this is the case.
In considering the bill we also need to take careful note of the statement issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on May 7. Surely, this statement was a sharp rebuke to the minister. If the minister ignores the representations made in this statement, he will demonstrate a total lack of sensitivity and responsiveness to the situation and problems that we are discussing. A careful look is required at what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had to say on behalf of Canadian farmers. I should like to quote briefly from their statement, and I shall try not to duplicate those sections quoted a short while ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). Among other things, they had this to say:
Bill C-244, the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act, must be judged and dealt with against the reality of the depressed income position of prairie grain growers and the need for adequate measures of income protection, as well as grain receipts stabilization, not only today but in the longer term.
The bill itself must be dealt with in two parts:
1.	The vitally necessary payments to be made to prairie producers as so-called "Special Transitional Payments" in the amount of $100 million. These are urgently required.
2.	The long term stabilization and storage policies contained in the bill. These require much improvement.
The federation can in no circumstances view these two parts as conditional upon one another in dealing with this Bill. They should not be and need not be, conditional. We cannot accept the assumption, as a ground rule set by the government, that to get the immediate payment the long term policy must be accepted.
They go on to say this:
It is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long term proposals contained in the bill.


Then, the Federation of Agriculture pointed out the urgent necessity of immediately supplementing the incomes of Prairie farmers, which is clearly evidenced by the disastrous figures on farm income which were recently released by Canada Statistics. The brief continues: -there Is little doubt that grain growers are operating on a net loss basis or close to it in western Canada. The net realized income for example to all of Saskatchewan agriculture was $200 million in 1970. In the years 1963-67 it averaged $435 million. If "income in kind" is deducted from these figures the change was from $368 million to $131 million.
Then, the Federation summed it up in this way:
The Saskatchewan example is used because it illustrates most clearly the grain grower's disastrous income position, which for grain growers will be the same in the other Prairie provinces.
There is a reference, then to the helplessness of the farmer in dealing with some of these problems:
As a direct result of world market conditions over which he has no control and little possibility of predicting or anticipating, plus heavily subsidized competition from other exporters, the prairie grain purchaser has undergone, and continues to undergo, this vicious and disastrous shrinking of his income. We must insist that improved support of the level of farm income among prairie producers, and continuing, major support to prairie income from the federal government in face of present and prospective world conditions, is a necessity.
It must be recognized that this bill is clearly designed to place definite limits on the federal obligation to support prairie income-
I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that what they call for here is not just stabilization but additional support for prairie farm income; and certainly this is one part of the picture that we need to consider. The brief continues:
Consider that the likely federal financial obligation under this policy (which includes the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act with no replacement of it by an alternative and better national storage reserve stocks policy with federal sharing of costs) is less than has been undertaken by the government through the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act alone in the course of the last 15 years.
The federation goes on to call for a two-price system and for changes in the formula in respect of grain stabilization. Their basic recommendations are that transitional payments must be made immediately, and not be made conditional either upon acceptance of the rest of the bill as it stands or upon its rapid passage. The second recommendation is that aside from transitional payments the bill is not acceptable as it stands. The federation then states that while it supports the principle of a stabilization policy, there are certain changes which must be made in the bill.
In this bill we are dealing with the principle of emergency payments to prairie farmers. We are also dealing with a permanent stabilization plan which the government proposes to introduce. I think I made it clear in my remarks that we consider the transitional payments or emergency payments to be totally inadequate. The provisions of this bill are not going to rescue the prairie farmers from the morass in which they are at the present time.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I have also made it clear that we regard the stabilization plan as being not good enough. It is, in fact, totally inadequate. It does not do the job envisaged by the government or by the task force and is not a plan acceptable to the western farmers. Thus, we feel that further consideration does need to be given to this matter. Therefore, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That Bill C-224 be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the said bill should be withdrawn and that the government should consider introducing a new bill that would increase the amount of the proposed special transitional payments to $250 million and that would relate the proposed grain stabilization plan to an adequate level of farm net income which takes into account increasing costs of production.
I recommend this amendment to the House as being one which would, in fact, achieve some positive results for the farmers of western Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). The question the Chair has before it is whether it may be accepted from a procedural standpoint. If it is acceptable within the precedents and practices of this House, the Chair would be anxious to make that ruling. I have to express an initial concern and ask hon. members whether they would like to assist the Chair in its consideration of the amendment. My concern relates to the well established practice that a reasoned amendment, which this purports to be, must oppose the principle of the bill. It would seem to me that this does not oppose the principle. The hon. member, in his closing remarks, referred to what he felt were the two principles of the bill. It seems to me this amendment might extend one of them but does not, in fact, oppose either. I would invite the assistance of hon. members on the procedural point.


John Stratford Burton: I appreciate the point Your Honour has raised in respect of my proposed amendment. I submit that it is in order because, as you have pointed out, this is a reasoned amendment and does in fact propose an alternative which opposes the principle of the bill as it is now before us. There are two major points I should like to make.
First of all, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this bill provides for the expenditure or allocation of moneys. The bill does involve the government's responsiblities and the power of government initiative in dealing with money matters. There are very limited ways and means available to the opposition to make its point of view known in respect of moneys it feels should be allocated for whatever plan is finally devised. I am suggesting that, while it is not possible for us to move directly that there be additional moneys spent, in fact what we are proposing here is a resolution expressing the opinion that the government should consider an additional expenditure of money and an additional commitment for the purposes outlined in the bill.
Second, I would submit to Your Honour that in the amendment as I have framed it, there is an alternative which is opposite or in opposition to the principle of the

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act bill as it is now before us. As your Honour has mentioned, there are two basic features of this bill. There is the feature dealing with emergency payments and the feature dealing with the stabilization plan. The emergency or transitional payments portion of this bill provides for the expenditure of $100 million. We have proposed that consideration should be given to increasing that amount to $250 million. I suggest, in fact, there is some difference in principle between suggesting two figures of a totally different scale or magnitude. The bill proposes $100 million and we are suggesting that $100 million will not do what the government thinks it will do. We are proposing a much larger figure which we think will be adequate to achieve the purpose the government has in mind in making transitional payments.
In respect of the stabilization plan, and this is really the key part of my submission, the government in Bill C-244 is not just asking Parliament to approve the principle of stabilization as such. It is not just asking Parliament to approve some guidelines for the expenditure of a certain sum of money. It has laid out very specifically, and in great detail, a particular plan it would like to see in effect. It has spelled out the formula to be used in the application of that plan. This is all spelled out in this legislation. What we are suggesting is that the plan proposed by the government is not adequate. We are suggesting guidelines and the principles which should govern the government in bringing in a new bill which we feel would be more adequate in achieving the objectives hoped for in this piece of legislation.


