1971-10-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a press release announcing the signature of the agreement on voluntary restrictions between Canada and Japan for 1971, as the well as appendix and copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Japanese ambassador and myself.



ALLEGED MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING STABILIZATION BILL AND WHEAT RESERVES ACT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. S. I. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter concerns a full-page presentation which appeared in the Saturday, October 2, issue of the Regina Leader-Post. This sheet is headed by the familiar exhortation, "It's your choice", which is followed by the equally familiar nostrum that is composed in equal parts of a suppression of the truth and a suggestion of the false. The subject matter is the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the prairie grain stabilization bill-a subject matter that is now before this House as well as before the courts. The blurb purports to be authorized by the "Keep the Stabilization Plan Committee". The seriously disturbing fact in this fiction is the assertion that the stabilization plan is endorsed by a farm organization which has since denied such endorsation. That assertion, in a matter before the House and the courts, is serious.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs inquire into the advertisement which appeared in the Leader-Post of the 2nd October, 1971, concerning the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the prairie grain stabilization bill with respect to the misleading allegations therein contained and report back to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate the prospects for an earlier meeting between the government of Canada and the provinces with respect to winter unemployment? For example, I understand the government of Ontario has indicated its willingness to meet earlier. Could the Prime Minister indicate the prospects for an earlier meeting?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is a fairly general willingness on the part of the provinces and the federal government to have an early meeting. The difficulty is in finding dates on which all governments can agree to meet in Ottawa. As did Premier Schreyer, Premier Davis has changed his mind on this. His first answer was that he could not see a meeting until late in November. On that basis some alternative dates were looked at. I believe he wrote me a few days ago saying that he hoped for a meeting on October 28 or soon thereafter.


Mr. Broadbent:: He will be in the opposition then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not the view the hon. member's leader had a few days ago. After he wrote to me I telegraphed to all the provinces, asking them if they could agree on some further dates. I indicated that as far as I was concerned there were only two days in November on which I would be unable to meet but that any other time would be agreeable to me. I have not had final answers to that; I think half the provinces have given some answer. The only general agreement coming out of those answers is that they all think a one-day meeting would be too short. Indeed, I agree with that myself. They all seem to say that whatever meeting it was it would be good if we had some preparatory meetings such as finance ministers. Therefore we are not much further advanced. It is made all the more difficult because I have not yet received an answer from Premier Bennett of British Columbia. The

October 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
federal government is doing its best to find an earlier date, but when the provinces keep switching their minds and saying that dates on which they said they Would be busy now happen to be free it does not make it any easier for the secretariat.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What order do you want to refer to?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suspect there may be a growing feeling of urgency among the provinces with regard to the meeting. I ask the Prime Minister what he hopes to accomplish from such a meeting with regard to employment this 'winter? I ask this particularly in view of the Prime Minister's statement that he does not think one day would be long enough. Has the right hon. member some specific proposals or objectives in mind and can he indicate these very briefly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question was asked before, Mr. Speaker, and my answer is still the same. If we have specific proposals to make from the point of view of the federal government, we will make them as soon as possible, independent of any federal-provincial conference. The conference itself would be following up the desire expressed by all governments in Victoria last June to meet on the economic situation, on taxation problems and problems of the economy generally. At such a conference I take it we would be looking at schemes that would be put forth by the provinces or the federal government which have to do with co-operation of both levels of government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When may the House expect to know the proposals that the federal government has to make with regard to the stimulation of employment this winter, both its proposals relating to the provinces and proposals that might be exclusively funded by the federal government and completely within federal jurisdiction? When does the Prime Minister propose to disclose to the House the government's program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of federal programs, Mr. Speaker, as soon as possible. In the case of federal-provincial ones, it might be somewhat later.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PROJECT TO ASSIST MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Following the recent meeting of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in Montreal, and since all municipalities are in a precarious situation, does the government intend to put into force, as in the past, a pilot project which would leave provinces free to participate? In other words, I would like to find out whether the federal government intends to introduce a pilot project; to which provinces could contribute.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is the hon. member referring to a pilot project in any particular area? I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did not understand-


David Réal Caouette: To help Canadian municipalities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if we established such a pilot project, we would announce it in the House of Commons as usual. If the hon. member is referring to the program in effect December last, when we made some funds available to the provinces to enable them to borrow for themselves or the municipalities, I can say that we are reconsidering that kind of program and that if it is satisfactory, we will restore it and make an announcement in that connection.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUBSTANTIAL WINTER WORKS PROGRAM TO COPE WITH PROBLEM

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: In view of the announcements by Premier Davis and Premier Schreyer that they are ready to attend an earlier meeting, and in view of the proposal by Mr. Nixon, the Liberal leader, last night that a substantial winter works program be inaugurated in an effort to meet the unemployment problem, may I ask whether the government is considering undertaking on its own account or jointly with the provinces a very large program of works in the near future to try to deal with unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In view of the fact that I proposed to Premier Schreyer and Premier Davis last July that we should hold meetings in October and that such meetings were not possible, I will consider the hon. gentleman's question and see whether I can provide an answer another day.


David Orlikow: Will the federal government be going to the meeting with the provinces to discuss unemployment with specific proposals for joint federal-provincial-municipal programs to help meet the unemployment problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Possibly, Mr. Speaker.



DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES OF TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS AT FORTHCOMING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask a supplementary question in light of the Prime Minister's answer. He talked about preparatory meetings. As there is an anxiety complex at the present time with reference to tax measures, will he place on the agenda the question of the sharing of tax revenues between the provinces and the federal government? I am thinking particularly about the abolition of the estate tax and whether in fact the provinces will share in the capital gains tax inasmuch as there is an anxiety complex about the shortage of revenue because of the size of social welfare rolls across the country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a complex question. As to the first part of it concerning tax-sharing arrangements, the answer is yes. We are planning to discuss this matter, either at the meeting of first ministers or at the meeting of finance ministers should that take place beforehand.
October 5, 1971

As to the capital gains tax, estate tax and so on, there has been a request by the provinces that we do certain things. I have replied to them that we still plan to go ahead with the abolition of the estate tax by January 1 but that we would be ready to discuss any administrative arrangements which might help them over a transitional period.



UNEMPLOYMENT-COMMUNICATION TO PROVINCES OF PROGRAM TO STIMULATE EMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO ANNOUNCEMENT IN HOUSE

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. lohn's East):: May I ask the
Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to communicate any proposed program to stimulate employment this winter to the provincial premiers prior to the calling of a conference and before such a proposal is announced to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would think not, Mr. Speaker. I would think that any announcement would be made to the House in the first place.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROJECTS FOR THIS WINTER

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary or at least a related question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement made by the minister out west over the weekend, can he tell the House whether specific proposals for works to be undertaken by his department have reached the stage where they will be put into effect this winter?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: I do not
know how I was quoted. I can tell the House how I was confronted. I was confronted by a man who told me we were going to set aside $400 million for public works and for the relief of unemployment during the winter. He said he had been assured of that by a member of the provincial Department of Labour in Victoria. I said I did not know whether it would be less or more than that, but I thought there would be some allocation of money for the relief of unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether any of that money, and, if so, how much, will be spent by his department?


Arthur Laing: I would hope as much as possible. We had the responsibility of supervising some work last year and I am going to pay this compliment to my department: it was effectively done.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I now have the text of the address which the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
of Industry, Trade and Commerce made in Houston, Texas, last week. The text says, in part:
-I shall just mention a few reasons why you should look very carefully to Canada as a country for investment. We offer ready access to raw materials and sources of energy, a generally stable economic and political climate, and one of the most hospitable climates in the world for foreign investment.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this statement represents government policy and is the basis upon which the government's program in relation to foreign investment is being predicated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these general principles do not seem to me very different from the ones which were adopted by the New Democratic Party in rejecting the Waffle proposals in Winnipeg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce means that the report so laboriously prepared by the Minister of National Revenue has now been discarded and that the government intends to roll out the welcome carpet for United States capital which now controls a very large part of the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question cannot be answered by a yes or no, because the first part calls for a no and on the second part my comment is that it is irrelevant.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister advise the House when the government expects to make known its policy on foreign investment in Canada, based on the studies which have been conducted under the direction of the Minister of National Revenue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the documents have been before cabinet for some time and we will make our views known as soon as possible.


George Harris Hees: Just as I thought, Mr. Speaker; they are getting nowhere. My supplementary question is: Has the government decided to drop the so-called Gray report and, if so, is this because of the new economic policies introduced recently by President Nixon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No to the first question, Mr. Speaker, and the second one, therefore, does not make any sense.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the

October 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
right hon. gentleman now inform the House whether or not the government and governments generally accept the position taken by the government of Nova Scotia that all of the potential royalties from the oil that it has been announced has been discovered on Sable Island in fact belong to the province of Nova Scotia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I missed the question, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then may I repeat it. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether or not his government accepts the position taken by the province of Nova Scotia that the royalties from the oil and gas discovery on Sable Island do in fact belong to the province of Nova Scotia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can I conclude from the Prime Minister's reply that the premier of the province of Nova Scotia is talking through his hat when he says that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that under section 91(9), I believe it is, of the British North America Act, lighthouses and a few other things, including Sable Island, are the property of the Dominion of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the House who is assuming the responsibilities of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the minister's sickness?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is the acting minister and he is present today.



STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS-FEDERAL POSITION RESPECTING SABLE ISLAND

Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources inform the House whether negotiations are going forward between the governments of Nova Scotia and Canada in respect of offshore mineral rights, and will he indicate exactly what the attitude of the federal government is with regard to the status of Sable Island?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that these discussions started in December, 1968, and they have been going on since.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: I have a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Just like everything else.


Robert Carman Coates: In view of the fact that the Premier of Nova Scotia has stated Sable Island is part of Nova Scotia, I am

wondering what the exact attitude of the federal government is in respect of this question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I referred to December, 1968, because at that time an offer was made to the provinces generally and discussions have been going on since. I think the position of the federal government in respect of Sable Island is the same as that indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who a moment ago quoted the British North America Act on the subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the position of the federal government with regard to offshore minerals is precisely as announced back in 1968 by the Prime Minister, or has that position been modified in any respect as a result of discussions? Could the minister indicate very briefly what the federal government's present position is and, if he cannot do that briefly, will he make a statement at a very early date indicating precisely what the federal government's present position is with regard to offshore mineral rights?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that the hon. member regrets he did not stay in his last job longer. He would know all about these things if he had remained as the head of the government of the province of Nova Scotia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is pretty obvious you do not want to answer the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Discussions are going on, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that a conclusion will be reached.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it from what the minister has said that he refuses to make a statement as to the current position of the federal Government in respect of offshore mineral rights.


An hon. Member:: How about heavy water?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How about it? Come on now, answer.


Robert Carman Coates: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege. I might suggest that before we have further supplementary questions on this point the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue as we have not yet completed the first round of questioning. For the moment we will hear the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, members of this House and the people of the country, especially those in the province of Nova Scotia, are being told a story by the Premier of Nova Scotia in respect of offshore mineral rights, but when we come into this House and ask questions about the position of the federal government we are told nothing at all. We are given the runaround. The people of Nova Scotia deserve to know exactly what the federal government's position is, and we have every right to expect the acting minister to provide us with an answer now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 5, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he may have a point of order or a point of debate, but that is not a question of privilege. I will return to the matter in a moment after having recognized the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. He will have to wait for a moment as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


Donald MacInnis: Settle down.


An hon. Member:: You are shouting again.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, made without the benefit of prepared notes, and the support given those remarks by the minister now in charge of mines.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: The Prime Minister indicated that the situation referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre regarding Sable Island comes within the portfolio of the acting minister. For two weeks now this House has been bandying about the question of whether the government is breaking the law or, putting it in the words of the Prime Minister, reneging or defaulting. The minister now responsible for offshore mineral rights has indicated that the government is willing to overlook two other acts which support the contention that Sable Island belongs to the province of Nova Scotia. One act is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has sought the floor during the question period to raise a point of order and he should indicate as quickly as possible what the point of order is so that the Chair may make a ruling.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The minister is now prepared to tell the House that the government is prepared to deny two pieces of legislation, one being Bill C-135 which indicates that the government gave acquisition powers to Devco to purchase land and properties beneath the sea adjacent to the island of Cape Breton.


Mr. Jamieson:: He may not be offshore but he is adrift.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. This is obviously debate and not a point of order. The hon. member is debating with the minister concerned or other members the situation relating to the question raised originally. I would not think the matter can be debated as a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have to raise another point of order because I have to make the
Inquiries of the Ministry
ruling that this is not a legitimate point of order. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me on that point.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the Canada Elections Act and the indication by the minister that he is prepared to violate that act which places Sable Island within the voting area of Nova Scotia and in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to the hon. member that this is debate.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and thanks him for his patience.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is also Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the publicity we hear day in and day out to the effect that "the hops make all the difference", and especially that seedless hops are superior, is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is in charge of trade, taking steps to ensure the sale abroad of the total Canadian production of hops with seeds?


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



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, we are informed that the government is retaliating against the U.S. following the 10 per cent surcharge on imports imposed by President Nixon. If such is the case, does the government intend to use such measures? In the affirmative, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister if it would not be better, in order to avoid economic war, that he met soon with President Nixon in order to discuss this 10 per cent surcharge as the Canadian ministers and high officials did not succeed in convincing the U.S. administration to drop the surcharge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again I thank the hon. member of the opposition for the confidence he shows in me, and I shall take his suggestion into consideration.


Martial Asselin: I would like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Does the government intend to retaliate against the United States, following the refusal by the American administration to abolish the 10 per cent surtax?

October 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot answer the question before considering the previous one.



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following the failure of General Motors Corporation to give adequate and accurate notice to the government concerning its recent lay-offs, has the government made it clear that in the future such action is not to be repeated and, further, that it will expect economic justification for such future lay-offs by foreign corporations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that I was clear enough on that subject at the time the events referred to by my hon. friend took place. I want to emphasize the fact that relations between my department and the automobile industry in Canada have been good in the past and that we have been kept fully informed of what was going on. So it was, as I said at the time, "un accident de parcours."


John Edward Broadbent: Not having received an answer to that one, Mr. Speaker, I will try a second one. In its discussions with the Americans on the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement is the government of Canada insisting that the auto producers in Canada increase their share of production of North American cars at least up to the level of production of cars that we actually consume in this country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is terribly difficult to answer these questions because it is a fact that in Canada we produce more cars than we actually can consume by quite a large margin. So obviously this cannot be the objective. The objective is based on Canadian value added and we have emphasized all the time that we were looking, as the agreement says, for rationalization and fair distribution of advantages for both sides, Canada and the United States. Obviously we have done fairly well because some people on the other side of the border have implied that we have done too well.



ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the view that economic growth should be placed ahead of environmental quality as expressed in the preliminary Canadian position paper submitted to the United Nations Environmental

Conference now the official position of the government on this vital matter?
Hon. jack Davis (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, no such statement was made in a government document. The headline in question was a misinterpretation of the contents of the article itself.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In light of the concern among the public who are deeply involved in environmental problems, can the government assure the House that the Science Council of Canada, the Canadian Association of Human Environment and the parliamentary committee on the environment will be consulted before the government takes an official position on this matter?


Mr. Davis:: I think we can assure those bodies that we will listen to them. I might add that any policy that is sound from a long-term economic point of view is also consistent with good environmental practice.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the extremely heavy air traffic between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, could the minister assure the House that studies have been made or will be made with a view to operating an air bus service between these points similar to that satisfactory service which has operated between Calgary and Edmonton.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have repeatedly, and as recently as yesterday, made representations to Air Canada with a view to having an increase in the frequency of their service between Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, with Ottawa as the central point, on the ground that I believe the nation's capital deserves very good service. I hope they will listen to these representations.



EDMONTON-POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SST. TERMINAL

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. In view of the forthcoming visit to Ottawa by Soviet Premier Kosygin does the Prime Minister plan to discuss with him the possibilities of Edmonton being considered as a possible SST. air terminal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the agenda is not yet finalized between the Soviet government and our own.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a specially commissioned report from some of his economic advisers indicating that if the 10 per cent United States surcharge remains in effect for a year our unemployment level will be up to 7.5 per cent, and that next year about this time there will be 80,000 additional Canadians out of work in spite of the effect of the employment support bill. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to make that study public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he is saying no to the first part of the question, the second part, or to both parts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To the first part, and therefore the second does not apply.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can the minister inform the House whether it is normal that credit institutions like banks force consumers to accept two Chargex credit cards? Furthermore, can the minister take steps to prevent such pressures to be exerted upon persons who have not applied for such cards?


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question would be in order. As to the second part, it seems that the hon. member is making representations or suggestions to the minister.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Prime Minister, if I may get his attention. As a condition for the removal of the 10 per cent surcharge is the United States insisting that Canada not prevent the dollar from floating over par and to a high of $1.05 in relation to the U.S. dollar.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I understood the question, it was whether that was the position of
Inquiries of the Ministry
the United States. I am not aware of the position of the U.S.


George Harris Hees: If you spoke to President Nixon, you would find out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is doubtful.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I take it the Prime Minister would like me to repeat the question, and following his answer I may have a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Repeat it for George.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I was asking the Prime Minister whether it was a condition for the removal of the 10 per cent surcharge that the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Ha, ha.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Does the United States want us to allow our dollar to go over par or up to $1.05? Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might speak to the Prime Minister after the question period.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, let me put it clearly. As a condition for the removal of the 10 per cent surcharge, is the U.S. insisting that Canada not prevent the dollar from floating over par and to a high of $1.05 in relation to the U.S. dollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, no conditions have been put to the Canadian government as a reason for removing the 10 per cent surcharge, and particularly that one. I do not think the U.S. government suspects us of preventing our dollar from moving up, so I think this is a double reason for not making that a precondition.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member had what I thought was a supplementary question. But if not, perhaps he may be allowed a short supplementary question because we are running short of time. We have only five minutes left before the end of the question period.



POLICY OF GOVERNMENT REGARDING LEVEL OF DOLLAR

Sylvester Perry Ryan: In light of the increasing concern, particularly among our exporters, that the dollar will be allowed to further appreciate, can the Prime Minister assure the House that it is the policy of the government to keep our dollar below par and that this will remain the policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a floating dollar and, as I have told the House, we have not interfered in the market forces in any forceful way. I do not know of any condition of that kind having been put to us. So far as the policy of the Canadian government is concerned, it is merely that we stay with the floating rate for a little while longer.

October 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry NATURAL RESOURCES



OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SHARING REVENUES WITH NOVA SCOTIA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether it is still the position of the government of Canada that it would keep half the royalties from offshore oil and be prepared to divide the other half among the provinces, provided the provinces can agree among themselves on a formula? Is this still the position that the government of Canada is taking in its negotiations with the province of Nova Scotia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Prime Minister might prefer to answer this question himself as I have not been involved in the detailed negotiations. I know that an attempt has been made to find the right distribution of advantages, but the Prime Minister might want to say more if he cares to.


An hon. Member:: Daddy will answer it himself.


George Harris Hees: Go ahead, wind up and go.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: He is pretty delicate; you have to treat him carefully.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It may not be as serious for the government to joke about this as it is to joke about unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I accept the statement of the minister that he is not fully informed, but this is a very serious question. I ask the minister whether he will inform himself and tell the House at a very early stage what the policy of the government is with respect to offshore mineral rights.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I resent this, Mr. Speaker; I am fully informed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: What I know is that an offer was made to the government of Nova Scotia back in 1968. That offer has been discussed on a number of occasions since then, and I was passing the buck to the Prime Minister because I wanted to know whether he cared to reveal at this moment what formulas have been debated. But the general philosophy is very simple. We are trying to distribute advantages in the best possible way between the federal government and the rest of Canada, including the province of Nova Scotia. In the meantime, permits are administered by the federal government, so there is no vacuum of power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it too much to ask the Prime Minister or the acting minister what is the position of the govern-

ment of Canada on a matter of such basic importance to Nova Scotia and to all the provinces of this country?



OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS-DATE OF LAST COMMUNICATION WITH NOVA SCOTIA REGARDING POLICY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

J. Michael Forrestall: Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House, and to the people who are very concerned about this, exactly when was the last time there was any communication between this government and the government of Nova Scotia on this vital question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There was communication between the premier of Nova Scotia and myself, and indeed the premiers of other Maritime provinces, when I was in that part of the country at the end of July and in early August. Since then I know that there have been meetings between the departments and perhaps even between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the premiers. As a matter of fact, I remember that certainly there have been exchanges of views between our minister and the premiers of some of the provinces some three weeks or so ago.



OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS-FEDERAL POSITION RESPECTING SABLE ISLAND

['The question period has just about expired. I thought perhaps the Chair might allow the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who raised this matter originally to ask a supplementary question, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands had a supplementary question on a prior question. I apologize to him for having cut him off but, as I said, we have just about reached the end of the question period.']
J. Michael Forrestall: A further supplementary and the final one for today, Mr. Speaker, and it concerns jurisdiction over the territory that is Sable Island. I wonder if the Prime Minister can indicate if this question has been raised specifically by the government: Is Sable Island part of the territory of Nova Scotia or is that, as a proposition, being considered by this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of Sable Island, Mr. Speaker, was one which would have been settled in a proposition we made to the province at the end of 1968. The question was again discussed when I met Premier Reagan just about two months ago. As the House knows, the matter has not yet been settled to the satisfaction of the province of Nova Scotia.



James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
Prime Minister a supplementary question. Have negotiations taken place with the government of France with respect to whatever claims the government of France may have to the continental shelf lying off the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and what the position of the government of Canada is with respect to this matter in view of the fact drilling operations are now taking place there?
October 5, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report on this aspect of the question. I know he answered a similar question not so long ago by saying that the matter has not been settled but that negotiations were proceeding.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The question period has just about expired. I thought perhaps the Chair might allow the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who raised this matter originally to ask a supplementary question, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands had a supplementary question on a prior question. I apologize to him for having cut him off but, as I said, we have just about reached the end of the question period.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Spadina. The Prime Minister stated that the government has no knowledge of what preconditions the United States government is laying down for the removal of the 10 per cent import surcharge. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he or any of his ministers have made any inquiries throughout all the meetings they have had at the ministerial and official level as to what those preconditions are, and particularly if they have made any inquiries as to whether Mr. John Petty, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, was speaking for the United States government when he said that the removal of the transitional safeguards in the autopact was certainly one of the preconditions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what various ministers and I have said previously. The United States has never said to us, "If you do such and so, we will remove the surcharge", therefore there is no precondition that has been put to us as a reason for them lifting the surcharge as it applies to Canada. I do not think that what Assistant Secretary Petty said is a statement of policy; it is not even presented as a condition and certainly I do not read it as a statement that if we do this with the autopact there will be no more surcharge applied to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I brought to the attention of hon. members that we reached the end of the question period a moment ago. I realize how important these matters are, but they might be pursued tomorrow.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act HOUSE OF COMMONS



PRESENCE IN SPEAKERS GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: Before we call orders of the day, perhaps hon. members would like me to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished delegation of British parliamentarians, under the leadership of Lord Diamond, who are in Ottawa under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and as guests of the Canadian House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 4, consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, just before ten o'clock last evening, I was explaining to the House, at some length, the reason for our opposition to this bill as it now stands. This is related largely to the fact that it is based upon considerations of gross farm income rather than net farm income. Over a period of years that fact would mean that the bill would have the effect of accelerating the process of forcing the small farmer off the land, thereby altering the whole cultural pattern of western Canada and its whole way of life. I was suggesting that the social consequences of such legislation had not been taken into account by the government. They should be and that is why we are fighting so hard to have this change made.
This morning when reading a speech made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in Assiniboia, I came across some reference to the fact that the New Democratic Party was working hand in glove with the Liberal party in efforts to force the small farmer off the land and to force land consolidation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Douglas Charles Rowland: That statement is patent nonsense and demonstrably so. Who caved in under pressure, the New Democratic Party or the Tories? Who caved in when it became difficult to fight this bill any longer? Yesterday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was moved to say that the government was using "impudent, fraudulent and intimidating actions to try to force this bill down the throats of Canadian farmers," and then the Tories withdrew from the debate. Who is hand in glove on that basis? Only four members of the Conservative party

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
stood and supported the New Democratic Party in their efforts to have this bill changed, namely, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg), the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). Now, who is hand in glove?


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Douglas Charles Rowland: There are probably two or three others who would have liked to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think that on reflection the hon. member will realize he has misconceived the purpose of the vote yesterday. It was not a vote to change the bill, but it was a vote to delay the proceedings. It was in relation to that that we cast our vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The point raised by the hon. member for Peace River is hardly a point of order. At this time the Chair might take the opportunity of asking the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) to relate his remarks so far as possible to the amendment under discussion. The Chair does not see any way of relating the last remark of the hon. member to the amendment we are studying at this time.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to reply briefly to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River and then continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair hesitates to allow the hon. member to give any kind of reply to the point of order that was ruled out by the Chair and would hope that the hon. member would return to a discussion of the subject that is before the House at this time.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I shall do so, Mr. Speaker. The point of this debate is to have this bill changed so that it will be based upon consideration of net income rather than gross income. That is why the agriculture ministers of the three prairie provinces came to Ottawa; that is what they asked the government to do and that is why they negotiated a cooling-off period in order to permit the federal government to consider that recommendation. It was because the federal government abrogated that agreement unilaterally that we moved adjournment of the debate yesterday. We thought it was a betrayal of confidence, a betrayal of confidence that would never have taken place had those provinces been other than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It certainly would not have happened had it been Ontario and Quebec that were concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: I said yesterday that we are getting fed up with that kind of treatment and we will not stand for it any longer. This bill is where we draw the line. We want it changed and we hope the minister will see fit to make the changes that are necessary.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, although the subject of this bill is not part of my departmental responsibility, as a western Canadian-


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is going to be good.


James Armstrong Richardson: -I feel compelled to enter this discussion. I feel compelled to do so because of the importance of this bill to western Canada, to western agriculture, and in fact to the whole country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We know Jimmy is going to tell the truth.


James Armstrong Richardson: In considering the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in which he proposed to alter the motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), I have heard a few debating points. I have read in Hansard some technicalities and I have seen certain signs of indifference, Mr. Speaker. I want to say now, as I rise in my place, that there is a time to play politics, and there is a time to-


Mr. Horner:: Obey the law.


James Armstrong Richardson: -get on with the urgent business of this nation. This, of all times, is not the time to play politics with the livelihood of western Canadian farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government is playing politics with them. It has played politics for ten months with $60 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising on a point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would permit a question.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have just begun. I will answer all questions in due course or, if I do not, I will accept them later. I will not accept questions at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members know they may not ask questions of the minister unless he gives them permission. Apparently the minister has not given such permission.


James Armstrong Richardson: The central issue to be decided-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is whether the government will obey the law.


James Armstrong Richardson: -is not the payment of $100 million and is not just the stabilization plan, important though these are. The important issue is this: who understands, who really understands, the great contribution made by the men who work the top soil of the great plains?


Mr. Skoberg:: Who wrote that for the minister?


James Armstrong Richardson: In the points I want to raise, I want to demonstrate that it is the architects of the stabilization bill who really understand.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now, I have heard everything.
October 5, 1971


James Armstrong Richardson: It is they who are prepared now to do something constructive and specific for the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: That's a lot of bull.


James Armstrong Richardson: Two weeks ago, because of the importance of this legislation in so far as the western farmer is concerned, I moved a motion to extend the hours of debate. More than ten hon. members stood in their places and refused that request.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: It is a bad bill and the minister knows it.


James Armstrong Richardson: Even worse than that, on the previous day members of the NDP moved a motion to adjourn the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What's shocking about that?


James Armstrong Richardson: They moved the adjournment of the House, as we were about to debate this legislation which is of such vital importance to western Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What was so wrong with what they did?


James Armstrong Richardson: As a western Canadian, I am dismayed and disappointed-


An hon. Member:: We all are.


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


James Armstrong Richardson: -to see other western Canadians standing in their places and deliberately delaying legislation that is vital to western Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has no right to say that.


James Armstrong Richardson: The record of the opposition on this bill will live for years.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It sure will.


James Armstrong Richardson: I can remember the day when a prairie farmer thought that one of his best friends was a member of the Conservative party.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He still does, Jim.


James Armstrong Richardson: As a result of what we have seen recently, I suggest that that day has gone forever.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has reflected on the attitude of the members of the Conservative party. His assertion is not correct and the record will bear me out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Shortly after the House was reconvened on September 7, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) asked that this legislation be brought forward. The spokesman on behalf of the government said that it would be brought forward in due course. Exactly nine days after that request, the legislation was brought forward for debate in this House.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about the adjournment
motions?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You can move adjournment motions at any time you like.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair asks hon. members to refrain from outbursts as much as possible. The Chair feels that the point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot is not a point of privilege and hardly a point of order. Actually, he sought the floor for the purpose of clarifying a point. That has been done. The Chair will now recognize the minister who has the floor at this time.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the record will clearly speak for itself, and it will speak for several years to come. I urge the House to move forward to a decision on the amendment to the motion, and also to a decision on the motion, so that we can bring the stabilization bill to a vote.


Mr. Alexander:: What part did the minister play in breaking the law?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He writes the cheques.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He has not written any cheques lately.


James Armstrong Richardson: I urge this for a number of compelling reasons. Let me put these reasons in their simplest terms. Above all, let us get the facts straight in this debate. First, let us look at a few dollar facts. In western Canada, as my hon. friends all know, the crop year is a year which runs from August 1 to July 31 of the following year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am amazed that the minister knows that.


James Armstrong Richardson: We are not talking about the calendar year and we are not talking about the fiscal year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Talk about the calendar year.


James Armstrong Richardson: Let us look at three crop years and make comparisons as between the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the provisions of the stabilization bill. Listen to this. The over-all fact is that western farmers would receive in the order of $67 million more if the stabilization bill were passed than they would receive if the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act were to remain in force.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How would they receive it?


James Armstrong Richardson: The hon. member knows how they would receive it: directly, in payments.


Steve Eugene Paproski: But tell us how?


Stanley James Korchinski: I think the Prime Minister mentioned $58 million. Who is right?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where did the minister get the $67 million figure?


James Armstrong Richardson: Instead of receiving their money through the Wheat Board, as was done under the Tempo-

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
rary Wheat Reserves Act, the farmers in this case would receive cheques directly. There is no more direct way of sending money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


James Armstrong Richardson: So, I was citing the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


James Armstrong Richardson: I am about to answer some questions right now, then I will receive others. In the crop year 1970-71, the Wheat Board would have been paid, under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, $62,100,000. Transitional payments to be made directly to some 180,000 farmers under the stabilization bill would amount for the same period, as you know, to $100 million. In the second crop year, 1971-72, the year in which we are now, payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would amount to approximately $31 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That comes to about $100 million. I wish the minister would explain that.


James Armstrong Richardson: Wait; we are taking this crop year by crop year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do it altogether.


James Armstrong Richardson: I am doing it this way in order that we may get the picture straight.


An hon. Member:: There speaks the wheat germ kid.


James Armstrong Richardson: Although the crop year is just over two months old, this figure can readily be calculated because it is based on the amount of wheat in storage on August 1. Under the proposals of this stabilization bill, it is estimated that the federal government's contribution, based upon 4 per cent of 90 per cent of total receipts, would be at least $35 million and could be higher.


An hon. Member:: The farmers will not see it that way.


James Armstrong Richardson: In the next crop year, in the crop year after this one, it is estimated that temporary wheat reserves payments to the Wheat Board would be below $20 million.


An hon. Member:: Whose crystal ball is the minister using?


James Armstrong Richardson: These are Wheat Board figures. Federal government payments under this stabilization bill proposal-


An hon. Member:: This is the first time I have heard the minister defending the Wheat Board.


James Armstrong Richardson: -would continue at $35 million or more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


James Armstrong Richardson: This means, Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is not worried about the poor.


James Armstrong Richardson: This means, and we are getting the facts here,-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister is filibustering.


James Armstrong Richardson: -that under the stabilization bill there would be federal government payments of more than $170 million-


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I wonder if the minister would permit a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members may only ask questions if they have the minister's permission. He has the floor. Is the minister willing to permit the hon. member to ask a question?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have made it clear that what I am saying here is designed to answer questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Everybody pay attention.


James Armstrong Richardson: Then, we will get down to facts.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out that some of the facts the minister has presented to this House are not correct. They are just not correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows, of course, that he is just making an argument. He should state his point of order when he seeks the floor for this purpose. The Chair hopes that hon. members on both sides will try to at least help the Chair hear what the minister is saying. I am sure this will be to the benefit of everyone.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just at the point of saying that with this figure for the three crop years, which I have broken down and used to make a comparison between the stabilization bill and the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act-there will be federal government payments of more than $170 million-


Stanley James Korchinski: What about the losses?


James Armstrong Richardson: -just a moment-in three years, compared to $113 million under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. As I have said, this means there would be $67 million more put into the western economy and into the hands of the western farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister at least do his subtracting correctly. It is only $57 million, even on the minister's own figures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
October 5, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is wrong, anyway.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: $113 million from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members know-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Count the parliamentary secretaries again. Have them do your adding for you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members know they cannot intervene in a debate without first seeking the permission of the Chair. It is very difficult for the Chair to follow the debate, hear the different points that are raised between members and try to apply the rules all at the same time. While hon. members are making noise or attempting to intervene, they are preventing other members from hearing what the minister is saying. The Chair asks for the co-operation of hon. members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What's $10 million?


James Armstrong Richardson: The figures I have given are correct. There will be a federal government payment of more than $170 million in the three year period compared with $113 million under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is correct is pointing out that the difference between those two figures is clearly $57 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: You have to reduce that amount by the 2 per cent-


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


James Armstrong Richardson: Now that the figures have been put on the record, I would like to move to the second reason for moving urgently with this legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about PFAA?