Otto Emil Lang: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Your Honour expressed some concern as to whether the amendment opposes any principle in the legislation. It seems to me that the principle contained in Bill C-244 deals with a stabilization plan which is based on cash income over a period of years and which represents, in the opinion of those of us who support this amendment, really a redistribution of poverty and the setting of prices at levels which are completely inade-

quate. We are suggesting here a totally different plan. Rather than a stabilization plan, we are suggesting an income support plan which would take into consideration the increased cost of production and which would deal with net farm income rather than gross farm income. It seems to me there is a vital difference in principle. Whether one calls one a stabilization plan and the other a farm income support plan would seem to me to make a great deal of difference in respect of the principle contained in the bill on the one hand and the amendment on the other. For that reason, I believe there is a very different principle in the amendment as compared to the bill itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to thank hon. members for their assistance on the procedural point. I am prepared to rule on it. For the benefit of hon. members, and for my own information, I should like to refer to the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) which I appreciate is an amendment at the second reading stage. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-244 be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the said bill should be withdrawn and that the government should consider introducing a new bill that would increase the amount of the proposed special transitional payments to $250 million and that would relate the proposed grain stabilization plan to an adequate level of farm net income which takes into account increasing costs of production.
The Chair did express initial concern and asked hon. members to assist it on the procedural point. I thank hon. members who have done so. My initial concern was that the amendment, at first blush in any event, did not seem to oppose the principle of the bill.
Hon. members know that the rulings and authorities in relation to reasoned amendments which may be accepted as procedurally correct by the Chair are well set out in the authorities which guide us in these matters. I might refer to the 17th Edition of Erskine May, at the bottom of page 526 and the top of page 527. I shall quote:
"Reasoned Amendment."-It is also competent for a Member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment." This amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word "that" and to add other words; and the question proposed upon the amendment is, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
I think that is the relevant part of the citation. There is one other part that might relate to the problem before us. I refer to the second example which is given:
(2)	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
I wish to confirm my initial thought on the matter which I expressed to hon. members. The proposed reasoned amendment does not, in fact, oppose the principle of the bill. The hon. minister has argued this point. As I indicated in my initial remarks, I have to come to this
May 14, 1971

conclusion. The hon. member who moved the amendment and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) argued the other side of the coin. With respect, however, I feel there is not opposition in principle expressed in this amendment. As I understand it, the principle of the bill relates to the proposition that there should be a transitional payment of an amount of money to the people who will benefit under the bill and that a fund should be established for further stabilization. With respect, I suggest that the amendment does not oppose the principle of the transitional payment.
The amendment asks that the bill be withdrawn and that the government consider the introduction of a new bill to increase the amount of the proposed transitional payment to $250 million. In other words, what is proposed is an increase rather than an objection to that part of the bill. The proposed amendment would provide further .that this new legislation would relate the proposed grain stabilization plan to an adequate level of farm net income which takes into account increasing costs of production. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has argued very forcefully that this is opposed to the principle of the stabilization plan and is another plan. I really cannot agree with him because on the plain wording of the proposed amendment it is requested that the new bill would relate the proposed grain stabilization plan to an adequate level of farm income. It would seem to me there is nothing in the proposed amendment which expresses opposition. It suggests a change in the grain stabilization plan but not opposition to the principle of the plan itself. Therefore, for those reasons, and under the authority I have quoted, I feel I must regretfully say I cannot accept the amendment from a procedural standpoint.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate today, may I say I feel this is a very important piece of legislation. I hope the minister will not see fit to run back and cry "wolf" on the Prairies as he did a week ago when we were debating a very important bill in respect of advance payments on grain. I should like to quote from a press release issued by the minister:
The Honourable Otto Lang today charged the opposition with deliberately working against the interests of prairie farmers by deliberately delaying passage of important new grains legislation.
"It is simply a filibuster, and for no apparent reason," said Mr. Lang, who is Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. "If it continues, it could cost the western farmers 100 million dollars this year."
That is a ridiculous statement. Does the minister think that members of the opposition should sit here and let the members of the government railroad through anything they want. I should like to place on the record what would have happened here just a year ago had it not been for the official opposition. Bill C-197 would have been law had it not been for the official opposition. This is the bill which is now known as C-176, in respect of which hundreds of thousands of protests have arrived in Ottawa in the past two weeks.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
We can imagine what the situation would have been if that bill had become law overnight, as would have been the case had the official opposition not taken the very active part it did in opposing that legislation. Perhaps last year we were damned for our action, but today people understand what we were doing and why we did it. We objected to that legislation for perfectly good and sound reasons. This is evidenced now by the strong protests which are rolling in from western Canada in respect of this terrible legislation which would have been on the statute books today, covering cattle, hogs and everything else which the farmers certainly do not want, if the opposition had not opposed it.
I also say, Mr. Speaker, as has been said previously, that the minister is not even playing smart politics in suggesting that we must pass legislation like this forthwith. Surely it would have been better if he had come forward with an interim payment for farmers so they might have had the cash which they badly need. The minister could have called for an interim payment and produced this money for farmers, instead of attempting to throttle the opposition with the threat that if they did not permit this legislation to pass no money would be paid out.
People out west are no longer serious about this minister. One year ago he came up with the Lift program. I am sure that all hon. members remember that initially he suggested that $140 million would be paid out under the program. Then he reduced the figure to $100 million, and finally the government paid out $53.7 million. I am still getting letters from poor little farmers who feel they have been gypped because they have not been getting what they are entitled to. So people out west do not think we in the opposition are crying "wolf". The people out there feel that the minister has come up the easy way in life and has never gone through the hardships that some of them went through. They will not be too hasty in climbing down somebody's throat when they think that we are working in their interests.
The farmers of western Canada badly need this money. Recently, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented a brief, a copy of which went to most hon. members. That federation is a responsible organization. They said in their brief:
Bill C-244, the prairie grain stabilization act, must be judged and dealt with against the reality of the depressed income position of prairie grain growers and the need for adequate measures of income protection, as well as grain receipts stabilization, not only today but in the longer term.
That shows what we are up against. If the minister has not read the brief, he should do so, because I think it would do him good and would give him some idea of just how short cash is in the west. The brief reads on page 2:
While official statistics do not separate out grain and livestock production on a net income basis, there is little doubt that grain growers are operating on a net loss basis or close to it in western Canada. The net realized income, for example, to all of Saskatchewan agriculture was $200 million in 1970.

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
In the years 1963-67 it averaged $435 million. II "income in kind" is deducted from these figures the change was from $368 million to $131 million.
Those are some of the factors the opposition must consider. Surely the minister has some responsibility in this area. Instead of trying to force a bill of this magnitude through the House and threatening us with withholding payment to farmers unless it is passed quickly, why did the minister not suggest an interim payment for farmers and for grain growers whose needs are dire and pressing? If there had been an interim payment we would have had time to thrash out this bill in committee and in the House and bring down good, sound legislation.
This program will not operate for just one year; the stabilization plan will operate for a long time and we ought to arrive at good, sound legislation. If the minister had been a smarter politician he would have put a little money into the pockets of farmers and Ross Thatcher could have called the election that he is holding up for want of cheques. Perhaps the Liberal party could have found a candidate in Assiniboia for the by-election if the government had put money into the pockets of the farmers of western Canada. As it is, Mr. Thatcher is trying to hold off an election. He wants to know what the federal government will pay to the farmer. Mr. Thatcher knows that unless the western farmer has money in his pocket he will be in trouble.
Only yesterday I met a boy from Weyburn. He came up from the riding of the late Ab Douglas. This lad said to me, "Mr. Cadieu, who is representing Mr. Douglas's riding? I know Mr. Douglas is no longer here." I said, "I don't know. The government has only Mr. Lang representing a constituency out here, and he is pretty busy right now. Somehow, I don't think he will be back here after the next election."


An hon. Member:: That's wishful thinking.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I said to the lad, "Possibly I can help you." I took him around and tried to get him the information he was looking for.
I could talk a great deal about this important legislation. Many farm organizations have presented good briefs on the subject. Surely the minister could have utilized the research staff in his office and come forward with a suggestion under which we could get an interim payment into the farmers' pockets. Farmers out west badly need this money. The minister should have done that, instead of fiddle-daddling in this manner. Instead of bringing before this House legislation that he knew would not be acceptable to members of the official opposition or of other opposition parties, he should have done as I have suggested. I think it is high time we quit this fiddle-daddling around.
Let us stop playing hide-and-go-seek with the farmers of western Canada and people in all walks of life. I am sick of seeing this kind of monkey business going on, because the minister seems to be saying, "Either you pass this legislation right away or the farmers of western Canada will not get the money. You are holding up the money which is to be paid to these farmers." It is high
time we got away from that approach and got down to business.