James Armstrong Richardson: The value of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act to western farmers is declining each year. The figures dropped from $62 million to $31 million, and then to below $20 million.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is wrong.


James Armstrong Richardson: As far as the western farmer is concerned, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is a slowly sinking ship.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is being lowered by the government.


James Armstrong Richardson: We do not mind if the members of the opposition want to stay on board that ship. What we object to is the fact that they want to bring the western Canadian farmer on board with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot is seeking the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has projected some figures. He has gone into a lengthy description of the crop year. We know what he means by the crop year. I want to ask him the source of those figures, which he said are accurate. He said the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would be down from $60 million to $30 million.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he thinks those figures are right-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot may have a point for debate, but it is hardly a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he wants us to believe those figures, he has to give us the source.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: It is the same point of order as that raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). If a member of this House quotes from a document, any member is entitled to know the source of that document. In fact, he is entitled to have that document tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members will have to pardon the Chair. I have just assumed the Chair, and at this point I am not sure of the source of the figures. I would like the minister to continue for the time being.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will continue, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You cannot substantiate them.


James Armstrong Richardson: I can substantiate them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Put the source on the record. You cannot do it.


James Armstrong Richardson: They were supplied by the office of my colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let him put the record straight then.


Mr. Peters:: They are phony like the Prime Minister and his figures, really phony.


James Armstrong Richardson: The observation of the hon. member is correct. These figures have also been made public by the Prime Minister,


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He did not identify his source over television, and you cannot produce your source now. They are both false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Supply and Services has the floor. We should try to hear him, and then other members may contribute to the debate.
8438

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give us the source.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will move on. During the debate both within the House and in the country, there has been some evidence of concern that the stabilization bill does not include all of the measures and policies which western farm organizations would like to see. I assure the farming community that I am awake and that other members of the government are well aware of the policies which farm organizations would like to see adopted. I refer to such important matters as a two price system for wheat, the consideration of a floor price for grains, as well as further consideration of some government payment for storage of grain. Just because these important matters are not included in the stabilization bill does not mean they cannot be brought forward for consideration.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They were not in the Prime Minister's speech in Winnipeg on June 2, 1968, either.


James Armstrong Richardson: There have been indications from some farm organizations that lead me to believe they feel the stabilization bill in some way closes the door on these important matters. I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the case. I give this assurance, with the concurrence of course of my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.
The stabilization bill was never intended to be an all inclusive grains policy. It should be viewed as part of a continuing grains policy. It should be seen for what it is, a big step forward in grains policy and clear evidence that the government is now ready to substantially improve the position of western farmers and to recognize the great contribution they make to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government is trying to get rid of half of them.


James Armstrong Richardson: The stabilization bill is also clear evidence of the leadership and untiring effort over many months that my colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, has given to his native province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He shaved off his moustache and went west.


James Armstrong Richardson: He has made a contribution not only to Saskatchewan, but all of western Canada, by establishing a forward looking and constructive grains policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is now devoting all his time to immigration.


James Armstrong Richardson: Although I have worked in the business community, I know the farmland and I know the farming community's contribution to the prosperity and success of

the business community. The issue before us, therefore, is very much larger than the wellbeing of western agriculture.
Western agriculture is a springboard for the whole of the economy, and the injection of $100 million that would be made within days of the passage of the stabilization bill would not only improve the prosperity of the west, but would be felt beneficially from coast to coast. What I am emphasizing, Mr. Speaker, is that the government's concern for the western Canadian farmer is not based solely on what we can do for farmers as individuals. We understand that a prosperous farming community helps to create a prosperous industrial community. Western farmers by their labour bring into Canada new money from around the world, and it should not be forgotten that they sell their products in the world at competitive prices, at world prices, but that when western farmers buy manufactured goods, mainly from Ontario and Quebec, they do not always pay world prices.


Mr.   Homer@: Will the minister table the name of the author of that speech?


James Armstrong Richardson: The author of this speech is standing before you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Armstrong Richardson: I am glad you find it so good.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Give him more time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you; I appreciate the opportunity to continue these remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There were a few interruptions.


James Armstrong Richardson: The point I wanted to get across was this-I know it is already understood, but I think it should be underlined-that many of our manufactured goods sell behind a tariff wall for prices which are above world prices.


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about the $80 million?


James Armstrong Richardson: I am coming to that in a minute. Put in its simplest terms, western farmers sell in a free market and buy in a protected market. I point to these facts to emphasize the extent to which the western farmer deserves, and is entitled to, the payment from the national treasury which is proposed in this stabilization bill.


Mr. McCutcheon:: You are making history.


James Armstrong Richardson: Making history or not, I should like to put on record my personal conviction as to the importance of farming to the whole economy. I do not think it
October 5, 1971

was ever better expressed than it was years ago by William Jennings Bryan when he said: "Destroy your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and grass will grow in the streets of every city in the land."


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Spoken like a true Conservative.


James Armstrong Richardson: That is why it is important to dispose of the amendments and pass the stabilization bill.


Stanley James Korchinski: Richardson for Prime Minister.


James Armstrong Richardson: Let someone put that on the Hansard record. I realize I am imposing on the time of hon. members. I just want to add that if democracy, of which we are all proud, means anything, it means that the voices of the people are heard and that the voices of all the people help to determine what legislation will be passed into law in this place. At this point, in what we hope are the closing days of this debate, when we are trying to make a simple choice between passing the stabilization bill and continuing with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, I say to all the farmers of western Canada: let us hear from you; let your representatives on both sides of this House hear your decision before we make our decision.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Isn't it a little late?


James Armstrong Richardson: This is what we want to find out. Let us hear whether you want the stabilization bill to be passed or whether you want to stay with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. That is the most important single issue. We want to see democracy at work. We want to hear your judgment on this matter.
One last point, if I may. Again, as a western Canadian, I cannot help but reflect upon the fact that since the House reconvened on September 7 the government has put forward two important pieces of legislation, bills it wanted to see passed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Name them.


James Armstrong Richardson: One is the stabilization bill, which we are debating, to provide $100 million to western Canada. The other is the employment support bill which came along much later and which provides $80 million in grants to industry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did you take that $80 million from industry in the first instance?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I gather hon. members would like to hear the minister continue his remarks and they have given their consent to his doing so. But since I have pointed out to other speakers the necessity of being relevant to the amendment and to the motion before the House, I want to be on record as saying that the hon. minister would appear to be wandering considerably beyond the scope of the matter which is before us.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how I could possibly be more relevant than to mention the reasons for moving to a quick decision on the amendment which is before us.


William Arnold Peters: The amendment is on page five.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


James Armstrong Richardson: I simply wanted to draw a comparison between the $80 million provided in the employment support bill and the $100 million in the stabilization measure. It is estimated that only 3 per cent of the industries likely to benefit under the employment support act are in the prairie provinces. By far the larger number are in Ontario and Quebec. Both bills are government bills. The government is trying to be fair to all parts of the country. I think westerners will have to consider and observe the manner in which Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party alike have reacted to each of these bills. I would think the leader of the Progressive Conservative party and the leader of the NDP would each wish to reflect upon the speed with which their supporters helped to get the employment support bill passed and compare that performance with the delaying tactics which are evident in passing to legislation which would benefit the west.
I wish to conclude by asserting that the government is concerned equally about all parts of Canada, and I urge hon. members to move forward to bring the amendments to a vote. We are speaking here of vital matters.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Pay the money.


James Armstrong Richardson: We are talking about long-term stabilization of income on the Prairies. But of equal importance we are talking about short-term prosperity, real prosperity in the west between now and Christmas. Our concern primarily is to recognize the great contribution made to Canada by the men who work the topsoil of the great plains.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Another speech like this and that topsoil will blow away.


James Armstrong Richardson: I say to the members of this House that in my opinion the prairie topsoil is one of the sacred possessions of this nation. It and the men who work on that soil are not suitable subjects to be made the pawns in a political game. It is for these compelling reasons that I urge the House to reach a decision on the amendment to the motion, to reach a decision on the amendment, to reach a decision-


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: My point of order is this. If the minister has such feelings for the western farmer, can he not express them without reading them from a prepared text, which is against the rules of this House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is entitled to raise the point of order. However, I do not think it is unique for an hon. member to refer closely to notes in making a speech. In my experience here, I have observed that this quite often happens. The Minister of Supply and Services.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
24319-45*

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: It is the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate your ruling, but is the Chair trying to imply that the minister has not been reading his speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not imply anything of that sort. The Minister of Supply and Services.


An hon. Member:: That's the only time you speak, to raise a point of order.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his intervention. If I had been able to read my speech in this House, I would have been able to complete it much more quickly. I think if hon. members compare Hansard with what I have written down they will find a great deal of difference between the two.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member interjected while remaining seated and imputed motives. He said the only time I speak in the House is when I raise a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Give us a statement of fact.


Donald MacInnis: If I were to refer the House to a statement of fact, I would refer hon. members to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said when this minister was elected. He said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Supply and Services.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed participating-


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to raise points of order as long as members opposite are allowed to make interjections, while remaining seated, and impute motives. I will continue to raise a point of order in connection with reading speeches in this House, and to refer to the Prime Minister's remarks about this minister. He said, "So you have elected James Richardson; you could have done better"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his point of order. The Minister of Supply and Services.


James Armstrong Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that I have enjoyed participating in this debate, and I want to end by urging the House to reach a decision on the amendment to the motion, to reach a decision on the amendment, to reach a decision on the motion and in the name of the western farmer to reach a decision on the stabilization bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, before Your Honour took the Chair the minister did say that he would answer questions. I was wondering whether

Your Honour would be gracious enough to give the minister extra time so I can put a question to the minister, with his consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The situation is that hon. members extended the time of the minister, and if the minister will accept the question the hon. member for Calgary North may ask it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one. I am wondering on which side of the fence the minister is. The Prime Minister has admitted that for about the last 14 months the government has been breaking the law as a result of its failure to pay the farmers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The Minister of Justice has been quoted all across Canada in newspapers as saying that the law has not been broken. What position does the minister take in this regard?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the facts as far as I am concerned are that no member of this government has ever suggested that we did not have an obligation to make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did you not make them, then?


James Armstrong Richardson: Because we brought forward a bill for consideration which repeals that act, a bill that is a great improvement on that act. In my opinion, this government has acted in a responsible manner. We have been responsible to the House on this issue in the same way as we are responsible to the House on everything else. We are not repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act; we are asking the House and Parliament to do that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to intervene this afternoon, but following some of the things the minister said I feel compelled to say a few words. I should like to start just where the minister finished. He seemed to recognize at last that it was this House and Parliament that change the laws, not the government. Yet ever since August 1, 1970 the government has been defying the laws of this land. It has refused to comply with the laws of this land, taking the position that just because it has decided to change the law it can ignore the law that exists. The minister can talk all he likes about this government behaving responsibly; to my knowledge no government has behaved so irresponsibly as this one.


An hon. Member:: Don't read your speech now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I will try not to do that. My difficulty is I cannot read my own writing.
The bill before the House has at least two different aspects. One relates to what is called an interim payment of $100 million and clearly has nothing at all to do with the longer range stabilization plan. If the government had been prepared to separate this payment from the stabilization plan, I would have expected the House very quickly to approve of this $100 million payment, though it is by no means clear that this is much better, if at all better, than what is already required to be paid under existing laws. Clearly the government has refused to separate the $100 million adjustment payment from the other payments because it knows perfectly well that it is unable to sell the
October 5, 1971

stabilization plan, not only to the members of the House but to the farmers of western Canada. Blackmail may be a strong word, but certainly the adjustment payment is there. The government refuses to separate these two in the hope this will constitute enough sugar to persuade the farmers of western Canada to somehow or other swallow the pill which so far they have found difficulty in swallowing.
One might say also that the comparative figures used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and by the minister this afternoon-I do not want to be unparliamentary-are not honest. The minister is comparing his $100 million plus the payments which someone or another next to him, using some basis of calculation-


Mr. Lang:: I knew you didn't understand it.


An hon. Member:: Don't be arrogant.


William Arnold Peters: He is at least being honest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: They were your figures; no wonder we don't understand them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The figure was $100 million plus what somebody has calculated will be payable under stabilization contributions to be made by the Canadian government. This minister, like the Prime Minister, has compared this with the payment the government is required to make under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, very blithely ignoring, as I understand the situation to be, that if the stabilization bill is accepted not only does the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act go out the window, but also the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the legislation relating to pool losses. Yet this minister from western Canada stands in the House, and this is one of the reasons I felt compelled to take part in the debate this afternoon, purporting to serve the interests of farmers in western Canada, but does not have the frankness to make a fair comparison. He tries to put before this House, like the Prime Minister tried to put before the people of Canada, a very misleading comparison and an extensively misleading situation. They are, therefore, suspect right from the start.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government compares the $100 million with the money owing by this government to the Wheat Board under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, but those payments have nothing to do with the stabilization plan. All this aspect of the government's operations, which the minister just described as honest, can in fact be summed up by the simple use of the word "blackmail".
As far as the stabilization plan is concerned, it is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to all of us in its present form for the number of reasons given here and elsewhere, yet the government has refused to amend it. It has not only refused to be responsive to suggestions from the floor of this House, it has refused to be in any way responsive to the requests made by the provincial Ministers of Agriculture. The government has not only been
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
arrogant in respect of its breach of the law and dishonest in respect of figures it has put out, it has been bullheaded in refusing to take any advice from anybody, including those provincial ministers of agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am opposed to governments breaking the law persistently; I am opposed to this government trying to bull through this House a stabilization bill which is not satisfactory to the farmers and is not gaining support from the farmers. I am opposed to the government trying to slip this past the farmers with the use of some sort of sugar coating.


An hon. Member:: It has been before the House for six months. It must be a six months' slip.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am opposed to the bill, and I have not been persuaded by the minister this afternoon to be otherwise. I think the government is simply trying to be too smart; first of all in breaking the law and, secondly, in the technique it has used in an attempt to get this bill accepted. I cannot accept the bill in its present form. I cannot approve of the stubborn refusal of the government to accept any amendment to make it satisfactory. The government deserves opposition to this bill. That is exactly what it is getting from the opposition, which is serving the interests of the farmers in western Canada far more than that minister, whose fundamental sincerity I believe, who put this bill before the House this afternoon in a very misleading way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson). His intervention this afternoon has brought the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) back into the fight. I was beginning to worry about the reports of what the Leader of the Opposition said out west, that he was going to let this bill slip through, but obviously he now takes a different view.
I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which was moved to the motion presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), and I shall state in a moment or two my reasons for supporting that position. Before I do so, I think I am entitled to deal with the figures the Minister of Supply and Services has placed before us this afternoon. They are substantially the figures the Prime Minister, with a blackboard and pointer, placed before the people of Canada the other night on national television.
I assert that the country is being deceived by these figures. I ask the House, and particularly my fellow city members in this chamber, who are more numerous than farmers, to pay attention to this and look closely at the two sets of figures. The Prime Minister, and now the Minister of Supply and Services, asks us to look at a period of three crop years from August 1, 1970, to July 31, 1973. One of those crop years has gone, we are in the second one, and we are asked to take into account the next one as well.
They tell us that if Bill C-244 does not pass, all the farmers will get will be the money paid out under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and that for the three

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
years this will be $113 million. There is a certain amount of guesswork with regard to what happens during those three years, but I do not quarrel with that general calculation of $113 million for those three crop years.
Then, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply and Services tell us that under Bill C-244 there would be an immediate $100 million transitional payment by the government, as the minister said, within a few days, and that there would be $35 million in this present crop year and another $35 million in the next crop year, or a total of $170 million. The Prime Minister and the minister have asked us and the public to believe that this is the whole and true picture; than on the one hand the farmers get $113 million and on the other they get $170 million. Actually, I do not quarrel, as my colleagues would, with the estimate of $35 million in each of the next two crop years. I am not going to set my estimates against those of the government. Those figures could be less; they could be $30 million or $28 million. But even if one accepts those figures, and this is what I want the House to look at, under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act the entire $113 million would be paid by the government, and the minister is the boss of the man who signs the cheques. I thought he was going to tell us this afternoon that he had ordered the cheque to be written to the Canadian Wheat Board. In any event, the entire $113 million would be paid to the Wheat Board and would go to the farmers of western Canada.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Not necessarily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, because whether the minister-


Daniel Aiken Lang: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. Let me finish my analysis of this. That money, that $113 million, gets through to the farmers. But in the case of $170 million, the $100 million goes directly to the farmers. Yes; they have already had their letters and they know how much they would get depending upon the acreage on their permit books and so on. But the other $70 million does not go to the farmers. It goes to the stabilization fund. I am talking about these three years because they are the years the government talked about. In that same period, the farmers will contribute to that same fund $35 million, or $17 J million a year.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I am given an extension, then I will accept all the questions the minister wants to put to me. In that same period, the farmers will have put $35 million into the fund. So, this arithmetic is not complicated. If you look at the current cash position of the farmers for this three-year period, this is the situation. Under the present law they would be better off by $113 million, but under Bill C-244 they would get only $65 million because they would get $100 million now out of the transitional payment fund but they would have to pay back $35 million into the stabilization fund. I suggest that the government should have the honesty-