Otto Emil Lang: Hear, hear!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: It is no use suggesting that only in the last month or two farmers have been placed in a straitjacket; they have been in it ever since this government took office.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by quoting what somebody has said about the government's prairie grains policy:
-until there is a more definite understanding by producers of the program proposed by the government or until it is implemented and its effectiveness can be assessed, it appears prairie grain producers will continue to express apprehension and concern about these policy changes which ultimately will not only affect the grains industry but everyone in Canada.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I express very strongly the need for price protection for the producer through the initial payment system. On page 8 of the brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture we find the following passage:
We recognize that the present bill does provide in effect that shortfalls in initial payments are paid by the federal government. We think that maintenance on an adequate level of prices is in principle a direct responsibility of the federal government because of the helplessness of the prairie farmer in the face of severe and subsidized international competition. We are however inclined not to quarrel with the cost-sharing feature of the proposal. Our point is that initial payments should be used as an income supporting mechanism.
This afternoon we heard about the $100 million. We heard about it a year ago, Mr. Speaker. What was put in the hands of the prairie grain producers? It wasn't $100 million. May I ask the minister what the exact figure
was?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can ask the
minister a question, but if the minister replies he will have the floor and-


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I don't think-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat? He wishes to ask the minister a question. If he does, then I say that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, we considered a sum of $100 million last year. I want to ask how much found its way to the prairie producers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules of the House. The hon. member now has the floor. If he asks a question and the minister answers, the minister will close the debate. The hon. member should make his speech, and presumably when the minister replies he will answer the hon. member's question.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I fully realize I should not be doing this-but as a matter of fact I rather enjoy it. When the minister is
(Mr. Cadieu.]
May 14, 1971

replying to the debate I hope he will provide us with the exact figures.
I quote from Hansard of February 10, page 3265, as follows:
-we have the highest rate oi unemployment in the western world.
We still have the highest rate of unemployment in the western world. In this situation I do not see how the House can accept this bill. How can we, when we are looking forward to a budget and to a new tax bill?
About three weeks ago I was in Three Rivers, where a quarter or half of pork was being sold at 19 cents a pound in the store and beef was selling for 39 cents a pound. How do we relate this $100 million to that? What happened to the $100 million last year? I am a producer, and I did not get any part of it. There was not $100 million then, and this $100 million will not be paid out either.
I hope that when the minister replies he will give us an honest answer, because it is time we had an honest answer in this House. When I raise a pig I may be able to sell it for 29 cents a pound. What does the fellow who raises a pig in Three Rivers get, if pork is being sold at 19 cents a pound in the store? He must be getting about 5 cents a pound. None of the $100 million was spent in Alberta, and none of it in Quebec. I look forward to the minister's reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House because I see the minister is anxious to close the debate. Obviously, it will take him at least the time remaining between now and four o'clock, and probably several hours more, to answer the serious charges that have been laid against the government and himself in connection with this legislation. Therefore, I wish to give him every opportunity to answer our questions before the bill goes to committee, as I assume it will.
We do not like the bill. We think it is bad legislation. We think there is a very faint glimmer of light and hope that there is a principle involved in it which, with adequate surgery and changes, might become legislation of some value to the farmers of western Canada. So our inclination is to register our opposition to the bill in its present form and let it go on division, but to make it abundantly clear to the minister and the government that unless they are prepared to accept good amendments in the committee or at the report stage we will feel free to vote against it on third reading.
I want to make this quite plain. In our view, this bill is one of the legislative and administrative proposals advanced by the government which constitutes a form of economic genocide against the small farmers of this country and in particular the small and average farmer of western Canada. There is no doubt, in spite of what the minister said, in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, and in spite of what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said, that this government has
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act charted a firm and definite course which can only result in depopulation of rural areas, with fiscal and other devices of this kind compelling people to move to the cities. I am not going to debate that issue, but I think the policy is wrong. Our party has taken a constant position against this kind of program. We think it is part of the legislative scheme, part of the device which the government has outlined and which it is in the process of putting through this House in order to achieve its objective.
There is a weakness and lack of pressure in connection with international wheat agreements. This government has a sad and sorry history on this issue. The minister may refer to agreements being made with this country and that country, but we must have sales of grain at an adequate price and under agreements honoured by the countries involved which will have the effect of producing sufficient revenue for the farmers of this country.
The minister was not very helpful when he followed the lead of the Prime Minister in suggesting that there was a filibuster on this bill. As he knows, when the government introduces good legislation we support it. We have not had much occasion to do this. But when the government introduces legislation which is not sound, and this party or my friends to the left feel it is bad, we will oppose it. We will oppose it to the length necessary to acquaint the people of Canada with its weaknesses and defects. This is when the government screams "filibuster" and "obstruction".
Does the government not think that we have a duty as an opposition party or as private members, whether on this side of the House or the other side, to point out the weaknesses and defects in legislative programs? Have we not a responsibility to point them out long enough so that the amber light will be flashed in the country and the people will know that they are approaching a dangerous situation brought about because of bad legislative proposals made by the government?
Let us consider the statement made by the minister when he introduced this bill. He outlined it in a comprehensive manner, dealing with the entire legislative proposal, dealing with the amendments to the Wheat Board Act which are coming in, dealing with the amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and so on. The minister says that these are part of the whole program, that put together they are all good. I repeat, and I hope he is listening, that the government is planning a form of economic genocide for the small farmers of this country.
In order to judge the government's conduct today and its proposal for the future we must look at its record in
the past. The minister talked about rapeseed and legislation coming in to deal with this question. On the question of stabilization of farm income this is tremendously important, but what is the record of this government and the Liberal party in regard to rapeseed as a means of stabilizing farm income? During the last war the then Liberal government introduced a program to encourage the growing of rapeseed in those parts of Canada suited to it. It was grown as a substitute for a marine lubricant
5834

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act not then obtainable in Canada because of wartime conditions, and the price was fixed at six cents per pound.
A great many farmers, including many in my area of Peace River, grew rapeseed as a means of stabilizing their income. But what happened when the war ended? The materials for which rapeseed was a substitute were brought in. Mr. Ross, a former member of the Liberal party, and some of the farming community attempted to establish rapeseed as an additional crop in western Canada. Mr. Ross sought from the Liberal government of the day an agreement that rapeseed would be brought under the Railway Act at the Crowsnest Pass rates in order to encourage people to grow it. An attempt was made at that time to persuade the Department of Agriculture to develop other uses for this crop for the sake of farmers in western Canada, but the Liberal government of the day rejected these proposals out of hand.
After the 1958 election, with a number of hon. members from this House, including Mr. Rapp who was at one time whip of this party, I attempted to persuade the government and the then Minister of Agriculture, now the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness), that there was a future for rapeseed in western Canada. We felt that it would have an effect in establishing farm income, which is the objective of the legislation we are now considering. We took the initiative, and with the encouragement of the government appeared before the then Board of Railway Commissioners as witnesses. Eleven or twelve Members of Parliament from western Canada fought this case before the board in an attempt to secure a judgment that rapeseed was a grain within the meaning of the Railway Act. The few Liberal members from western Canada who were around at that time made no attempt to join us in this project. We lost the case but we did excite the interest of a great many people.
With the further encouragement of the government, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, then Minister of Agriculture, and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), then Minister of Transport, the Railway Act was amended and rapeseed was declared to be a grain. The Department of Agriculture then launched a program which has since led to greater and more effective use of rapeseed as an alternative and additional source of revenue to stabilize farm income in western Canada. The Liberal party, then the official opposition, did nothing to assist in this program. I point that out, Mr. Speaker, as an illustration of the fact that as far as the Liberal party is concerned western Canada can expect very little in the way of intelligent assistance.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