Daniel Aiken Lang: I would be glad to straighten you out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to tell the farmers of western Canada, the people of Canada and this House that that is the real picture. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) at one point this afternoon said that this money would go directly to the farmers. He was talking about Bill C-244. I tried to ask him a question to straighten him out but I did not have an opportunity to do so. I ask the government to be straightforward and let the farmers, the country and this House know that that is the picture, and if this bill does not pass, in terms of current cash in their pockets position, the farmers will be better off than they would be if Bill C-244 passes so far as this three-year period is concerned. I may say at the same time that calculations under the PFAA would have to be taken into consideration. I do not think the effect would be extensive but the position of the farmers would be even worse under Bill C-244 than under the present situation.
I recognize quite readily that if Bill C-244 passes, in addition to the fact that the farmers would have $65 million in their pockets in this three-year period as opposed to $113 million under the present law, there would be in the stabilization fund a total of $105 million which would be made up of the $70 million put in it in the two years by the government and the $35 million put in by the farmers. The government may say that is an asset the farmers will have. I have had so many letters over the years from retired public service employees and retired CNR employees and others wondering why they could not get the benefit of the millions of dollars in funds that I do not want the farmers put in the position where they can be told they are well off because there is this huge amount of money in the stabilization fund most of which they may never see.
A few days ago when I was thinking about entering this debate it was not my thought to zero in on this three-year period. I have done so because of what the government has done and what the Prime Minister did the other night in the dishonest and distorted picture he gave when he talked about this $113 million. I think the figure was $112 point something million, but the minister says $113 million and that is about the same. The Prime Minister said, leave the legislation as it is; let the opposition deny us the right to pass this bill and that is all the farmers get, $113 million, in these three years, but pass the bill a generous Liberal government has brought in and they will have $170 million. This is not true. They will have a net of $65 million under Bill C-244 as opposed to $113 million under the present law.
That leads us to the question of the stabilization fund, the $105 million that would be there at the end of two years if the government's calculations are correct. This goes to the whole question of the rationale of this bill and our reason for trying to improve it. That is what the amendments before us now are all about-the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The whole purpose of these amendments is to try to improve the formula in this bill which provides for the farmers to get payments from the fund.
It is no improvement in the farmer's position and no fun just to put money into a fund all their lives. There is a possibility that is what could happen because this fund
October 5, 1971

works on what is called a moving five-year average and farmers will get payments out of it in any bad year only if the gross income in that year is less than the average of the last five years.


An hon. Member:: Ninety per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should get the 90 per cent figure in there. I thank my friend for that correction. May I point out that it would be possible for conditions in agriculture to decline year after year, and under this government they probably will-


Daniel Aiken Lang: This is a record year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but because it is a moving average any year, no matter how bad it might be it might not be below the average of the immediately preceding five years.
This is not a stabilization program. At best it is an income insurance program for a year of disaster, a year of catastrophe. I submit it is not properly drawn. It is not even a good insurance scheme. I think the more the farmers come to understand it the more they feel it should not be pushed down their throats. That is why we are opposing it in the course of this debate as we are. Last June there was some opposition to it. My friend sitting behind me and I were accused of blocking it. We accept the accusation and the disastrous political result because we like the kind of disaster which took place in Saskatchewan on June 23. Why did the farmers of Saskatchewan vote against the Liberals? For quite a few reasons, but one is that they do not like the so-called stabilization plan. The effect of this stabilization plan, if it does anything, is to stabilize poverty. You know, Mr. Speaker, this government is awfully good at this job of redistributing poverty. You would stop me if I got too far into the matter of old age pensions but I will not go so far that you will have to stop me.
What happened the last time the government amended the old age security act? It redistributed the poverty of the old people. It took some away from some old people to give a little more to other old people. The government is good at redistributing poverty. The government tells us that this legislation will make things better. The Minister of Supply and Services said that this is an improvement and that is why we in western Canada should support it. We were told about the new unemployment insurance act, that it was a tremendous improvement. Not a day passes that I do not receive letters from people saying that they are worse off under it than they were before. Some people are better off, but some people are worse off. We were told the same thing about the veterans legislation. How many members receive letters, particularly from those on the war veterans allowance, who state that their position has been made most difficult because of the way that act operates. So, we do not accept the assertion of the Minister of Supply and Services or of the government that this legislation is an improvement over the old one and therefore we are not being filibusterers, obstructionists, undemocratic and irresponsible because we oppose this legislation. We are not just playing around with it and making amendments for the fun of it. We say it is a bad bill. We say that it is against the interests of the farmers of
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
western Canada and that it should not be supported by this House.
You might say, Mr. Speaker, when are you going to talk about the amendment? Let me talk about it enough to be in order, but to this point I have been dealing with the remarks made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson).
The point of the motion and amendment is to try to improve the bill a little so that there will be some chance of the farmers getting some money out of this fund into which they will have to pay money if this bill passes. But the way the bill now reads, the farmers can get income out of the fund only if the total gross income with respect to the six grains that are dealt with in this bill is below the average of the immediately preceding five years. We contend that that figure of gross income is a misleading one, particularly because of the rising costs of production that can take place and there is no chance of farmers gaining from this unless the income in a bad year is at least the net income.
That was the purpose of the motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). Under this motion, when the net income, rather than the gross income, falls below the average of the preceding five years, payments would come into effect. The purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is to be somewhat more precise and to set the first crop year in this cycle as the base period and to take into account the increased cost of production between that base year and subsequent years. We think that that would make at least a slight improvement, that there would be some chance of there being years in which farmers would get benefits out of the fund.
That is why we think the House should support the amendment and then support the motion as amended by the words in the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena. But I have no hesitation in saying that even if that takes place, the bill is still not a stabilization plan; it is not what the ministers over there talk about, namely, something that will even out the bumps and the hollows. It is at best a plan to provide income insurance for years that are particularly bad, particularly catastrophic. We may go 10 or 20 years without having that kind of year, particularly because of this so-called moving average. I say, therefore, that even if this bill were amended it would not be the kind of bill that would meet the situation. One of the difficulties is that if you get this kind of bill on the statute books, as with so many other things, it will be years before it can be changed. I say to the Minister of Supply and Services, my neighbour from Winnipeg, that I think we would be rendering a disservice to the farmers of western Canada if we allowed this bill to pass. That is why we are still standing here doing our best to persuade the government to withdraw it.
I continue to protest against the failure of the government to carry out the law as it now obtains in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which requires these payments to be made. The government is now 15 months in default, and the law is there just as much for the government as it is for anyone else, and it has not been kept.

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I also object very strongly to the fact that this debate is taking place during the early days of this week after the clear understanding that was arrived at between the minister and the prairie ministers of agriculture last Friday that there would be a moratorium, a cooling off period, during which the government would look at the proposals made to it by those ministers. You cannot call it consideration just to have slept on it over the weekend from Friday to Monday.
I have no hesitation in saying that I have been speaking to at least one of the western ministers of agriculture and he was horrified to learn yesterday that this bill was under debate. He asked me: "Stanley, what happened?" I tried to explain, but he certainly had the clear understanding that the bill would not be proceeded with until the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had reported back to the western ministers of agriculture. As of this morning, that has not taken place. I am told that the minister's assistant has communicated with at least one minister to inform him that the debate was on again, but there has been no answer to the proposals that were made to this government by the prairie ministers when they were here last Thursday. There is a great deal of talk by this government about participatory democracy. One way of course is to involve the other levels of government, to involve the provinces. I submit that to let those ministers come down here and have those discussions on Friday, to come to whatever understanding they may have come to, then to throw it out the window and say "it is all off; we are going to put this bill through" is certainly not carrying out participatory democracy.
People are becoming somewhat discouraged about what is going on. I hear people who are on the other side of the fence say on the radio that they are disturbed because the debate is going on and there is obstructionism by the opposition. They ask us why we do not let the government get its way. The other side of the picture is that the government has a responsibility to the people of this country, the responsibility to keep its word. I submit that that is not being done by holding this debate this week, and I submit that the government is not measuring up to its responsibility to maintain the law by its failure to pay the amounts specified under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I see that Your Honour is on the edge of the chair, so I will sit down. I want to emphasize again how thoroughly dishonest the government is in trying to tell the farmers and the people of Canada that it is a choice between $170 million and $113 million when, so far as these three years are concerned, it is a choice between $113 under the old law and $65 million under Bill C-244.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister would need the unanimous consent of the House because the hon. member's time has expired. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I should like to ask the hon. member what is really a three part question. Is he aware of the fact that with regard to the amounts of money involved, the figures

which the Minister of Supply and Services was using were the amounts which it would cost the treasury in that period of time, and that so far as the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act money is concerned, it is inaccurate to say that the amount being paid for the next year or the following year would necessarily go to the farmer, because any deficit in the pool could wipe out any payment to the farmer. Second, is the hon. member aware of the fact that while the government commitment to the fund under Bill C-244 is only probably in the order of $35 million under the 4 per cent formula for the next couple of years, the amount of payments to the farmer could in fact be very significant and could amount to $100 million, $200 million or $300 million, as it would have done two and three years ago.
Third, is he aware of the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether that is a question. It seems to me that the minister is making a speech rather than putting a question. Perhaps he might allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to reply to the first two questions, and we will then ascertain whether the minister still has the consent of the House to resume his questioning.


William Arnold Peters: We should adjourn the debate so that the minister can find out what the bill is all about. He is totally confused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say in
reply to the minister that I am aware of these imponderables, of figures that can change. It is interesting that the minister and his colleague and the Prime Minister want to use firm figures that are fairly high when they talk about what would be paid under Bill C-244, but then they downgrade the figures when they talk about what would be available under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


Daniel Aiken Lang: These are the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has not persuaded me that he gives the country the facts.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I have not persuaded you, but I am giving the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister wants to make the point that although the government says that under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act there would be another payment of $51 million between the end of the last crop year through the next two, maybe it might be less. Yes, it might be less, but so might the amount of money under Bill C-244 in each of the next two years be a lot less than the $35 million which the minister indicated. In fact, if you want to cut both figures down we are about even Stephen.


Daniel Aiken Lang: The $38.6 million is certain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The $38.6 million on top of $62.1 million-all right.


An hon. Member:: It could go to a deficit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will take the minister's figures, $62.1 million.
October 5, 1971


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is treasury costs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will take $62.1 million plus $38.1 million-


Daniel Aiken Lang: You are still not getting it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Plus $38.1 million-or rather $38.6 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might have some sort of order.


An hon. Member:: We are doing fine.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was granted unanimous consent for an extension of time to answer a question. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has been waiting for some time to make his speech. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might attempt to reply to the question as quickly as possible so that the Chair may recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to deal with the figures that the minister now puts out which are a correction of the Prime Minister's figures. The Prime Minister compared $113 million with $170 million. The present minister wants to talk of the amount that is there, namely, $62.1 million for the last crop year and $38.6 million-


Daniel Aiken Lang: No, no-$38.6 million only if you are talking about payments to the farmer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are wrong.


Mr. Burton:: For 1969-70.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister should be given time to study his own legislation. Even on his terms, there is more money that would go into the pockets of the farmers under the present situation than under the new legislation. When you consider that the only guarantee-the only guarantee-to the farmers under the new legislation is the $100 million-oh yes, there is another guarantee. There is the guarantee that they will have to pay money back into that fund during the next few years.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: About 2 per cent of earnings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Far from the comparison being what I made it out to be, $65 million under the new legislation versus $113 million under the old, it might even be worse. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the dishonesty the government has been using, the deception it has been handing out to the people, is just being compounded by what the minister is saying now. When the minister wanted to point out that it could be more than $35 million, he still used the phrase "payments to farmers". These payments are not going to farmers, they are going to a stabilization fund. As far as the farmers are concerned, it could be the same as money in some of the pension funds around the country that never gets to the people who deserve it.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is time the picture was put clearly. One of the reasons I got into the debate is that as a
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
non-farmer I have to study some of this legislation with special care, and the more I do the more I realize we are being submitted to a case of blackmail. We are being asked to buy a piece of legislation because there is $100 million in it which has conditions which are utterly intolerable for the farmers of western Canada.
I submit to the minister that he will find out by the Liberal vote in Assiniboia on November 8 what the farmers out west think. With the prairie agriculture ministers and the prairie farm organizations becoming agitated about this, I think the most honest and most responsible thing for the government to do is to withdraw this bill from debate, to take it back and study it again and have consultation with those who really know what it is all about.


Daniel Aiken Lang: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is rising on a point of order.


Daniel Aiken Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious difficulty that the hon. member is having with the figures, I should very much like the consent of the House to have a few moments to explain them to him. I know he has been studying this matter but he has not got the figures straight.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister also explain the figures to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion is now being made by the minister that he should speak a second time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it understood that this applies only to the minister and not to other hon. members who may want to reply to him? Of course, hon. members will appreciate that if the minister is allowed to make a second speech it is being done by unanimous consent. Any member who wishes the same privilege will also have to seek the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: And no time limit.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is not being entirely fair to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Daniel Aiken Lang: I shall deal only with the specific item of the figures. I appreciate the indulgence of the House in allowing me to rise to do so.
The payments which were referred to by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply and Services were the payments which the treasury would make under either the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act or Bill C-244 specifically. In the case of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the payments are known for one year to be $62.1 million, are estimated with a fair degree of accuracy at this stage for the next year at $30.8 million and are estimated rather more speculatively for the third year at $20 million for a total of $112.9 million. Under Bill C-244, the Stabilization
8446

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Act, transitional payments are $100 million known exactly for the first year, $35 million estimated as the 4 per cent levy for the current crop year and $35 million estimated rather more speculatively for the following year, making a total of $170 million. Let me turn to the other side of the picture.


William Arnold Peters: To whom are you paying those sums? You are paying them to two different organizations. They are not the same figures.


Daniel Aiken Lang: If I may repeat what I said at the beginning, those are specifically the amounts which the treasury would pay. I am not saying at that point to whom, but those are the amounts the treasury would pay. Now, let me turn to the "to whom".


An hon. Member:: Did you check with Big Daddy?


Daniel Aiken Lang: If we have the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act route followed, without therefore passing Bill C-244, of the $62.1 million which would be paid we know that $38.6 million would reach the farmers because that is in connection with a crop year for which the transactions are concluded. Had that amount been paid it would ordinarily have been paid on June 17 as we made quite clear at all times. The $38.6 million would therefore have reached the farmers. The balance would apply to future operations of the wheat pool as would the $30.8 million and the $20 million estimated for the subsequent years. These would apply to future wheat pools. The point I made to the hon. member who just spoke was that should any of these pools turn out to be in a deficit position, not one penny of it flows through to the farmer. So, there is no certainty possible at this time whether those amounts of money will get to the farmer. All that would happen would be the payment by the treasury would, to that extent, reduce the treasury obligation on another account. It would not get to the farmer if the pools were in a deficit position, as it was a year ago when the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act Payments did not get through to the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Certainly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would that same point not hold true if there were a deficit? That, too, would come out of the fund that you spoke about which would be built up by contributions of the federal government of $35 million in each of the two years under the grain stabilization fund. That deficit would come out of the fund?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It would, but would not interfere with the amount of payments made to the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If there is a deficit in the barley pool would that not come out of the treasury fund?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It will, through the stabilization fund in any case.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it won't.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that they are compounding the difficulties. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had

the floor; the minister asked a question; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre replied; the minister got the floor by unanimous consent to explain the answer he had given to a question and now he is being questioned by the hon. member for Crowfoot. This is just about the most disorganized debate I have ever seen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to apologize to Your Honour and to the House for interrupting the minister, but he was granted the privilege of speaking on a second occasion to clarify figures. I was only trying to assist him in clarifying the figures.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the sentiment and purpose of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and will welcome further opportunities for his clarification. I have dealt with the fact that under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act the only amount we are sure would go to the farmers is $38.6 million. Under the stabilization transitional payment, we know that $100 million, would go to the farmer. For future years, the issue is speculative with regard to both cases. Temporary wheat reserves payments would not go to farmers if there were a deficit. We would expect some money to go through, but we do not know how much. On the stabilization bill side, the amount that would go to the farmer depends upon the total sales situation for the year. If we are comparing payments which may go to farmers, we have to be honest enough to recognize that that contingency is a very large one. Although the treasury will make a specific payment of $35 million in certains years, the contingent liability under Bill C-244 is unlimited. As I say, under the bill it is unlimited. There may not be a precedent for this on our statute books. The payment to the farmer will be whatever is required in any of those years to bring his gross receipts for the year in question up to the average of the previous five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the government does not pay.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Although I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the record level of exports achieved under this government this year is likely to continue and that we will set new records, history teaches that we will not enjoy a smooth line of rising exports, so as we move ahead there will be a series of drops from the high levels. In those years the amounts which will be paid to farmers is not limited and will be set by the formula. If the stabilization plan had been in effect between 1945 and 1971, the fund would have paid to the farmer $3.96 for every dollar that the farmer put into the fund. Such payments simply must not be ignored when we calculate the benefit that would accrue to the farmer from such plans. I urge the venerable hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) not to use the word "dishonest" while ignoring the fact that payments like these may be made to the farmer.
October 5, 1971

The figures used by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) were exactly accurate with regard to payments out from the treasury. If the hon. member was talking about those figures, then those figures are accurate. If he is talking about receipts by farmers, he must compare similar and not different things. He must recognize that, as far as the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is concerned, we are sure only that farmers would be getting $38.6 million whereas, under Bill C-244, $100 million would be paid out to farmers. History teaches that there will be significant benefits to the farmer under the stabilization plan.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to ask a question of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Since the minister claimed that only $38.6 million, I believe that was the figure, could be said to be directly payable to the farmers, as of now, would he explain why the Prime Minister said in his broadcast on Sunday night that, "In the last crop year under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act we would be in process of paying to western farmers $62 million." Those are the words he used.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I think it is obvious that in another context one could refer to payments to the Wheat Board or payments to the stabilization fund as being payments to western farmers or to farmers' institutions on their behalf.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not dishonest?