Gerald William Baldwin: The refuge of weak minds is to say "That is not right." The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. If he did, I would engage him in debate. I simply leave it at that.
The minister is attempting to say to the opposition that when the government brings in legislation dealing with
agriculture, because the Liberal party brought it in it must be good and we should accept it. During the period 1959-61 agriculture in western Canada was faced with a crisis. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the members from western Canada formulated a proposal for acreage payments. We did not need to have legislation as a means of bribing the farmers, as is the case here. The minister shakes his head. Political bribery is the middle name of the Liberal party; they are experts at it. I do not approve of the procedural practice that was followed at that time, but in that case it was essential. An item was inserted in the estimates and the acreage payments were made quickly and simply. Subsequently, other sound, useful agriculture legislation was introduced. I suggest a little humility and learning to the minister. He should study history. If he examines what the Conservative party did when in power with regard to farmers in eastern and western Canada and with regard to agriculture, there may still be some hope of his becoming a good minister.
My colleagues dealt extensively with the defects of this legislation. I hope the minister will deal with some of the objections which have been voiced. In spite of what has been said, I hope that he will show that he has the kind of flexible mind which is necessary in connection with legislative proposals and that he will entertain amendments.
Instead of a program of farm stabilization which, as stated by my colleagues, stabilizes poverty in western Canada, we need a program which will improve the position of the agricultural community in the west in order to persuade the farmers to stay on the farms as useful and active members of our society. I hope the minister will be prepared to examine amendments which are offered and will not turn his head against them. I ask him to be reasonable in his approach. If that happens, there is a possibility that this bill, bad as it is, may be improved to an extent that will make it acceptable to this party.
If that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the minister that there will be very strong opposition. There will be amendments to again indicate in a formal way what our objections are and what can be done to improve the legislation. I call the minister's attention to hon. members' proposals. I have talked about rapeseed. Surely there is a case to be made for a means of stabilizing farm income by providing facilities for processing rapeseed in various places in western Canada.
As has been suggested by my colleagues and members of the New Democratic Party, there is a case to be made for the immediate payment of the $100 million which has been referred to and which the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) suggested may be the stumbling-block before the Premier of Saskatchewan calls an election. If he wants an election, that is fine. If he wants $100 million for that purpose, that has nothing to do with me. I am interested in seeing that the best things that can be done for the western farmers and the farm communities are done.
[Mr. Baldwin.!
May 14, 1971

In closing this debate I hope the minister will engage in the same way as members of this party did in putting forward their ease. I hope he will indicate his willingness to accept amendments so that when the legislation comes back at the report stage we will have a better bill that will do something for the people of the west.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express to hon. members of this House my appreciation for the expeditious way in which they have allowed this very important legislation to be dealt with on second reading and to go to committee. I have been very disturbed by the tactics of some hon. members in connection with the legislation previously before the House. I was concerned that was some indication that they would hold up legislation without regard to the good of the farmers in western Canada. However, I thank them for now allowing this bill to go forward. The indication from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that we might expect the same kind of co-operation in committee leads me to hope that we may soon see this measure move forward into law for the great good of prairie agriculture and Canadian farmers generally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: In the course of my opening remarks I said, and I repeat, how firmly this government holds to the view that it is very important to assist farmers in every way possible who intend to remain in farming and who want to be sound farmers by giving them an opportunity which allows them to give their children a decent livelihood. This government wants to help these farmers in every way. I continue to urge all members opposite to recognize this firm view of the government and not to add to the troubles of farmers who are in difficult enough circumstances by indicating to them some broad and malicious intent abroad directed against them.
A great deal has been said by certain farm leaders and people in politics which is most regrettable. It is along the lines which only causes fear to farmers who want to make a success of farming. It is our intention to help them in every way possible by putting the system into the best possible state.
Much has been said about the nature of the stabilization plan before us. These expressions seem to slur the scheme as stabilizing income at low levels. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, this scheme assures that income will not fall below certain levels. It in no way puts any hindrance or dampening upon the prospects which we see ahead with regard to rapeseed, to which the hon. member referred, and the other basic crops on the Prairies and the prospect of ever-increasing sales and an ever-growing share of international markets for Canadian grain.
We see a rising income prospect through aggressive competition in the world markets today with regard to wheat and coarse grains. With regard to coarse grains,
24107-19*
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
the name of the grain may be barley today and another day it may be something quite different as experimentation and development make for better grains, better feed per acre and a better total income for the prairie farmer.
This plan assures us against drastic downturns in income which have so terribly afflicted the prairie farmers each time market conditions, climate conditions and our probable buyers and competitors cause a serious downturn in world trade. The farmer is cushioned against that by an assurance of being brought up by a payment out of the stabilization fund to the average of the previous five years. I will certainly be glad to talk to the farmers about whether that five-year period is the right one or not. This is not an outrageously low point from which to start, though some have suggested it is.
When we begin the first year, the five-year average will be based on what will be our best and our second best grain receipt years on record and on what probably are, in the case of the other three, our seventh, tenth and eleventh best years. So we are not near the bottom point.. We expect that rapeseed sales, as well as sales of barley, will increase. The plan does provide in principle that over a period of time a farmer's receipts from grain will be 104 per cent of what they would have been but for the plan.
A good deal has been said about the fact that 2 per cent of a farmer's gross income is a very significant amount, much higher than 2 per cent of his net income would be. But I would point out that the government has a commitment to double that amount by paying into the scheme 4 per cent of the gross. If 2 per cent of gross income is a significant proportion of a farmer's income, surely 4 per cent as the amount added to farm income represents a contribution of even greater significance. We should bear this in mind as we consider the legislation in detail.
I should also emphasize that the government's approach to prairie grain involves a specific and definite commitment to prairie farmers. Reference has been made to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, to the fact that under it significant sums were paid to prairie producers. But it was leading to an improper use of the handling system and this was costing the farmers money. Twice as much barley was delivered and went through the system at the same cost as half as much in previous years.
The same was true of wheat. The act was producing an amount of wheat in storage at a cost to farmers which was excessive. With the new need for the system to handle barley and rapeseed there was no way in which we could keep the former amount of wheat on hand and continuation of the act would have meant little to the farmer anyway. We have replaced it with a scheme which will put into the hands of farmers 4 per cent of their gross income, representing a sum in the order of $40 million in the immediate future and a rising figure thereafter.	,
I should like to refer to other things the government has done in increasing its commitment to western.

May 14, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act agriculture. I could refer to all the items in this area, which total about $300 million. Compare that with farmers' net income and appreciate that their net income, almost in total in the Prairie region, results directly from action taken by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Reference has been made to approximately $60 million which has been paid out under the Lift program. An hon. member noted that this was not as much as farmers could have obtained if they had taken greater advantage of the scheme. We knew the Lift program was a difficult plan and that it made unusual demands upon farmers, but we were also aware that it was a means of placing additional cash income into their hands. We hoped this would amount to about $100 million, though in fact the amount disbursed was in the neighbourhood of $60 million. I would remind hon. members that $40 million has now been set aisde in connection with a forage incentive program. Opposition speakers ignored this completely when considering the commitment of the government to agriculture.
I should also remind the House of the $10 million per year set aside for market development, confirming our view that market development is the key to future solution of most of the problems of prairie agriculture. We do not know at this time the circumstances in which farmers may find themselves in years ahead. We shall always have to watch the situation carefully and we cannot rest on the assumption that any particular plan or set of plans is in itself adequate.
I have pledged that we will continue to watch the income situation. We must first of all promote sales in every possible way and then judge to what extent the pursuit of sales may have helped farmers to better their position. On the sales front, this year exports of grain have totalled 442.2 million bushels, 60 per cent higher than the 280.8 million bushels at the same time a year ago. Wheat exports are 29 per cent up, sales of barley are at record levels and exports of rapeseed have doubled. New records have been set in each case. This is not just a matter of comparing one year with the previous year; there is every prospect that this year exports of grain will reach an all-time record level.
We do not know at this stage how prairie farmers will stand as to income if for some years we can maintain or expand this kind of selling picture and allow producers to be as effective as they know how to be, but were not able to be as long as grain was not moving.
I was particularly perturbed by the misleading statement made in this House at the beginning of the debate by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who I regret is not in the chamber now. Referring to a Wheat Board report, he indicated that many of our customers were in default on their commitments to buy grain from us. So serious is this kind of misstatement- many similar misstatements have been made in the course of this debate-that the Wheat Board found it necessary to put out a correction, drawing attention to the fact that, as was made clear in the report, only one of
our customers was in default and that the others were taking grain in accordance with the agreements signed. The board was most concerned lest misleading statements of this kind might damage our position in the eyes of buyers and potential buyers. Such a statement should surely not be made before the facts have been determined.
Proposals have been made to the effect that net income should be taken as the basis for determining contributions to the stabilization fund. The difficulty here lies in finding a formula which would determine net income fairly and determine it with all the variations which exist from farm to farm, from district to district, from individual to individual. It is impossible to determine net income in a way which would not penalize the good farmer as compared with the average farmer. The truth is that the gross receipts basis in one which allows the individual farmer who can do better in terms of his farming operations to do better, as well, in terms of the marketing operation and the stabilization fund.
This is a principle which will, I think, commend itself to the free enterprisers on the Prairies, the farmers who are in fact maintaining, at some income cost, their ability to stand on their own feet and be their own masters. I look forward to this important measure finding speedy passage through the committee as it has through the House of Commons, so that we may take this significant step as part of our total package of proposals to help the interest of the prairie grain farmer.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, if we might call it four o'clock, there has been agreement that in private members' hour today we will proceed with Bill C-47, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg). If the House agrees, we could call it four o'clock and commence private members' business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would be willing to call it four o'clock. I am sure that the minister who will be opening the debate on the next bill is exhausted after his efforts to muster argument to support the last bill, so we would be prepared to let it go.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, if agreement is arrived at I take it you will be seeing five o'clock a little before five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so agreed. Private members' business will extend for one hour from this moment.
It being four o'clock or less, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.

May 14, 1971



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw) moved: that Bill C-47, to amend the Railway Act (notice of accidents), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many members of the House wonder what similarity there could possibly be between the debate that has just finished and the bill before the House now, but I am sure they will agree that there is quite a similarity between the grain stabilization bill and this bill. All hon. members realize that whenever there is an accident on the railway, the rail pipeline is blocked. This means that the customers who use the rail pipeline are affected directly. Up to this time, all too often situations have arisen where the railway pipeline does become blocked, yet nobody knows why or just what actually caused the accident. Hence I am moving this bill.
The main provision of the bill requires railway companies as soon as possible, and immediately after the head officers of the company have received information of a collision, derailment, or other accident resulting in death or injury to any person or damage to equipment or roadbed, or whereby any bridge, culvert or viaduct or tunnel on or of the railway has been broken or so damaged as to be impassable or unfit for immediate use, to give notice thereof with full particulars to the Canadian Transport Commission.
Subclause 2 deals with notice by employees and provides:
The conductor or other employee in charge of the train, place or structure in connection with which such accident occurred, shall as soon as possible after such accident notify the commission of the same by telegraph.
The purpose of this bill is to make it mandatory that all accidents to equipment or roadbed, the damage to which exceeds the amount set in subsection 3, be reported to the Canadian Transport Commission. In the past, accidents involving damage to roadbed other than bridges, tunnels, viaduct or culverts were not required to be reported. The further purpose of this bill is to deny the commission the right to declare accident reports and investigations privileged material. It is felt that the public interest is much better served when there is full public disclosure of all accident reports.
It appears that whenever an accident occurs on the railway, the Canadian Transport Commission has the right to determine whether or not an investigation into the accident will be considered privileged. I contend that whether or not such accident is due to mechanical failure or human error, it is in the public interest to disclose the reason for the accident in order that all concerned are made completely aware of the cause. The public has the
Railway Act
right to know the reasons for and causes of railway mishaps, in the same way as they learn of the cause of air and sea accidents through the medium of public inquiries. All members of the House realize that in many cases public inquiries are held into air and sea accidents but seldom, if ever, do we hear of a public inquiry being held into a rail mishap.
I am especially pleased that at the present time the Canadian Transport Commission is holding a public inquiry into the general safety of rail operations. The chairman of that commission, Mr. Jones, is to be congratulated on the way he is conducting the inquiry, an all-extensive inquiry which I hope will make recommendations. Recently there was a rail mishap in the Fraser canyon and three men lost their lives through no fault of their own but as a result of the negligent maintenance of the roadbed, thus endangering not only the operating employees but the travelling public.
I am strongly opposed to any general order or act giving the Canadian Transport Commission the power to declare the extent to which information concerning accidents given by the railways may be privileged. If a veil of secrecy surrounds an accident, everybody usually assumes the worst. It also appears to me that privileged information can only be justified when matters affecting our national security are concerned. It cannot be said that our national security is in jeopardy by making public the cause of and responsibility for railway mishaps. The Canadian Railway Labour Association have consistently urged that this type of inquiry be made public; that it is in the public interest to ensure that there will not be any privileged material held back by the Canadian Transport Commission or the railway companies if in fact hazards to safety are created by operations of the transportation system.
Let me just refer to the situation in the United States. The National Transportation Safety Board, which was created by the United States Transportation Act, 1966, came about as a result of the kind of thinking that has been expressed here and similar conditions to ours which exist in the United States. The safety board determines the cause of accidents through direct investigation and public hearings, and although structurally located within the department of transportation it is an autonomous agency.
I suggest that a similar type of agency should be set up within the present framework of the Canadian Transport Commission for which the Minister of Transport would have responsibility. The establishment of a similar board or agency in Canada at the earliest possible moment is a most important consideration in order to bring before the public the cause of accidents instead of leaving the public in the dark. As hon. members of the House know, the rate of accidents on the Canadian railroads today is a high one. Almost every week we pick up a paper and see a report of an accident somewhere along the system. We all know that we never really find out the cause of such accidents.