Daniel Aiken Lang: If that misled the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at all, it misled him in a way that was favourable to his argument that more was being paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I am surprised that the hon. member suggests that the Prime Minister was dishonest if he suggested the figure was $62 million when the real figure ought to have been $38.6 million.


David Réal Caouette: Finally, Mr. Speaker, we realize that Bill C-244 is confusing. Various interpretations have been brought forward in the House and if hon. members are unable to understand the exact meaning of Bill C-244, just imagine the position of Prairie grain producers. When we go over there we see how these farmers fail to understand the legislation supposedly brought forward in their behalf.
This afternoon we heard two ministers, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and members of the NDP. Each one has his own interpretation of Bill C-244. In the meantime, western farmers are calling for more attention and asking Parliament to take swift action, because they need their money.
Since the end of last week, I have been receiving letters from Saskatchewan. One of them says:

Mr. Member of Parliament:
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act assists only those who produce wheat and large farmers.
24319-m
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
The Grain Stabilization Plan helps all farmers and small farmers.
Stop playing politics and allow the Stabilization Plan to go to a vote.
Those people do not say: Adopt this bill immediately. Not at all! They ask that the question be put to a vote. At the present time, in this very place, within the federal Parliament, western farmers are used for political purposes; their problems are turned into political issues.
A short while ago, my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke about the by-election to be held in Assiniboia in one month or so, when the electors will show their dissatisfaction. Other governments have held power before the one now dealing with the problems of the Canadian farmers. Did they solve those problems? We are still facing the same ones after 10, 15 and 20 years.
For three days we have witnessed an inconceivable waste of time in this House: three adjournment motions were moved and we lost an hour and a half voting on them. And what did that solve? Nothing!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because it does not come from the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Edmonton West says the reason is that it does not come from the province of Quebec. I am from the province of Quebec, and I have never behaved so stupidly as Progressive Conservative members from Alberta. Anyway, we did not introduce adjournment motions for the sole purpose of delaying the work of the House, and the hon. member knows that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Talk about abortion and the Criminal Code amendment.


David Réal Caouette: We opposed it because the bill was unacceptable.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Bill C-244 is not any
more acceptable.


David Réal Caouette: That is not sure and this is so true that the hon. member for Edmonton West avoids talking about Bill C-244 when he is in his riding, just as he is afraid to talk about it in the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a real farce.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that when I say that they want to play politics with farmers, I am right. Members of all political parties are presently touring the West to tell farmers in Saskatchewan: Protest against Bill C-244, at the expense of certain people, or, help us pass it. What I am condemning this government for is its failure to apply the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act-a law already in force-and its failure to pay immediately to western farmers the amount of $100 million which had been promised to them, and which is not only due under the law, but also as a matter of justice.
Mr. Speaker, western farmers are writing us that they are confused. No wonder, because here, in this very House, we are all confused concerning this bill.

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I heard the minister say a while ago: "It will be paid to the farmers!" Maybe yes, maybe not. We are convinced that the $100 million now due to the western farmers should be paid, irrespective of the passage of Bill C-244. If we have to continue to spend weeks or months on Bill C-244, let us do so but not at the expense of a group or in the spirit described by the hon. member for Edmonton West a while ago, to wit that it has nothing to do with the East. When did the hon. member see the East rise in anger against the West about assistance granted to western farmers?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Such is your attitude!


David Réal Caouette: It is not my attitude, but that of the hon. member for Edmonton West who raised the question. We have never raised it in the House. We are demanding the introduction of a comprehensive farming policy in Canada equally favourable to eastern and western farmers. That's what we want! I think everyone is aware of our position on this subject. Unfortunately, for years, considerable time has been spent in stirring up the West against the East and vice versa by saying: If things are going wrong out West, it is because Ottawa is giving too much money to the East; and if they are going badly in the East, it is because Ottawa is giving too much to the West. People and regions are being raised against each other by the introduction of bills like this one, Bill C-244, or by taking incoherent positions like the ones we see here in this House.
Mr. Speaker, what do we mean by a global policy? The farmers from the west, no more than those from the east, would come begging to the federal government if they were sure they could sell their products. Had western farmers been sure they could sell their wheat at a profit, Bill C-244 would not be before the House. The same goes for eastern farmers, whether it be in the dairy industry or general agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is lacking-certainty. Were a bill to be introduced to guarantee markets for the whole Canadian agricultural industry, were the government to take the required steps to store that production, the problem would be solved.
Two years ago, we had a surfeit of wheat. Next year, there may be a shortage, not because of a crop failure, but because, at one point, we found an export market for it. The situation is the same in all fields of production in Canada. And I hold the government responsible for that state of affairs. I maintain that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has not been a good salesman, that he did not find the necessary markets where our surpluses in Canada could be exported.
Instead of travelling to Australia, New Zealand or other countries of the world, he should be investigating export possibilities for our products. And we, members of Parliament pass a law to guarantee western and eastern farmers alike the sale of their entire production. This would be a permanent solution to the problem which is raised every year by the opposition, the government or the various farmer associations across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 has given rise to controversy, as every body has noticed, especially among farmers. I receive letters from socialist areas of Saskatchewan, from
southern Alberta, asking that the bill not be passed. People from Medicine Hat for example urge that the government not be allowed to change its present policy, namely the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Farmers are utterly confused. Why? Because some believe that the government is interfering in the management of their business or seeking to take hold of their properties or to deprive them of their freedom, while others think that the government wants to assist them.
Here in this House we have just been listening to 45 minutes of idle discussions. Hon. members have talked about $38 million, $30 million, $20 million, $113 million, $170 million. Proposals range from paying farmers to filling the deficit of the wheat pool or making payments to another organization. We no longer know where we are heading.
Mr. Speaker, there is something which I believe would be wise to do. That would be to stop using farmers as political feelers, particularly in western Canada. This theme has been exceedingly exploited for years. I see the minister nodding in the affirmative, but a former liberal leader, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, also used farmers for political ends. I saw progressive conservatives like John Bracken of Manitoba using also the western farmers for their political maneuvers. Besides, they have succeeded in raising the west against the east in Canada and vice versa while everywhere in the country farmers are faced with the same problem. In fact, all the classes of our society are fighting these same difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, let us stop playing politics with that. For a month now farmers have been saying: Take a decision; come to any kind of agreement. The government persists in refusing to avail itself of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and says: All that is included in Bill C-244; it allows the $100 million grant. Some people want to dissect this bill-to take the $100 million out in order to give them to the farmers and leave consideration of the problems for later.
The government stubbornly refuses to change its stand while, farmers are kept waiting and have to borrow money from finance companies and pay extravagant interest rates. One can imagine their dissatisfaction, not only with the government but also with this House, which just gets lost in useless debate.
Mr. Speaker, time has come for us to make a decision. If some oppose the bill, let them vote against it. If some are in favour of the bill, let them vote accordingly. But let us come to a vote on this bill. I am aware that the government can make use of Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C and demand that a vote be taken, but time has come for us to do so anyway. In any event, a vote will eventually be called on this bill-and we will realize, as usual, that the government has a majority. Thus we will not be accused of having harmed the farmers of western Canada or of eastern Canada. It seems to me it is time we assume our responsibilities and take the vote. Let those who are against the bill vote that way and let those who are in favour prove it. We will see the result and I hope it will be in the best interests of western farmers and especially of the wheat producers of western Canada.

October 5, 1971


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I would like to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I view Bill C-244 as a typical example of a government not really knowing what western Canada wants or needs, so doing the next best thing, in their view, and placing before the farmers of western Canada a bill loaded with what I believe to be the true Liberal philosophy of supply management and government control. If one views Bill C-244, along with Bill C-176 which we were lately discussing, it makes a person stop and ask himself just how far is a government willing to go before it openly advocates complete government control of our industry.
In the past few weeks, as a practical farmer and as a member for a rural constituency, I have had many conversations with farmers and it is quite apparent that many farmers are very sceptical of the grain stabilization bill. This has come about for a number of reasons, one of them being that when their farm organization representatives came to Ottawa to appear before the committee, very few of recommendations made by the farm organizations were adopted or, for that matter, very seriously thought about by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Some of the recommendations to which I refer were:
1.	A reduction in farmers' contributions to the plan and a more rightful, responsive position taken by the government;
2.	The transitional payment to be paid out immediately and then the legislation discussed for its long term effects;
3.	That the federal government share the costs of carrying the necessary reserve stocks of grain by paying carrying charges annually on approximately 400 million bushels of all grain;
4.	An inflation factor to be built into the legislation; and
5.	Losses in the grain pool accounts not to be paid out of the stabilization fund.
One has to look very carefully and be somewhat sceptical of just where the government is going and what it is trying to do as far as western agriculture is concerned. It has been said many times by both opposition parties as well as by witnesses present at the committee proceedings that if the bill were not improved the initial impact of the legislation would likely, for a period of time, result in the reduction of the level of income available to the producer because of the reduction of the levy and the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Moreover, the protection' afforded the level of farm income will be altogether inadequate over a given period of time.
Regardless of what may be said, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill C-244 is a vehicle designed to enable the federal government to bring to a conclusion the number of federal policies which relate to the expenditure of public funds for the support of agriculture and, I might add, without compensating the prairie farmers on a comparable basis. As an example of this, I would draw attention to the government ending its commitment to guarantee initial prices for wheat, oats and barley under Clause 15. In 1968-69, this guarantee for wheat resulted in payment by the government of approximately $17 million to the Canadian Wheat Board. Operating losses under the grain stabilization bill would not be charged against the fund to which the farmer is contributing a share of the money which is to constitute the fund. I would also refer to the ending of government support of storage payments under
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for wheat in commercial storage, 178 million bushels under the terms of clause 33.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that payment by the government for the carrying of a reasonable inventory of grains to meet world trade requirements is still a valid philosophy of agricultural policy, although this could be done other than through the existing Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. This Act has, since its inception 15 years ago, paid out an annual average of $40 million. The total burden of commercial storage will now fall upon the grain producers. Reference has also been made to the repealing of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act under which the federal payments have averaged $6 million annually since 1939. Discontinuance of the policy requiring millers to purchase wheat entering the domestic market for human consumption at a basic rate of $1.95 j will result in an annual loss of some $12 million to $15 million dollars to wheat producers at present price levels without a compensating payment or reduction in prices.
The commitment of the government to the program under Bill C-244 will, I believe, be roughly $40 million. The proposals in Bill C-244 essentially aim at stabilizing the income from grains relative to current conditions. As any farmer from western Canada will tell you, stabilizing incomes relevant to current conditions is just not good enough. Conditions in a good many areas of western Canada are very serious indeed. Farmers have gone through a winter where there was a terrific cash shortage; they have gone through the spring in which there was a cash shortage and now they face the prospect of no additional government help, simply because the government will not pay them the money that is rightly owing to them under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
The provisions of this bill for stability relative to this situation are unattractive. Were we heading into a period of deflation we could, of course, view the proposals in a different light. We are, however, inclined to the view that inflation will continue more or less along the pattern of recent times. Should this turn out to be the case, then the stabilization plan, as proposed by the government, seems entrely inadequate. Farmers are in the poorest segment of the Canadian economy, with the exception of old age pensioners and others on limited and fixed incomes, to absorb the current effects of inflation. A farmer's essential expenses, such as taxes and cost of living, are related to the domestic economy. On the other hand, export sales are locked into a situation which involves virtually no bargaining, in a market which is further depressed by competition, in many cases from government-subsidized stocks. In addition, farmers have absolutely no influence over trade arrangements and credit programs which may be unfavourable to them. In these circumstances, the effects of inflation are such that the income accruing to producers of grain for export faces continued erosion. Should the inflation rate be as low as even 4 per cent per year, it is not difficult to calculate the disastrous position in which grains producers will find themselves five or six years from now. And I contend the bill before us will do absolutely nothing against the inflation of which I have been speaking.
I have heard the minister say that if any constructive criticism were voiced in this debate he would be willing to

Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
listen. However, after seeing what happened during the weekend I find some difficulty in believing this statement. I suppose constructive criticism has a different meaning for different people, but I should like to add two or three points which in my view would make the legislation more palatable.
First of all, I think there must be more direct producer representation on the grain stabilization board itself. These producers must have some real influence at the decision making level. Second, I believe there must be some means, as I have said before, whereby we can build into the plan a cost of living or inflation index. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable request to make. Third, I think the money that is rightly owing under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act must be paid out to the farmers and the act updated. I believe these demands are not unreasonable. If these points are not given any consideration in any form whatsoever then of necessity I feel I must vote against the legislation when the vote is finally called.
In closing, I should like to add that in dealing with a total policy package with respect to income protection for the western grain growers we must contemplate an adequate two-price system for their products. This was again mentioned this afternoon. It is just not right that Canada should be virtually the 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. A look at the statistics indicates the shocking fact that since World War II there has been essentially no increase in grain prices, which means no increase in the amount farmers receive for flour and cereal products sold to the consumers of this country. I believe this situation must be corrected by substantially increasing the price received by the farmers for grain used for domestic human consumption. The impact of this increase on the consumer would be very small, since the great bulk of the cost of cereal products purchased by the consumers consists of transportation, processing and distribution charges.
We are debating this piece of legislation today because it leaves a great deal to be desired so far as a grain stabilization policy for western Canada is concerned. In addition, the government has ignored the pleas of groups that represent farmers. We must draw on someone for expert advice and these groups made an attempt this spring to present their case in Ottawa. But the fact is that the government has ignored their pleas, just as it has ignored the recommendations of the agricultural committee of the House of Commons, and this indicates that the government is bent upon putting through this legislation whether or not it be beneficial to the farming community. The government does not want to hear the other side of the argument.
Once again may I say I will not be able to vote for the legislation in its present form because I sincerely believe it will not produce a proper grain stabilization policy for western farmers.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on this amendment, I want to make it

very clear at the beginning that if there is any question in the minds of hon. members that we are not going to try to hold up the bill, then I suggest that that is exactly our intention at the present time. There is no question at all that somewhere along the line the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the real issue in the debate on the stabilization plan have got lost. There is no question whatever that the government is now trying to blackmail the western producers into thinking that they have two choices, either to accept the payment under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act or to accept the mythical $100 million that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) held out on his telecast the other night.
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is not the real issue here; the real issue is whether the stabilization plan itself is going to be of benefit to the western producers. I am sure the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is convinced that the plan now before the House is not really in the best interests of agricultural producers.
As we witness the changing moods in this House of Commons, it is not difficult to realize that proposals are being made for certain reasons that are not compatible with the basic philosophy of the plan. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) talked this afternoon about the big bonanza that would result from the payment of $100 million. Not too long ago, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool published a bulletin which indicated that the average payment would be about $560 on the maximum quota of 640 acres. I suggest that this payment is a carrot being held out by the minister in order to get the bill through this House, a bad bill to say the least. The minister is wrong if he thinks he can get the bill through the House in its present form, no matter what kind of blackmail is used.
We have all heard the saying, which is probably quite true, that the politics of corruption is the misuse of our fellow man. I can think of no greater misuse of our fellow man than what happened in Ottawa over the weekend when the three prairie ministers of agriculture met with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to discuss the very issue we are debating here at the present time, namely the net incomes of agricultural producers. The whole basis of the amendment before the House is net income; in other words, the exact amount the agricultural producers will receive.
Instead of the minister being forthright and telling the agriculture ministers of the three prairie provinces that he really was not concerned about the incomes of prairie producers, he told the press something else. While I was in Moose Jaw the Moose Jaw Times-Herald carried the headline "Government to delay debate on bill", and the first paragraph of the article was as follows:
The federal government has agreed not to proceed with its prairie grain stabilization bill for at least another week to allow provincial governments, farmers and others to consider its implications "and its relationship to over-all income of grain producers."
To my knowledge, the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture came to Ottawa in order to discuss the very issues we are debating today, and which we will be debating in this House for many more days. Even though the minister in charge of the Wheat Board may have wanted to delay the bill for a week to try to bargain on some of
October 5, 1971

the provisions in the bill, he was probably not allowed that delay by the Prime Minister and the cabinet generally. It seems strange indeed that when the western provinces would like to have some dialogue with a government that is responsible for the agricultural economy they should be betrayed. They have been double-crossed, and they learned about this double-cross only when they returned home.
I have referred to the saying that the politics of corruption is the misuse of our fellow man, and this government stands condemned on every count of misusing the agricultural producers of this country. When I was in Moose Jaw over the weekend, I talked to several farmers about this bill and asked them what they would do if they were members of the House. There was no question in their minds that they did not want this stabilization plan in its present form.
We have all heard much debate in this House during the last few weeks about the government breaking the law, and this will be decided by a court. The real issue is that the government is responsible for the plan it would like to bring in, and members of the opposition are responsible for seeing that the plan suits the best interests of the agricultural economy. Every member of the opposition, as well as the independent members in the House, should decide whether or not this stabilization plan deals with the net income of farmers today. It is in this regard our amendment was proposed. It clarifies the bill in that it designates a time period and spells out in clear terms exactly what the legislation is intended to do.
Not long ago I asked the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) the following question dealing with this subject:
Can the minister say if, under the proposal for a prairie grain stabilization plan, any final report has been prepared on the consolidation of small farm units into units of more efficient size? If so, can the minister say whether this report will be made available to the House?
The minister said in answer:
Mr. Speaker, the paragraph in the statement to which the hon. member refers had reference to some plans being developed by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. Further details about these plans were subsequently issued by the minister, and I know that a full copy was distributed to all hon. members of the House.
I suggest that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board misled the House when he said these plans were distributed to all members. In an attempt to find out whether I had misplaced my copy I found that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) had in fact distributed copies in certain communities in order that people there could consider the proposals, but the plan was not widely distributed. This further compounds the situation, because the statement that all members received a copy is not true.
The same thing applies to the suggestion that the minister was prepared to meet the ministers of agriculture and delay, possibly for one week, the discussion of this bill. We find that is untrue. This is the situation in which we find ourselves, yet we hear the suggestion that we are using the farmers as pawns in this game. People dedicated to the principle of equality for .all in this country, particularly
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
those in the agricultural sector, realize that the bill before us does not meet the necessary criteria. I sincerely hope that no member of the House will take for granted that it does. The issue hinges on the net income feature and the amendment before us is directed toward that point.
When I asked about plans to adjust farm units to a more efficient size there was no answer. Just as in this case, the farmers know nothing about the plan where it refers to adjustment of farm units. How can we in this House make an intelligent decision as to whether the stabilization plan is in the best interests of our nation when we are not told specifically what the government has in mind? Municipalities and small agricultural communities must depend on net income and the return to agricultural producers. They must also become familiar with the precise intent of this bill before any sensible decision can be made. It seems strange that the government has refused to supply these details.
We in this party realize that there must be collective bargaining and we firmly believe that in the interests of the agricultural sector of our economy there must be a cooling-off period in that collective bargaining. Our newspapers referred to this during the weekend, but we now find there is to be no cooling-off period. The minister is adamant, as is the Prime Minister, that anything he thinks is good for the farm should be accepted by everyone. When we consider the situation we realize that what he thinks is good for the farm is not good in any way, shape or form.
Questions were asked earlier today about an advertisement which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post. It also appeared in the most recent edition of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. It related to net income, and I am wondering whether the farmer is being charged for this type of propaganda which appears in the newspapers. In the August edition of Saturday Night magazine I find an advertisement under the heading, "Prairie farmers gear production to world demand". It states that it was issued under the authority of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture, and reads in part:
The government of Canada is helping this development with its new prairie grain policy-providing "package" programs for all grains, encouraging increased pasture, setting up a new quota system, providing a stabilization program to offset poor years and making sure the farmer gets advance information on world grain conditions at planting time.
I wonder whether the cost of this propaganda is being deducted from the receipts of western farmers. Who is behind this kind of propaganda, and is the cost being deducted from farmers' incomes? The cost of this type of advertisement must be tremendous, because we all know that the cost of a full-page, coloured ad in a newspaper is high. We do not know that there is any justification for this kind of thing, but we know that one of these advertisements was authorized by the Keep the Stabilization Plan Committee. This reminds me of the KOD plan of a few years ago in Saskatchewan. It was the Keep Our Doctors plan. Perhaps the same people are involved in this propaganda. If this type of propaganda is to continue, then the people should be given a clear explanation of the stabilization plan. The name is peculiar in itself because there is no stabilization plan as yet. These advertisements

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
refer to the plan as though it were already in effect and they are now worried about losing it.
Perhaps the minister would like to accept responsibility for that particular advertisement. Perhaps he would inform the House how much money has been spent in the last year on propaganda of this type, trying to persuade farmers to accept something that is not in their best interest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Leroy Skoberg: I would be only too pleased to do so.


Mr. Mahoney:: Now we have Alphonse and Gaston.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The advertisement the hon. member refers to was authorized by the Keep the Stabilization Plan Committee. Is the hon. member not aware that a gentleman by the name of McPherson is paying for this advertisement in the hope that he will be appointed to the Senate?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Leroy Skoberg: I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for that clarification. I was not aware of that, but it does not strike me as being strange if it is the case. There may well be a vacancy in the other place to which some people aspire.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There are 18 vacancies.


John Leroy Skoberg: Someone from the other place was involved in the recent Alberta election, but the party to which he is affiliated did not gain the seat in question.
If we are really concerned about what is happening in respect of net income we should suggest ways of improving this bill. If the minister is really concerned about the net income of farmers he should take into consideration the proposals of the prairie ministers of agriculture. If he is interested he should at least listen to the proposals they make. I am sure a few months' delay at this time of year would not do much damage. I am equally sure that the propaganda being distributed to western producers is intended for only one purpose.
Any time we are accused of trying to confuse the agricultural producers for our own purposes, I should like to assure the government that this is far from the truth. We have witnessed the propaganda in respect of some letters which, if not from the minister's constituency are at least from Saskatoon. It is quite true, as my colleague the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) reminds me, that hardly ever are they signed, and if they are signed it is difficult to read them. If one is able to decipher the signatures you find that some of the people are storekeepers, doctors, and so on. I suppose this is the area in which the minister travels.
If we are trying to be sincere about net income, why do we not get to the real crunch of the question and divide the bill and discuss it. The minister has not yet come up with a good reason for not dividing the bill in such a way that the western producers and agricultural ministers could consider it in depth, and then let the minister and his department consider and accept some of the proposals

made. Surely he does not think he is the end-all in respect of knowledge concerning the agricultural community.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what he does think.


John Leroy Skoberg: That is quite true. People who have no real knowledge or practical experience in the field in which they are dealing are those who are trying to bring about direction in this country. Instead of having practical people bringing about this type of educational process, we have ministers who have no practical knowledge.
If we consider the problems facing this House, then look at this amendment and the question of the net income of farmers, it is interesting to note the situation. We have a minister responsible for the Wheat Board and for immigration and manpower who is also the minister who has suggested the Local Opportunities program, as they call the new program for this winter, which they are afraid to start too early because the snow might not fly for another two weeks or so. This minister is responsible for all these areas. How could he possibly be thoroughly familiar and conversant with the area affecting the income of the agricultural producer?
It would seem to me that if the Prime Minister wanted to perform a real service to this country he would divide the portfolio of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt. He ought to look into the situation and place somebody else in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. This stabilization plan, involving the net income of the farmer, is a full-time, on-the-ground process. How can any minister be conversant with the problems of each and every department he has been given an interest in and supervision of?
It would seem to me that the agricultural producer in this country has been shortchanged by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister when a minister is not put completely in charge of the agricultural economy. We have a minister of agriculture from the west and a minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, also from the west. I think each looks to the other and wonders what jurisdiction each has. In the end, damn little is done for the agricultural economy. We hear much about the number of people who are urging that we adopt the stabilization plan in order to get this so-called $100 million. However, we should consider the people who are still opposed to it. An advertisement in a Regina paper tried to associate the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool with it, and yesterday the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool made very clear that they are not associated with the advertisement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough
October 5, 1971

(Mr. Macquarrie)-United Nations-Canadian action to achieve representation for Mainland China and Taiwan; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Income Tax-Effect of amendments on credit unions; the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise)-Consumer Affairs- alleged pressure by banks to accept credit cards.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member can ask a question only with the unanimous consent of the House, because the time of the hon. member who had the floor has expired. Does the hon. member wish the Chair to ask if there is unanimous consent of the House?


John Leroy Skoberg: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) may ask a question of the hon. member who had the floor?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the hon. member would study the advertisement he would notice that it suggests that in the year 1973 the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act will be down to approximately $13 million, which would mean less than 250 million bushels of wheat in storage. Has the hon. member any figures which would relate this situation to the storage position of the past ten years and the past 20 years, in order to give any validity to the $13 million figure that is used in the advertisement?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I think we still have the problem in the House of getting only part of the question because of the type of sound system we have. Would the hon. member repeat his question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would be glad to. In the advertisement that the hon. member referred to in his speech there is the suggestion that next year-the suggestion is in black print-the payment will be less under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and that by 1973 it will be down to approximately $13 million. If the storage is calculated at one and three quarters cents per bushel per month, this figures out to less than 250 million bushels in commercial storage. Could the hon. member give the House some idea
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
as to how this compares with the average over the past ten years and the ten years before that?


John Leroy Skoberg: I will be glad to do so. The information I have is that the ten-year average from 1950 to 1959 was 460,017 million bushels, and the ten-year average from 1960 to 1969 was 557,291 million bushels. Of course, this brings out the point that we are trying to do better under the concessional sales and the minister always says how much better things are now. I give him credit for extending this type of sale and getting back to long-term concessional sales. But at one time someone in his department terminated concessional sales to the extent that other countries picked up the exports this country used to make, and only lately have we been able to get back into them.
Under the plan before us, any long-term concessional sales will be charged against the pool. If there is a difference in the interest rate on overseas sales and the cost of money to the pool in Canada, the minister is well aware- he is shaking his head-that in this case the pool pays the extra money.
In the United States, when grain is produced it becomes the property of the country and the producer receives credit for his grain. In Canada, this government refuses to accept the fact that grain is a national asset. If they would accept that fact, then possibly we could do more business so that the economy of the agricultural producer would be improved.
We realize that the Minister of Supply and Services referred to double-talk and suggested that we are playing politics. He asked who really understood the situation. Not too long ago the minister in charge of the Wheat Board made it very clear that he thought there should be more consultation with the people affected. When he was asked what he would do, he suggested without hesitation that there should be more consultation with the producer so that he would have more knowledge of what is going on. Yet when the ministers of agriculture from Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan came to Ottawa last Friday to do what the minister suggested, he turned them down flat. It was unfortunate that they went back to their respective provinces, reported that everything looked rosy and then found out on Monday that things were not so rosy.
With reference to the double-talk and double-cross which we have experienced, let me point out that the minister himself asked the minister of agriculture from Saskatchewan whether he would try to do something to delay the court proceedings there. It makes one wonder why he would do that to people in whom he places his trust. It makes one wonder whether the Prime Minister is looking at November 29 for a federal election, because this would get him over the hump. It makes one wonder whether the real reason they could not delay debate on this legislation for a cooling-off period of one week was because on November 29 there might be a federal election. Time will tell. I am not sure that even the great white father, the right hon. Prime Minister, would tell his colleague the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether this will be the case. If we are going to be serious about

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
this situation, it is the responsibility of this minister and of the government to do something about it.
Another point came up this afternoon when the Minister of Supply and Services spoke about the $80 million in association with the employment support bill that was passed by the House. That was a clear indication that the NDP tried to include agriculture and fisheries under the $80 million, but we were voted down. Then the Minister of Supply and Services stood up today and spoke about the assistance that agriculture is receiving under the employment support bill. It seemed strange that if he was so knowledgeable at that time he did not vote in favour of our amendment to include agriculture and fisheries under that bill.
I am sure other hon. members would like to say a word or two on the amendments before us. We must get back to the basic problem. If we allow corruption to take place in the handling of agricultural problems, then of course the government will stand condemned because they have deliberately tried to use every avenue for double-crossing the western agricultural producer.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I rise to take part in the debate, not to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. The amendment before the House, contrary to what some hon. members such as the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) may think, is crucial: it goes right to the core of the bill.


Mr. Faulkner:: If that is the case, put it to a vote.


William Arnold Peters: A vote does not prove anything except that you have more members than we have. Let us have a vote in the country. Take it to the people. The Prime Minister lies to the country. Why does he not take it to the country?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member who has the floor could be allowed to at least commence his speech before other conversations take place.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The subamendment was moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It amended the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). As I said before, it goes to the very core of the issue that we are discussing today and have discussed for the past few days in the House. The amendment and the subamendment deal essentially with a new formula which would make the stabilization plan one that could be accepted by western farmers and western farm organizations.
It seems to me very strange that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) will not listen to some of the suggestions that come from this side of the House. We do not pretend to be experts, to know it all, to have all the answers to the farm problems. We are not like the minister in that respect. But one thing we do know is that farm organizations and farmers themselves are not very happy with the bill that is before us. For that reason we are doing all we can to change the bill and to make it more acceptable to the farmers.
I suggest to the minister that we will continue as long as we can and as emphatically as we can to convince him that he should change the bill which he presented to the House. This past summer when I was out in my constit-

uency I had the opportunity to speak with literally hundreds of farmers. One of their main concerns was with the stabilization bill, the way it was drafted and the formula that would be applied to them if it passed the House.
These farmers are not letting us pull the wool over their eyes. They know what is happening. They knew what was happening in the provincial election when they studied the stabilization bill. The results of that election are indicative of what they thought of some of the proposals in the stabilization bill. It is very significant, as I and many of my colleagues have said, that all the major farm organizations are unanimous in their opposition to the bill before us, organizations such as the wheat pools of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, the Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers Union and the United Grain Growers. All the main organizations and farm spokesmen are unanimous in saying that this bill is not good enough and that it must be changed if it is to help meaningfully farmers in the western provinces.
We have the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta which differ in their ideology and in their interpretation of the policies that should be presented to their people. But despite that they are unanimous in their conclusion that this bill will not help the farmers. The ministers of these provinces came to Ottawa last Friday to meet with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. They presented to him in a very sincere and serious way some alternatives which he should consider for changing the regulations and some of the main features of this bill. It is our understanding that as a result of that meeting the minister agreed to consider most seriously some of these recommendations which would change the bill and take into account costs of production, net income, and other matters.
Then suddenly we find that although a moratorium of one week was promised we are discussing Bill C-244 once again. Did the minister double-cross the ministers of agriculture of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta; and, if so, why did he do this? Perhaps we are too harsh with the minister. We are calling him all sorts of names. I think the minister sincerely wanted to consider some of these changes, but he went to the Prime Minister's office and was told, "No, thou shalt not do this, Otto", and Otto had to come back here and reintroduce the bill yesterday afternoon. I think that is the story. The minister probably tried. Perhaps the minister says different things in cabinet meetings than he does in the House, but the Prime Minister runs this country with an iron fist, in a unilateral and autocratic way.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, since these things are said in the House in my presence, I think I should rise on a question of privilege to say that the hon. member is speaking complete and utter nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege that has been raised-
October 5, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: On the question of privilege that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling on whether the intervention of the minister in any way, shape or form constituted a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is very easy for the Chair to decide this question. The point raised by the minister is mainly an argument and a question of debate and has nothing to do with the principle of a question of privilege as established by the rules of this House. At the same time, the Chair feels that the use of such language is not customary in this House and would hope that hon. members would not lower the level of debate and not destroy the established rules.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said what he did. It seems to me that he is telling the truth but he insinuates that the provincial ministers of agriculture might not have told the truth when they said they had an agreement with him that he would go back and consider the proposal to have a moratorium of one week. Were the three ministers of agriculture not telling the truth? I hope the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will at least have enough common courtesy to trust the ministers of agriculture of the three prairie provinces.
I am amazed that the minister would not listen to the ministers of agriculture of the prairie provinces, that he would show such lack of sensitivity toward the western farmers whom he is supposed to represent. I was sure he would at least consider their recommendations and would not double-cross them by bringing this bill back suddenly as he has done. Perhaps the decision was not taken in the Prime Minister's office. If it was not, I am very surprised that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board would take the responsibility on his own shoulders. I am sure farmers in my constituency and all across the Prairies will be very interested to know that the minister himself unilaterally made this decision and not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I have said all along that the farm organizations do not want this bill. We should listen to them and do some of the things they suggest. Do we not do this because we are afraid of the farmers, afraid of their ideas and of letting them participate? All we are asking on this side of the House is that we have a stabilization bill which is acceptable to the farmers of this country.
Earlier today the minister said that perhaps the figures used by the Prime Minister in his telecast on Sunday night were not correct. I think all of us listened to the Prime Minister. I have before me the transcript of what he said. He was talking about the $112 million that will be given to the farmers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act if it remains in effect. To set the record straight, I should like to quote a short excerpt from his remark as follows:
Let's first compare them in terms of money. For the last crop year, under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, we would be in process of paying the western farmer $62 million, for the crop year which we are now in, we would probably have to pay him some time next year something like $30 million, and for the crop year after that $20 million, for a total of $112 million.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
These are the figures used by the Prime Minister, the figures which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board tried to change today. I think the minister should consult more closely with the Prime Minister's office, because the Prime Minister will probably want to change some of the things the minister has been saying to us.
The amendments before us are crucial to this bill. The government should listen and accept them. If they would accept these amendments and bring the costs of production and the net income of farmers into consideration, then I am sure that members of the opposition would be more favourably impressed by the bill and would consider giving it speedy passage. If the minister is at all sincere, then we can send the $100 million out to the farmers immediately, as was suggested today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). We could then study the stabilization bill more closely, listen to the farm organizations and perhaps iron out some of the things that they do not like.
Some members who have participated in this debate are familiar with an advertisement which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post protesting against some opposition members speaking against the stabilization bill. The advertisement states that the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has now joined the government in approving this bill. But I think he would like us to make it clear that this is not the case, that it is misleading advertising and that he is not in favour of the bill. The wheat pool speaks for tens of thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool radio report of September 29 began as follows:
With all the opposition to the proposed grain receipts and income stabilization plan, it's time government took a fresh look at its proposals.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other farm organizations have suggested a number of changes to the plan because it does little to improve the individual farmer's net income. They have pointed out that income would be stabilized at too low a level.
That can hardly be interpreted as support for the stabilization bill, and it is a very good indication of where the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool stands. I could go on and on reading press statements of the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool and other farm organizations, all of them saying that the bill before us is not good enough and asking that changes be introduced immediately.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board, and the Prime Minister, have said that we have a choice between A and B-the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the stabilization bill. I am sure that anyone who thinks at all knows that this is not the case. It is not so clear. First of all, we cannot just consider the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The PFAA, for example, will disappear if we pass the bill before us.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, a good argument could be made to show that the farmers will not receive $170 million, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested, but only $65 million over the next two years. That is the picture if one considers only the short-term aspects of the bill.
Another matter concerning many of my constituents and people throughout our farming community is the