May 14, 1971
Railway Act
I refer to a bulletin issued in 1969 by Canadian National Railways. It is addressed to all section foremen in the southern division of the Saskatchewan area. I am sure what is suggested here in respect of the CNR is applicable to the CPR and other railroads operating in Canada. It states:
Following has been received from regional engineer in connection with derailments:
"As you are no doubt aware, the increasing number of derailments account track conditions is a matter of grave concern throughout the railway industry as a whole. This concern is becoming more apparent, not only in the United States, but in Canada as well."
The incidence of derailments at switches has recently shown a sharp increase and would suggest that switch maintenance is being overlooked due to other work. With the increasing number of heavy loads, long trains, larger cars and locomotives, switch maintenance is of extreme importance and I would suggest that you give this matter your closest attention.
It is signed by the various roadmasters of the CNR for the southern part of the Saskatchewan area. I think there is a story behind that kind of bulletin. We know there are reasons for the derailments that are taking place. Until the most recent public inquiry being conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission there was not a public inquiry to determine the cause of derailments. It is imperative that we have public inquiries into individual situations throughout the railway system in Canada in order to offset the increasing number of derailments and wrecks.
I am sure we all know the reason for the wording of section 288 (3) of the Railway Act. It provides:
The board may by regulation declare the manner and form in which such information and notice shall be given and the class of accidents to which this section shall apply, and may declare any such information so given to be privileged.
I sincerely urge that there should be an amendment to this act so that no information can be considered privileged. I realize that in many cases people will say human failure was involved and in the interests of protecting the individual this information should not be divulged to the public. Information is made available under the Public Inquiries Act in respect of any accident at sea or in the air. If a human failure is involved in an accident, this information is made public. I am positive that investigations have shown beyond doubt that cutbacks in manpower on the railway systems can be directly related to an increase in derailments and accidents. The bulletin I have read would indicate a need for additional manpower to look after switches on the system. I am sure that practical railway men realize that cutbacks in the number of maintenance of way employees have been responsible for part of the increase in derailments.
At one time maintenance of way employees rode the tracks in various types of vehicles. They were able to see what was going on, the condition of the trackage and its surroundings. They were able to observe a back-up of water and determine whether there might be a flood in the area resulting in a wash-out. Thus, they were able to prevent accidents. In many cases these maintenance of
way people, on the instructions of the companies, travel in motor vehicles on the highway. You cannot possibly maintain proper track surveillance by observing conditions from a highway some distance away. You might see a wash-out, but that is after the fact and perhaps after a train has been derailed.
It is necessary for this House to consider the situation and improve the act. In view of the fact this is a private member's bill, I am sure it will be talked out. I suppose that is the law of the land to which we have become accustomed. Somewhere along the line a bill such as this should be sent to committee for consideration. Perhaps the government should take it upon itself, because of the seriousness of the situation, to send a bill such as this to committee for study. In this way, groundwork could be laid to avert derailments and the tragedy such accidents cause families of the injured.
We saw an example of this in the Kootenays recently. We must also consider the economic loss as a result of the stoppage of service on a section of the system. Surely government members realize there is a need to amend the present legislation. Perhaps we could adopt new regulations to correct some of the problems that now exist. Regulations of this type would also bring about better morale on the part of railroad employees. At the present time investigations are conducted by railway officials. They do not divulge the information relating to mechanical failure. The only time they are concerned is when there is human failure. It is in this area that we need change. Whether the cause of an accident is the result of human failure or mechanical failure, the resulting tragedy is the same.
I urge the government not to talk out this bill so that it will be dropped when private members' hour ends, but to give it an opportunity to go to committee where a proper debate can take place. Witnesses could then be called and amendments could be suggested, so that in future there will be public disclosure in respect of causes of railway derailments.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Railway Act and particularly to Section 288 moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) certainly has much merit and is received with kind appreciation not only by the members of the House but also by the general public.
If we read the explanatory notes appearing opposite page 1 of Bill C-47, we find a rather complete summary of the purpose the hon. member for Moose Jaw had in mind in proposing the amendment before the House.
Therefore, what is the purpose behind the introduction of this bill by the hon. member for Moose Jaw?
In my opinion, he is seeking three important changes: first, the broadening of the meaning of the word "accident", by the inclusion in it of the term "equipment"; second, an increase of the powers of the Canadian Transport Commission, so as to exempt the employees of any railway company from the responsibility of reporting to the Commission any accident to equipment or property,

May 14, 1971

the damage to which is assessed at less than $1,500; third, to deny the Canadian Transport Commission the right to declare privileged information that it may have obtained on circumstances surrounding a railway accident.
In addition of the word "equipment" may not raise considerable or apparent difficulties, and it seems to me that the Minister of Transport would be prepared to agree with this principle.
However, allow me to point out that the addition of the word "equipment" could give rise to some complications in the eventual interpretation of the legislation, because it does not give any definition nor provide any amendment to clause 2 listing the definition of various terms of the Railway Act.
I agree with the sponsor, when he suggests the abolishment of the obligation for railway employees to report to the Commission any accident resulting in material damage under $1,500. At the present time, the limit is set at $750 and the department is seriously considering its abolishment, due to the insignificance of such damage and the present worth of assets.
It is true that under the present legislation the Commission is not required to divulge some of the information obtained after the accident or from the inquiry that followed.
Since we live today in a society where the government system, that is the state, is increasingly involved in the daily life of individuals through enactment of numerous welfare measures, it is normal to seek more and more information and to want the suppression of the confidential and secret nature of the information the government and its agencies have. I totally agree on that point.
As everyone knows, a privilege is an exception to the general rule, but some groups cannot understand or interpret the expression and try to give it the wrong meaning. There is a tendency to consider the privilege as an instrument in the hands of authorities to hush up the worst, to hide scandal, in short, to deliberately leave the people in the dark about facts they should know. If ever it has been the case, it was an exemption.
Indeed, hon. members know full well, and especially lawyers, that the principle of the privilege exists; the best example is found in the Canada Evidence Act, which grants anyone called upon to appear as witness before a court of justice the guarantee that his testimony will not be used against him in subsequent proceedings, criminal or civil. In that case, the privilege is recognized by law.
Another well known example is that of the relations between a lawyer and his client; all their contacts, information and discussions are privileged and cannot be divulged in court. I do not mean to learn you something about this, Mr. Speaker, as you are an expert in the legal profession.
In my opinion, this is the sort of privilege to which section 288 of the Railway Act refers. It relates mainly to communications between railway employees and their superiors in case of accident. These communications are
Railway Act
privileged and cannot be disclosed in court, not because they were made on a confidential basis, but for the benefit of the legal advisors of the corporation, namely, the railway. Railway accidents often involve damage claims and as a rule company lawyers must be entitled to a complete and honest statement of facts so as to be able to decide correctly and resolutely on a course of action, and the opposing party can also have access to this same information in order to establish responsibility.
The Commission itself does not have the required jurisdiction to establish responsibility in a case of railway accident. Its duty is to know the facts in order to determine the causes of an accident and to prescribe the means to prevent the recurrence of such unfortunate and tragic events.
True, the public and the Railway Labour Association in particular do not appreciate that privileged situation, but I think that what matters here is to protect railway employees themselves against any retaliation that could result from their too great talkativeness. Furthermore, confidence at various levels in the company would be dangerously eroded and the efficiency of the employees would be greatly jeopardized, and the passenger service as well.
After listening to the explanations of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, I note that the basic principle of this bill is public protection against the increasing number of railway accidents in Canada. I can only commend the hon. member for not so long ago in Quebec we knew such tragical situations which, on one occasion, claimed the lives of thirty youths near Montreal. In my riding, several accidents killed five or six persons at the same time.
The bill introduced by the hon. member aims mainly at protecting the public and the member must be congratulated. The Canadian Transport Commission and the railways must continue improving their accident prevention system so that passengers may be assured of travelling with the greatest degree of safety possible.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) for periodically bringing to the attention of this House matters which are particularly pertinent to the railways of Canada. Having been born and raised in a railway community, I appreciate the problems faced by both management and employees in our great national railways as they go about their way of life.
I can well remember some very tragic accidents which occurred in the town of Palmerston during the period in which I lived there. However, one of the greatest tragedies that ever occurred in the town of Palmerston, which used to be an outstanding railway community, was when Canadian National Railways saw fit to withdraw all passenger service from the area. I believe this was a retrograde step in view of the fact that this area is and will be developing over the years and it will be necessary to provide an alternative transportation service.