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
long-term ramifications of Bill C-244. The figure of $35 million was used by the Prime Minister on Sunday evening in this telecast. This figure, which is supposed to be paid out of the federal treasury each year, was based on total receipts of $900 million in the grains industry. Four per cent of that figure is $35 million. Let me remind hon. members that in many years less than $900 million worth of grain will be sold. In some years we may sell only $700 million or $800 million worth which means that only $28 million or $32 million per year will be contributed from the federal treasury to farmers over the long term. That is to say, over the long term the farmer who gets this money will be no better off. He might only get about $28 million, $32 million or $35 million from the federal treasury every year.Those amounts will apply only to farmers who will be getting benefits from the stabilization fund.
Many of my colleagues and some farm organizations have pointed out that not all farmers will necessarily benefit from the fund as it is presently constituted. Many parts of the plan and some of the regulations to be brought in may prevent a farmer receiving benefits from the fund unless the bill is amended. Therefore, in the long term the fund will not help the farmer and it will not stabilize farm income. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, at best the plan will be but an insurance policy. If there happens to be a disastrous year, it will insure a certain proportion of income received by the grain farmer.
Many other things have been said about the fund. Arguments have been put forward as to why we should very seriously consider the amendments which are before the House. Hon. members have pointed out that the bill does not take into account the real costs of production. Why should the farmer have to bear the brunt of increased production costs? Why should farmers have to subsidize food stores or the consumer part of our economy? Why should not a farmer at least be paid an increasing amount, so that he can keep up with increases in production costs?
The minister said yesterday that you could not include in a stabilization bill a clause to take into consideration costs of production. I submit that you could easily do that. It has been done in other government plans. I am sure that an economist could easily work out such a provision which could be incorporated in the bill we are discussing. Why do we not listen to farmers and farm organizations and introduce into this bill or a bill like it a two-price system for grain? That would help, in a genuine and immediate way, the farmers of western Canada, particularly those in the middle and lower income brackets.
There is another long-term consideration we ought to take into account when debating this bill. If the bill passes it will stabilize farm incomes at a very low level. According to people who know more about this subject than most members of the House, this bill will be the first step toward implementing the recommendations of the task force on agriculture. Those task force recommendations seek to expedite the exodus of people from rural Canada to urban centres. Really we are talking about a whole life style which is being threatened by the provisions of the bill. We are talking about the culture of our rural society. Why do we continue pushing people from the small centres and farms into the large, unplanned cities? These are matters we ought to consider and deal with in a bill of this

sort. It is only natural that we should consider these issues. They should be top priorities, and not the priorities the minister seems to have given them.
I say as sincerely as I can that the minister ought to consider accepting some of the recommendations of the three prairie ministers of agriculture. The minister should again look at the briefs of the wheat pools of the provinces, at the briefs presented by the Farmers Union and the Federation of Agriculture and adopt some of the amendments they suggest. That would not cost very much and would be fair to the farmer. That is all I am asking. Let us bring in a bill that the farmer wants and from which he will benefit.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the government has done badly by me, for the simple reason that I was of the opinion that this matter would not be discussed today. I spoke to three cabinet ministers from the Prairies who but recently came to Ottawa, who informed me that they had a proposition which was fairly complicated. Actually, their proposal was so complicated that I would have needed some time to understand what was being proposed with regard to Bill C-244. In any event, I was informed by the three prairie ministers that this matter would be stood over for a week. It was therefore with much surprise that I watched television on Sunday night and saw that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who knows less about wheat than I do-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: -was involved in this matter. I was surprised to find that he had not been briefed adequately and that he did not put forward an honest proposition to the Canadian people. That shocked me. Obviously, he was saying to the opposition, "Put up or shut up." We will not give the minister the credit for negotiating directly with the parties, because Parliament will make the ultimate decision.
Certain alleged facts have been discussed this afternoon. I am sure that most hon. members would agree that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) did not tell the entire story in respect of the figures he used. The farmers of western Canada are not the least bit confused by the situation. They are living from day to day. They know how much income they enjoy and where that income comes from.
As has been made clear, the subamendment before the House seeks to apply the stabilization bill to a grain farmer's net income rather than to his gross income. The farmers of western Canada know what goes into gross income. They know that this year they grew a bumper crop of between 1.25 billion and 1.5 billion bushels of wheat. The western farmer also knows that under normal conditions a crop this size means that he will get considerably more money than he would in years of lesser production. Two or three years ago the farmer was talking about $2 per bushel of wheat; he was anticipating that No. 1 Northern would fetch $2 per bushel. The Liberal party promised a two-price system as well as $2 plus per bushel. The farmer found that prices were around $1.76 a bushel. Now, Mr. Speaker, with a bumper crop the farmer is getting $1.42.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is shocking.
October 5, 1971


William Arnold Peters: It is sad that farmers' costs did not go down at all. It costs just as much to fertilize an acre of wheat land in western Canada-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It costs more under Liberal inflation.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. As the hon. member points out, under inflation everything costs more. Every year the increase is 4, 5 or 6 per cent. At any rate, the farmer puts on the same amount of fertilizer, at a higher cost. He drives a tractor which uses as much gasoline or kerosene as before, but gasoline and kerosene cost more. The farmer uses the same number of hired men, at higher wages. He must borrow more money now to operate his farm and pay considerably more interest on it than before.
All the factors that go into production costs have increased. At the same time, the farmer is getting less for his produce than before. The more he produces, the less he gets. I think it is a fact that the farmers break-even point is considerably higher than even the gross income that he is receiving. Hence, the farmer is in a deficit position now. The higher prices go, the worse his position will become. This bill does not take that factor into consideration at all.
Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) set up a task force on agriculture. There have been two major agricultural meetings in Canada. Several major recommendations were made to the government. One was that the government stabilize the income of western farmers. This, of course, is where the government got the crackpot notion that eventually evolved into this ludicrous bill. It is supposed to give the farmer something but it will take away more than it gives. There are other factors.
The minister spoke about the right of the government to refuse to make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We were told in committee that the costs of storing over 180 million bushels of grain in a crop year were to be paid to the farmer at the rate of seven, eight or nine cents a bushel. Unless the system of storage in elevators, the method of handling grain in the terminals and the transit and loading systems are changed, you are not likely to get away from the fact there has to be in storage the production of one or two crop years. That production can be stored in a number of places.
A few minutes ago my colleague very eloquently pointed out that it is time the government made up its mind about what it intends to do with regard to storage. Other countries have done this. The government will have to develop a grain supply bank in Canada to meet our commitments. This must be for an extended period of time, at least three years. The government, the country and the economy are interrelated in the production of western grains. If we do not keep a large enough supply on hand to meet our commitments in case there is a disaster in an area of grain production, we will not keep up with what is a normal pattern in other countries.
Governments of other countries are responsible for the sale and storage of food. This relieves the farmer of storage costs. To say that the Wheat Board is responsible for the costs, and the final payment to the farmer is the selling price less the costs, obviously puts all the costs
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
back on the farmer. I suggest that this will have to be taken care of by the farmer. I refer specifically to the costs of the farmer. If the costs are not in the elevator system or under the control of the Wheat Board, obviously they are on the farm. We are told it will cost the farmer more than eight or nine cents a bushel to store grain on the farm. If the farmer has to build elevators or storage bins to keep his grain in a fit condition to be put on the market at the maximum price, it will require a large cash outlay on his part. This cost will come out of the farmer's net income, not gross.
When talking about the discontinuance of storage costs the government did not mention another additional cost that the farmer will have. If we wipe out the six, eight, ten or fifteen million dollars under PFAA, the farmer will have to carry additional insurance to cover disasters. We are wiping out this $6 million or $8 million. These payments did not go into a fund; they went into the farmer's pocket in areas where it was necessary.
Everyone knows the Prime Minister is pretty slick when it comes to handling figures. However, we thought he would have protected himself as the minister did today. The minister protected himself in six directions; he used six different sets of figures. I quote from a transcript of the Prime Minister's remarks:
-we would be paying for three years $170 million to the western farmer instead of $112 million, which he would be now getting under the grains stabilization program (sic-should read Temporary Wheat Reserves Act).
I do not know what "sic" means. I suppose that is the little boys in the backroom. I think the Prime Minister should have read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is only one of the mistakes he made that night.


William Arnold Peters: The minister indicated that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act payment would amount to only $38 million. That is not what the Prime Minister said in his statement. Where did he get the figures? Was he given the figures, or did he get them from the bright boys he has around him? If he did, I apologize because he was obviously misinformed. If he got them from the minister, he was not misinformed; he was informed exactly the way the minister wanted him to be informed. If that is so, he cannot have it another way today. On the other hand, the $35 million the minister talked about today is an estimate. It could be more and it could be less. Unless there is a serious deterioration in the gross sales of wheat, the farmer will not get $35 million. As my hon. friend pointed out, a fund will get the $35 million.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was pointing out that the statements which were made this afternoon by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board were greatly at variance with those made by the Prime Minister in the course of his television broadcast. In that broadcast the Prime Minister said that over the next three years we would be paying out $170 million to western farmers instead of $112 million.
It was contended this afternoon that the figures were not necessarily of that order. The minister put forward several other propositions. As I was reading the text of the broadcast it occurred to me that I had expected the Prime Minister to couch it in more legalistic terms. I am surprised to find he did not. When he mentioned $35 million for the present year and a probable $35 million in the coming year, he must have known that payments will not be made to the farmer unless gross receipts fall below 90 per cent of those for the qualifying period. The Prime Minister must have known this. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) knew it and I am sure the minister responsible for the Wheat Board knew it.
The Prime Minister made another statement which in my opinion is not true. He said the farmer would only be paying in $1 for every $3 he would be taking out. This is in relation to the $35 million. Mr. Speaker, this is not in the bill. The bill says the farmer will have to pay 2 per cent of his gross sales and that the government will match this with 4 per cent of the same gross sales. This is a ratio of 1 to 2, or 2 to 4; it is not 1 to 3. This is totally dishonest.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Indeed it is. You are the one who is being dishonest.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary should read the bill. This is an amendment to an amendment to the bill. The bill says the farmer shall pay 2 per cent of his gross earnings and that the government will pay 4 per cent.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That is three out to one in for the farmer.


William Arnold Peters: How is it possible to reconcile this with the statement by the Prime Minister that the farmer would only be paying in $1 for every $3 he would be taking out. Indeed, the farmer would not necessarily be taking out anything, because we do not expect the situation to worsen by 10 per cent. In any case, he would not be putting in money at a ratio of 1 to 3; he would be putting it in at the ratio of 2 to 4.
I consider there are many major loopholes in the explanation which was given. The explanation of the Prime Minister was made, I presume, because of the opposition he is encountering from those who are interested in the legal problem rather than in the mechanics of the bill before us. A question has been raised as to whether the farmers of western Canada have been consulted. They have been consulted. They were consulted during the election campaign in Saskatchewan. This was a major issue during that campaign. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board made it an election issue. The former leader of the government in that province also made it an election issue. Therefore, a decision has been made in that province.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: I will at the end of my speech; I have only a few minutes left. Concern has also recently been expressed by the farmers, and they made a decision on the matter. We have also had considerable reaction from the newly elected government of Alberta and the recently elected government in the province of Manitoba.
On many occasions the federal government has told us that provincial representations must be considered. The three agriculture ministers asked for a meeting with the minister, came to Ottawa and reached an agreement that there would be a moratorium on discussion of this legislation until they were able to put forward a proposition. That proposition, in the main, is that contained in both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment that are now before the House, and basically it is that we move from a gross sales income base to a net sales income base.
Although the government might have considered this proposal, in view of the legal problems that have arisen from the inability or unwillingness of the government to meet their commitments under another act the Prime Minister decided that we should continue the debate, that now was the time to discuss this issue and that there would be no opportunity for a consideration of the proposal put before Parliament, through the minister, by the Ministers of Agriculture of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, might I put my question now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time having expired, a question can be asked now only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the question cannot be put.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) which proposes a base period for calculating costs of production. The minister and some of his colleagues have contended that the costs of production feature is unworkable. I am prepared to assume that the minister is correct, provided he brings in some other feature in substitution for the subamendment. If the minister would agree to have the bill sent back to the agricultural committee for one day, to which I am sure my colleagues on my right would agree, he could then put forward an amendment to incorporate some sort of escalation feature in this bill of a sort that the farm organizations and grain growers of the three prairie provinces could accept.
The minister refuses to do this, insisting that this feature is unworkable. I do not think it is. If our suggestion is unworkable, then a base year 1970-71 for calculating costs of production must be workable in one way or another. If the minister were to draw on his research staff and on all
October 5, 1971

the brains among the backbenchers in the rump, I am sure he could bring in some changes to the bill. I have seen some pretty bad looking rumps in my day, Mr. Speaker, but this is ridiculous. If hon. members opposite were to incorporate some kind of escalation feature into the bill to take account of the rising costs of production facing our grain growers, then they would find a great deal less difficulty getting this kind of legislation through the House.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and every member of the House from Thunder Bay to Rocky Mountain has tried very hard this spring, summer and fall to keep in touch with the grain growers and farm organizations.


John Leroy Skoberg: There are not too many Liberals among them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They all have stubble behind their ears, anyway, and would not know a bushel of grain from a bucket of bolts. I find it passing strange that the House is short of prairie Liberal members tonight, though we are short of them anyway, thank goodness.


Mr. Gibson:: We will win the seats there next time. If you keep talking they will soon see the light.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Not by the candle you are carrying.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Opposition to this bill does not come solely from people like the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) or myself. Opposition to it continues from the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba wheat pools, let me remind hon. members opposite. Opposition continues from the National Farmers Union, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, from the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba federations of agriculture and from the United Grain Growers grain handling company.
All of these organizations, or most of them, are called a bunch of raving, wild-eyed radicals by members on the opposite side of the House because they have continued to oppose the bill since lodging their original objections last May and June. Unless some kind of cost of production escalation feature is built into the bill, this legislation, as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said, is unacceptable.
Last night I was in a place called Nokomis, Saskatchewan, and met grain growers from Drake, Lockwood, Govan and other sundry communities around Nokomis who asked me two questions. The first was: When are we getting the money that is owing to us? The second was: When is the government going to give the grain growers of the prairie provinces the same kind of treatment given people in Ontario and the province of Quebec? I get this kind of static from NDP'ers, Conservatives and Liberals. I am wondering if I said something wrong, because one Liberal-and that is better than usual-said I was doing a good job down here.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This has me wondering what I have done wrong.