May 14, 1971
Railway Act
After the hearings in that area which allowed the railways to withdraw passenger service from the area north and west of Guelph, I was particularly disturbed that the highway service to be provided, which was supposed to be commensurate with the railway service, did not prove to be adequate to meet the needs of the many communities in the area. Therefore I welcome this opportunity to speak on the matter of railways and accidents.
As I have said, I remember many tragic accidents on the railroad. As I did during the hearing before the committee, I object to the secrecy in respect of rail line abandonment hearings which allows the railways not to disclose full and complete information. The essence of the legislation before us is to correct this situation and I congratulate the hon. member for bringing it forward. We know that he has had many long years' experience in railroading at the grass-roots level, and he should be an expert in the field.
Many of us have felt that the facts of many accidents have not been divulged, and if they had been made known it is possible that further accidents could have been prevented. In his initial remarks the hon. member said that railroads have downgraded the servicing of tracks to such an extent that the possibility of accidents has increased. Even though there have been tremendous technological changes and improvements with respect to railway operation and maintenance, the human element still comes into it. People must still check lines. They must watch and look after railway lines. This is necessary if we are to prevent more serious accidents.
I think most of us are aware of new processes and programs which have been introduced by the railroads. We all know that large amounts of money have been spent. Here I am thinking of developments like the turbo train which was to operate between Toronto and Montreal and which has been so accident prone. I sometimes feel that if reports about accidents were not considered to be privileged material, members of the general public could add something to the investigations that are supposed to take place.
May I say here that when some of us appeared at inquiries held with regard to the abandonment of passenger services we were not given the opportunity to examine all the facts. We felt that relevant facts were withheld. I feel, as does the hon. member who introduced this bill, that there should be full and open disclosure by railroads and organizations such as the Canadian Transport Commission with respect to railway accidents, in order to make sure that the public knows the reasons for these accidents.
Sometimes accidents are blamed on the railway operators themselves, sometimes on track management personnel, and sometimes on those in higher-up management. It is time we were able to pinpoint the causes of accidents and lay the blame where it belongs, so that action may be taken in future to prevent the recurrence of accidents. The facts are not made public and are sometimes covered up in court proceedings. The public, therefore, is not made aware of what is going on.
I agree with what the hon. member has said. The public interest would be much better served if there were full, public disclosure of all accidents. Since Canadian National operates at a considerable deficit that must be made good out of the public treasury-without this help the railway could not operate-I feel the company ought to be required to make full, public disclosure of facts surrounding accidents, to make sure that the public interest is being properly served.
Rail safety, Mr. Speaker, affects the lives of many Canadians. I feel that this type of disclosure would ensure that certain accidents would occur only once. I think that with public discussion the causes of such accidents would be eliminated much more quickly than might otherwise be possible. Some of the facts relating to accidents are kept secret. We hear that public disclosure is not possible in some instances because other, private railway lines are operating in the same area and it would not do to let competitors know the facts. That argument, I think, has been overworked. People in business know most of the time what their competitors are doing or they would not stay long in business.
I think the bogey that so many hide behind, that it is not in the public interest to make full disclosure of facts because they might assist competitors, is just that-a bogey. After all, we know that Canadian Pacific Railway does not breathe deeply without the CNR's knowledge. We ought to ignore this bogey that says there ought not to be full public disclosure because a competitor might take advantage of it. That, in my view, is a wrong attitude. I think that the facts surrounding accidents should be made public. All relevant information should be made available to those who are interested, in order that the public cause may be served.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in recent months the question of safety on our railroads has assumed more serious proportions, especially in western Canada where a number of lives have been lost and where a great deal of tragedy has ensued. There have been accidents which have resulted in death. Not long ago I received a letter from a Mrs. Penner. It is not marked "Personal" and I can therefore read it to the House. It reads in part:
Nothing short of rock sheds and better patrols, or re-routing of the track in the area of mile 118.9 on the Ashcroft sub. will prevent another accident such as took the life of my husband and Mr. Dougan and Mr. Barry.
I trust this will not end up a dead issue with no improvements made. It could be a passenger train as easily as wheat cars at the river bed. Lets not have such a tragedy.
The letter was signed by Mrs. Penner and her two youngsters. We must be concerned not only about letters of this kind from a lady who has lost a husband and father to her children, but about the possibility of other, similar letters of this kind coming to us in future; and they may come to us if we do not take a stand as members of the House of Commons and make sure that Canadian railroads are as safe as it is possible to make them.
The idea advanced by the hon. member who proposed the bill and who has had considerable experience as a

May 14, 1971

railroadman should certainly be given consideration. The idea he advances should not be ruled out merely because the idea emanates from the other side of the House. If it is a good idea, it ought to be considered by the government.
No occupation is immune from danger, and we shall never achieve a situation in which accidents can be eliminated totally. However, we can work in all areas in order to minimize accidents. Certainly, safety for the work force is a concern of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and all those associated with him in the Department of Labour. Although this matter under debate, as the hon. member knows, is not the immediate responsibility of the Minister of Labour, the minister certainly is concerned about safety, as is everyone working in the Department of Labour.
A few weeks ago I became involved in some of the negotiations involving members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. It was apparent from the very outset of discussions that the issues were far from being purely economic in nature. Other issues emerged, not the least of which was the matter of safety and working conditions. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, no one could have been unimpressed with the weight of the arguments advanced by some of the men who have to bring trains with as many as 150 cars through the Canadian Rockies and down the dangerous Fraser canyon. Those who maintain that the dispute was all a matter of economics, of how much of an increase per hour the engineers would receive, simply do not know the facts.
Those who have travelled across the country aboard Canada's two railways-and despite some of the problems they have had, I think we have been well served by our railroads and the people working on them-know the terrain which has to be traversed. Even the unpractised eye can detect some of the slide conditions that exist along the Fraser canyon. A few years ago when they had steam engines, the maximum number of cars the railroads could haul with an engine was 59. But year after year Detroit has been creating evermore powerful diesel units. The technologists have produced these "wonder" diesels, and now they have developed diesel locomotives which haul as many as 150 cars. However, the question is whether the technology of safety has advanced at the same rate as the genius of Detroit has advanced in designing these new and powerful engine units.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that safety has not made the same improvement, and I think the hon. member would agree with that. When you talk to some of the men who are faced with the problem of bringing these massive trains out to the Pacific coast, they tell you it is a dreadful feeling to know that it is almost impossible to stop such a unit in time, to know that you are going to hit a rock obstruction on the tracks and in a few minutes will have 150 cars "crawling up your back," which is the expression they use.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) has pointed out that the Canadian Transport Commission has a study under way of general safety conditions on the
Railway Act
railroads, and I agree with him that the activities of the commission are to be commended. Next week, because of the efforts of the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission and of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), a special study is going to be made of safety conditions in the Fraser canyon. The study is the result as well of various representations made by hon. members of this House. I repeat that on the eighteenth and nineteenth-that is next week-a study is going to be made of conditions along the Fraser canyon, and as a member from a British Columbia constituency I commend the CTC and the Minister of Transport for acting so quickly in response to recent requests for an investigation. I hope that from this survey we will find some of the reasons for the number of deaths which have been occurring in the canyon.
In my view we need improved slide detector devices. In the case of the recent canyon crash, which resulted in the dealth of Mrs. Penner's husband and of the other two men, it is alleged that the slide detection devices had been out of operation for a full month prior to the crash. We have to get answers to that; we must improve detection devices. Perhaps it was impossible to keep them in operation because of snow conditions. To me it seems incredible that we have not apparently achieved any basic improvement in slide detector devices throughout the past 25 years while all diesel technology has been putting heavier units on the tracks. Surely if we can provide a magnificent system of radar at international airports and can equip ships with sonar devices, we can put something in the cabs of locomotives which will be able to provide a more adequate warning of track conditions ahead-perhaps an in-cab television device, an adaptation of radar, or some kind of sophisticated way to determine whether or not there is a slide on the tracks. We are still living in the nineteenth century with respect to some of these safety devices and I repeat that we have to develop more advanced slide detector devices. The improvement of safety conditions is one of the first things we must undertake to assist those who must earn their living with the railroads of Canada.
In conclusion, I wish to make a few remarks about the general safety of railway employees. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the majority of railway employees are employed in the non-operating sector of the railway industry which is subject to the provisions of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Employment, safety and health regulations covering such diverse subjects as machine guarding, hazardous substances, materials handling, noise, lighting, sanitation, electrical safety, and soon, have been developed to the final draft stage and are currently under legal review by the Department of Justice.
The regular safety inspection of federal work places, including maintenance shops and other railway facilities, has been under way for more than a year. In the past year-this is an indication of the minister's and his department's concern with respect to safety for railway employees-some 19,000 such inspections were made of enterprises subject to the safety code. In addition, approximately 500 special surveys and 17 comprehensive

May 14, 1971
Railway Act
assessments of company accident prevention programs were completed.
These comprehensive assessments of safety audits include, in addition to an assessment of working conditions and work practices, a critical review of a company's safety policy, its education and training program, the attitude of management and employees to safety, the in-plant safety inspection system, accident investigation and reporting procedures, etc., wherein lie the root causes of most safety problems.
Development of a national system of accident statistics is now well under way and is expected to produce valuable information for the prevention of accidents in the near future. The National Film Board is presently producing a film which will be used in training accident investigators in the proper investigation of accidents. A second film on the conduct of safety inspections is now in the planning stage. In so far as it lies within the area of responsibility of the Minister of Labour and his department, every effort will be made to improve the conditions under which workers on Canadian railroads must earn their living. I thank the hon. member for bringing a bill of undoubted merit to the attention of the House.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) for bringing the attention of the House to the subject of railway accidents through the introduction of Bill C-47. I know that other hon. members want to participate in this debate, so I will not speak at length. However, I want to express my general support for the principles contained in the bill.
I was not in the House when the hon. member began his remarks, but I understand he mentioned the accident which took place on February 15 and caused the death of three outstanding people who happened to come from the city of Kamloops. The loss of the lives of these men caused a great deal of anguish and concern throughout Kamloops and the surrounding communities. Indeed, this particular accident caused a great deal of concern across the country. I met with officials of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the United Transport Union on this important subject. One of the big complaints that all these gentlemen had was the lack of information available to families, workers and the community as a whole.
I commend the hon. member for bringing in this bill. I do not know what its fate will be, but the general principles involved are sound and I hope that something along the lines suggested by the hon. member can be done by the government in the near future.
My good friend from Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) spoke of railway safety and his remarks are very pertinent. In this age of technology, with men going to the moon, literally anything can be achieved. We know that 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the scientists who ever lived, live now-so we are in the greatest age of technology that man has ever known. Certainly these kinds of accidents do not need to happen. Surely we can find
some means of detecting them well in advance: they do not need to happen.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I am pleased to stand in the House today, Mr. Speaker, and say a few words on Bill C-47, because I feel that I can support some of the proposals contained in this most reasonable of bills.

This bill, entitled: "An Act to amend the Railway Act (Notice of Accidents)", is sponsored by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg). During the first two sessions of this Parliament, I have had the opportunity to sit, with this hon. member, on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and I know that his intentions are good and that he is guilty of no partisanship in submitting this legislative proposal. I am therefore happy to support him objectively and in a spirit of co-operation, for the essential purpose of serving the interests of the Canadian people.
The last time I spoke in this House on the subject of railways, the provincial press, and to a certain extent the national one, got somewhat excited and concluded that some of my statements constituted an attack against the government. If somebody is to be blamed, it is, indeed, the railways authorities which do not care at all, occasionally, for public opinion and the criticism expressed strongly enough in this House by the people's representatives. But I will forget that for the moment, and I will speak about the bill.
As regards its provisions about notices of accidents, I am not against them. I commend the intent of the sponsor of this bill and I leave it to more knowledgeable members to discuss its legal aspects or its practical consequences.
I think that this is a solid, well-thought out bill which should have been introduced long ago. Why do I take a special interest in this bill? Simply because I am permanently interested in the activity of the railway company which serves my province, and more particularly, my region.
I have the interests of railway employees at heart. An hon. member just told me that there is no railway service in my riding. In fact there was one and although there is not much left of it, I want to discuss it just the same. I have at heart the interests, the security at work of railway employees, and even though we do not have many opportunities for direct intervention in their favour in the House, I would be reluctant to miss this one.
My father who was a railway employee, worked as a roadman-as we say here-with pick and shovel, in fan-weather or foul for 42 years. I also wielded pick and shovel at his side on the railroad, in summer under a blinding sun and in the intense cold of winter. I know the occupational hazards, I know what I am talking about. It amuses me to hear Canadians, some of them my constituents, tell me sometimes: "You are a member of Parliament, you have a job in Ottawa, you have no problem. How can you understand our needs?"

May 14, 1971

Mr. Speaker, if I spring from some kind of establishment, let it be from a class of people who have always lived by the sweat of their brows, and I am not forgetting it. That is the reason why I am interested in Bill C-47.
At different times during previous sessions, I have put on the order paper a certain number of questions on CN train derailments. Each and everytime I have been provided with incomplete and absolutely unsatisfactory answers. Therefore, it is with pleasure that I welcome the suggestion contained in this bill to the effect that all accidents involving damages amounting to $1,500 or more to equipment and tracks be made the subject of compulsory reports to the Canadian Transport Commission.
With the implementation of new railroad technology in Canada especially during the fifties, the railway companies have done away with some of the supervisory and checking practices which were considered elementary during the steam-engine era. I do not mean by that there were fewer derailments in the past, I just say that they had apparently better means of control and more adequate and more human methods to prevent accidents.
The machines have replaced men in many ways, but they are not perfect. I especially recall some Christmas holidays in the early fifties when my father had hired me to shovel snow and check tracks which I did walking alongside of a full-time employee. For a week the thermometer must have registered some 20 or 30 degrees below zero and we had to cover a distance of three miles in order to survey each track, each joint, to ascertain that the cold had not caused any damage which could impede traffic.
To my knowledge, this is not done anymore, although it might be better otherwise.
Some railway employees in my riding were telling me that every winter they fear to go on board when it is cold. They feel the rolling stock and the roadbeds are not under adequate inspection, therefore, derailments often occur.
Excessive heat obviously can also twist the tracks. There is among railway employees a feeling that a larger staff should be detailed for the inspection of the rolling stock and the roadbeds. Surely, Mr. Speaker, considering the high unemployment we are experiencing at the present time, the railway companies of this country should be hiring more staff in order to satisfy the security requirements.
My colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), who also agrees with us on this matter, had asked a series of questions and he received answers which show that closer inspection by an additional number of employees would help reduce derailments and other accidents.
I will quote a few figures regarding the Chaleur area of CN on derailments. In 1967, derailments caused considerable losses: $25,000 at Saint-Quentin on January 2,
Business of the House
$14,000 at Monk on February 19; a smaller incident at Caraquet nevertheless cost $2,000. A much more serious derailment at Monk on March 4 resulted in damages to the extent of $150,000. On March 18 of the same year a derailment at Napadogan cost $319,000.
And I think those figures cover only losses in rolling stock or in railway tracks. They do not include losses of goods or working days.
A mere look at the situation shows that it is serious and I hope that in the near future the necessary steps will be taken to improve our protection system for railway men and also for the equipment which they must handle.
The principle of the bill is most acceptable. There always seems to be a difficulty for members when it comes to referring a bill to a committee. In this case, I would certainly be willing to refer the matter to the committee so that it may be discussed more openly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour set aside for consideration of private members' business has now expired. As it is five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.

This beautiful week we have had of sunny weather, buds, greenery and beautiful tulips leaves me in only one position. I must recall at least a few lines of one of the greatest and earliest poets. Possibly a few members remember John Milton of the seventeenth century, who wrote:
Hail, bounteous May, that dost inspire Mirth and youth and warm desire!
Woods and groves are of thy dressing Hill and dale doth boast thy blessing,
Thus-we salute thee with our early song,
And welcome thee, and wish thee long.
I wish all members a very happy weekend. I hope they will enjoy the tulip festival by walking through our parks and along our riversides. I hope they will not only enjoy health but the satisfaction of a good time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader to confirm that the business for the beginning of next week will be the same as announced yesterday. In other words, will the first order of business on Monday be Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Mr. Francis:: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think the hon. member has correctly described it. The business will be as stated at page 5777 of Hansard.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
24107-20i

Monday, May 17, 1971