An hon. Member:: Tell us more about yourself.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me repeat that the opposition to this legislation does not come from Conservative and NDP members alone. Some Conservatives are nervous about it but, like a bunch of willy-nillies, they would be. The opposition does not come from a few of us on this side alone; it also comes from organizations which represent the grain growers in the three prairie provinces. These are the kind of people who helped elect myself, the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt (Mr. Lang).
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, who is supposed to be in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, made three safaris into the Prairies this past summer in an effort to gain some or any kind of support for this bill. He has tried to gain any or some kind of opposition to amendments moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Skeena. I am afraid his efforts were to no avail. Some fellows try hard but they are born losers.


An hon. Member:: And they never know they are.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This full-page, colour advertisement which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post looks more expensive than my suit. It looks even better than my pyjamas.


An hon. Member:: It cost more, too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This full-page, colour ad which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post on Friday and Saturday night is entitled, "Your choice, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act or the grain stabilization bill".


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me inform the House who the sponsors of this publication were. We have not been able to find out who put up the $5,000 or $6,000 for these coloured ads, but we do know that the minister made a recent frantic effort to get support for this legislation from some or any place in the three prairie provinces. We know that he went to inordinate lengths in the past week in respect of building in the costs of production. But the fact is that the grain growers I talked to in Nokomis, under natural gas light, said the problem is that whether it is the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act or the grain stabilization bill, they still lose. They said that if we could get something better for them we should keep trying if it takes until New Year. I pass on that little message to gentlemen opposite. Let me repeat in one sentence what has been said ad nauseam in this House. These grain growers and Members of Parliament from the west will not be bribed or blackmailed.


An hon. Member:: Where are the western members?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the minister made his safaris to the prairie provinces to get support for this legislation and opposition to the kind of changes asked for by members of the grain organizations. They have put forward a number of suggestions which have been repeated in this House by members of the opposition. All the minister succeeded in getting was this full-page, colour ad. It states in part that it is authorized by the Keep the Stabilization Plan Committee. That is a very important and

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
high-sounding title. It reminds me of the Keep our Doctors Committee which was in existence when the Liberal dinosaurs were in Saskatchewan fighting medicare. This is the same breed of cat.


An hon. Member:: There was a lot of dough behind that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The ad suggests that the stabilization plan was endorsed in principle by the Palliser Wheat Growers Association. I am still wondering about those fellows because methinks they protest too much on account of certain people in the Winnipeg grain exchange. The advertisement suggests that the plan is supported by the Rape Growers Association. There may be something in favour of growing rape, but these growers seem to suggest they are subject to it. The ad also suggests that the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool endorses the stabilization plan. Let me read what the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is reported as having said in respect of building into this legislation costs of production. Perhaps I should first of all say that last night and this morning the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was reported to have said, and I refer to the Regina Leader-Post under the heading, "Wheat pool president denies Bill 244 endorsed":
Monday, E. K. Turner, president of the pool, issued a news release denying that he or his organization supported Bill C-244, the proposed plan.
"Our position was misrepresented in both cases"-
The words "both cases" means the outfit that put this ad in the paper, and the editorial writers of the Regina Leader-Post. The article continues:
"We have not endorsed and will not endorse the proposed income stabilization plan because in our view it is inadequate," said Mr. Turner.
He said the wheat pool would support a stabilization plan-
He laid down three conditions under which it would support the government's bill, and if the government wants me to shut up it will adopt these three suggestions. The first is that an amendment should be made so that annual increases in production costs could be taken into account when calculating the grains income shortfall. That is the kind of provision that we propose in the amendment we are debating.
The second suggestion is that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, to be eliminated under this bill, should be replaced with a storage plan to cover a normal reserve stock of grain. The government heard about that little point some time ago. The third suggestion is that the price of wheat consumed in Canada-that is, human consumption-should be increased by $1 per bushel. The President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool reiterated what he said to the agricultural committee last spring, and disavowed this piece of garbage.
Let me tell you who put this piece of garbage in the newspaper. One of them happens to be-this will shake you because they are supposed to be grain growers- Donald K. McPherson, Liberal MLA for Regina Southwest. That riding is in my riding. I am sad to state that we do not grow a damn bushel of wheat in that riding-but that is the kind of support the minister in charge of the Wheat Board received. The other sponsor of this ad happens to be the son of a Liberal candidate who was defeated last June. He is a practising lawyer in Regina. He is a

very nice fellow and I go goose hunting with him once in a while.


An hon. Member:: Who gets the goose?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This ad invites grain farmers to submit a coupon. We have been through this procedure before. The Tories did it in respect of a tax bill and the Liberals are now doing it in respect of the grain stabilization bill. Both these parties have the imagination of a doorknob. I am sure all hon. members are receiving letters about this measure. I received one from 416 Preston Avenue, Saskatoon. I am sure they grow lots of wheat there! I received one from Riel Crescent in Saskatoon, and they do not grow any wheat there. I received another from Preston Avenue, and they do not grow even a bushel of gophers there. I got another letter from 652 East Place, Saskatoon, and they do not grow any wheat there. This is the kind of support Mr. Lang is getting in respect of his position on this bill. I have received 34 communications to date, of which two were from grain farmers. The rest are from the Liberal heelers who belong in that party and who betray Canada and the grain growers in the three prairie provinces.
Unless the minister is prepared to build into this bill some provision, not necessarily our amendment or subamendment, which takes into account the increasing costs of production, then I am sorry-we hate to do this to you, Mr. Speaker-but we will be here for quite a while. This is what it is all about. For the first time in many years, through all the multitudinous times this subject has been raised in the House in the question period, during the "late shows" and various debates, this is the first piece of major, long-term legislation that for the next ten years will set the law for the grain industry in the three prairie provinces.
As a consequence, hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen), will realize that this is the last opportunity we will have for a long time to get the kind of changes and additions to the grains legislation we have been pleading for in western Canada for a number of years. We have no choice; we must make our fight now.
If hon. gentlemen opposite think we are just playing around or kidding, as sincerely as I can I would assure them that is not the name of the game. I want them to know that my colleagues-and I am certain some of the gentlemen to my right and possibly some in the Liberal ranks-are prepared to place our political lives on the line on this issue. We have fought for many years to get this kind of legislation. We have asked and pleaded for it for at least 15 years.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board now proposes long-term legislation which perverts the word "stabilization". I plead with hon. gentlemen opposite to use whatever influence they might have with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, with the cabinet and with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Of course, there is not enough money in it and until enough money is put into it in a meaningful and significant way, this legislation so far as I am concerned will not pass. That is what we are up to. I put it plainly and simply in those terms. The grain
October 5, 1971

growers in the three prairie provinces have been asking for legislation which would give them the same kind of treatment that is given to the gold mines, the textile industry and the uranium industry. That is all they are asking. They are not asking for anything they have neither earned nor deserved.
The western grain growers are asking for recognition of their efficiency, their production and their contribution to this nation. The result of this legislation would be that between now and 1980 no payments will have been made out of the stabilization fund, and in the meantime 12,000 to 20,000 more grain producers will have disappeared and will have contributed to the fund, not having received anything back. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) claims that the government is putting more money into the grain growing industry under this bill than under the previous legislation, I submit he is incorrect, to be polite. The government will pay out $100 million. It will save in the previous crop year $62 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much that I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time appears to have expired.


John Leroy Skoberg: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When debates of this nature are being carried on, is it required that at least one minister responsible for the bill be in the House to hear the observations that are made?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment partly because I wish to comment on the figures given by the minister as to the amount of money that would be owing under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act versus Bill C-244. The minister stated that there is $62.1 million owing already, with $30.8 million likely, and an estimated $20 million for the present crop year. But the minister stated that only $38.6 million will reach the farmers out of the $62.1 million. He implied that the balance, $23.5 million, would not reach the farmers and would not be used.
I should like to point out that this money goes to the Wheat Board to be used in its operations in taking care of pools which have been in deficit, and under the new act, when a pool is in trouble it will be paid a sum out of the stabilization fund to help them with carrying charges, and so on, related to grain in storage. Almost certainly, if this bill should pass in its present form there will have to be an increase in the handling charges of grain, so the farmers will have to make further payments out of the proceeds from their grain in order to make up what was the government's obligation under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
Although the farmers may not necessarily receive the exact amount of their payments into the pools under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, still it goes to their benefit because it is used to help carry the Wheat Board so that it can provide the service of marketing the grain. The minister stated that with the $100 million that would be paid under Bill C-244, the farmer would be a lot better off. This is not necessarily so, because he included an estimated $17.5 million for the next two years that would be paid
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
out of the farmers' pockets, to be matched by $35 million each year from the government. This, however, will go into the stabilization fund and there will not be any immediate benefit to the farmer unless there should be a disastrous crop failure.
The effect of this legislation, really, is that the government will not be paying out any substantial amount of money in the next five years. Unless there should be a tremendous disaster, it will not have to pay out any money. So at a time when things are extremely bad the government is able to wash itself of the farm industry for the next five years. What about the prospects for this year, which the minister attempted to say are extremely good? In the Richardson grain letter of September 30 we find these comments:
Reports from around the world paint a rather gloomy picture for the Canadian producer. According to the Canadian commercial officer in New Delhi, India is becoming self-sufficient in wheat. They have already acquired the 5 million tons buffer stock of imported wheat, and the Food Corporation's target of buying four million tons from local farmers has already been exceeded by one million tons. Supplies are still flowing in steadily, leading to what is being currently referred to as "the problem of plenty". India may not require imports and could well be seeking export markets next year. Some are even so optimistic as to maintain that India's wheat revolution has come to stay to an extent that future poor monsoons will not have any significant effect on production and supplies.
The United Kingdom harvest is expected to be at an all-time high; the EEC countries harvested record crops and the U.S. feed grains production, which includes corn, oats, barley and sorghum, is expected to total 198 million tons, 24 per cent more than last year, and all-wheat production at 1,625 million bushels is a record high. The deficiency countries are mainly in North Africa and the Middle East where we were expected to sell a lot of barley, for one thing, but the Commodity Credit Corporation-an arm of the U.S. department of agriculture-has started to sell barley-
-at a very low price. Referring to oilseeds, the worldwide burdensome supplies of flax are well known and this holds out very little promise for any advance in price. In rapeseed, European supplies are estimated to be 120,000 metric tons more than last year, and with the increase in our own crop of around 30 million bushels we have substantial rapeseed on hand. So hon. members can see that this bill comes at a crucial time for western agriculture.
What are the main problems connected with this bill? I would like to enumerate them as I see them. The fact is that it comes at a time when there have been four years of poor income and only one good year. This gives a very low average on which to base the formula for crop payments. Five years ago it amounted to approximately $1,400 million, but in the last four years it has been between $800 million to $900 million to $1 billion. So in view of the crop expectations, the government will not have to pay out much money from the fund in the next five years, and almost certainly nothing in the next two years. Nevertheless, farmers will be paying 2 per cent of their gross income at a time when they can ill afford it.
What can be done? I suggest that the minister should reduce the farmers' contributions in the next two years to nothing, or at the most to 1 per cent for at least the next five years. After the plan has been in force for five years the amount could be increased to 2 per cent if conditions warrant it. However, at this time to impose a 2 per cent

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
levy is not in the interest of the farmers. Furthermore, for the next two years there should be some base, regardless of what the average is, below which farm income should not be allowed to fall. What this base should be I do not know, but I think it should be in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. Even that would not make a large payment which the government would be obligated to make.
What about payments under the bill? Little thought was given to the type of payment that would have to be made. Agriculture is not a monolithic industry. It is not made up of two, three, four or even ten large companies. It is made up of 200,000 grain producers who live in a large area 400 miles wide by 1,000 or more miles long, people who experience different conditions and whose districts are entirely different.
The fact that payments will not be made for the whole of the designated area below the previous five years' average means that great hardship will result. Of these 200,000 farmers, at any one time and in any one year- even in the best years-10,000 to 20,000 will be in difficulties. They may easily find themselves in serious trouble through no fault of their own, while their neighbours might be enjoying the best financial years of their lives. What will happen if these 10,000 to 20,000 farmers who are in trouble each year have a 2 per cent levy imposed on them in that particular year? What can be done to make this bill more workable?
The least we could do is to make payments to crop districts. At least this would narrow down and help to smooth out some of the injustices. It would prevent discrimination which would take place with this type of pay-out that the government proposes under the bill. Unless something like this is done, the movement of farmers off the land will accelerate and farmers who are in difficulty will be pushed over the edge because they will receive no payment but will in fact have to pay 2 per cent of their meagre gross income in that year. These are some of the comments that I wanted to make on the bill. It is incomprehensible to me that a 2 per cent levy should be applied immediately. It should be reduced to 1 per cent or even to nothing for the first couple of years.
The other point I want to make is that when the program is begun, a different base than the previous five years' average should be established. Finally, the method of payment leaves much to be desired. It is not a good method and I think it could be improved so that a workable solution is found to some of the farm problems.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member seeking the floor?


John Leroy Skoberg: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member is prepared to answer it.


John Leroy Skoberg: I should like to ask whether, in view of the fact that the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture came to Ottawa last Friday, the hon. member thinks that some progress may be made in this debate which we are pursuing, so far as the stabilization plan is concerned?


William Gordon Ritchie: I would hope that the three prairie ministers advanced reasonable solutions. I do not know what they were, but I would be interested to hear them.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, as an indication of how strongly the NDP feels about the legislation before us and how useless it is, they have reached into the wilds of southern Ontario for the wheat expert from Waterloo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: One of the best things that ever happened to the prairie farmers, in my view, was when they elected six members of the NDP in Saskatchewan. This has had two important influences. It is important to know that this debate has been largely conducted by the members from Saskatchewan, assisted by colleagues within their party who have been persuaded about the justice of the cause of the western farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: I am not saying that these are exclusively the only ones; there is the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). But let me point out that the people-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)?


Max Saltsman: Fight with the government, will you? What is obvious is that western constituencies which have placed their faith in the Liberal member whom they elected to Parliament on the assumption that, being a member of the government, he would speak for the farmers must feel a tremendous sense of betrayal as they follow the progress of this debate. Where are the Liberals who always say, "What is the point of electing an opposition member?" What about those who have said, "Elect us so that we can go inside the confines of the government where we will have access to the ear of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and can explain your position"? Instead of bringing the arguments on behalf of the prairie farmer to their colleagues, they have been persuaded that he is not important and they keep quiet. They do not even have enough dignity or integrity to resign. The hopes of the people who sent them here are betrayed.
When the member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) felt that the policies he was advocating in respect of housing were not acceptable to the government, he felt honour-bound to leave the government. When the hon. member for Duver-nay (Mr. Kierans) tried to get the government to understand what was happening to employment in Canada and in the selling of our resources, and could not persuade his colleagues of the merits of his case, he resigned. But there has not been a single resignation of a Liberal member from the west. Instead of resigning on principle to highlight the problems of the prairie farmer and the indignities showered upon him, they are so insensitive to his needs that they defend every criminal act perpetrated on the farmer and attempt to rationalize rather than criticize.
October 5, 1971


An hon. Member:: They are not even here.


Max Saltsman: There has not been a word of criticism from a Liberal on this bill. Is this bill so obviously meritorious that not one Liberal will stand up and say that there are things in it which are wrong and should be changed? The ministers concerned are not even here to listen to the speeches; they do not even want to hear what is said. Is there one Liberal who will stand up and say, "Enough things have been brought to our attention that the bill should be withdrawn for examination, so let's hold it to take another look". It is obvious from everything that has been said that grain growers in the west do not like this bill.


An hon. Member:: Right!


Max Saltsman: Where are their representatives on the government side to speak for them? They are not even in the House tonight. It is left to the city boys to join western representatives in the opposition parties to speak on behalf of the farmers. It is true that I do not know a great deal about growing wheat. There are no wheat fields in the streets of Galt or Waterloo-but there are some things that apply to wheat as they do to any other element in this country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Costs of production.


Max Saltsman: Right, costs of production. There is no reason why farmers cannot be considered in the same light and come to Parliament to ask that their future be looked upon favourably, in the same way that we look upon the future of industrial workers or any other group that comes to Parliament and says, "We are entitled to some sense of security and some sense of support from the other people in our society".
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker, that inflation is a fact of life and we will have to live with it. I do not think there is any economist or any person who is analysing the situation in Canada, the United States or any part of the world who will say that there will not be inflation in future. We hope that it will not be a galloping kind of inflation, but we know we will not be able to hold it down to less than 3 per cent.
This means that every single component the farmer uses to produce wheat will rise in price-his truck, his tools, the petrol, the combine, and so on; even the things he needs in order to exist, that he cannot grow himself and requires for sustenance. The very bread that he grows the wheat for will rise in price because of increasing labour costs and the general increase in the cost of living.
This bill says that the farmer will be compensated only if his gross income drops below a certain level. Every year that goes by, his costs of production will increase at a very substantial rate. Even if his income remains steady and the price of wheat remains what it is today, or even if it increases slightly he will lose out on the deal and be caught in the same squeeze that he has been in since the end of the war. The price increases and his gross income do not equate. It is incredible that a bill which claims to seek to stabilize farm income, to give a measure of justice to the farmer and to protect him against the vicissitudes of market hazards, ignores this elementary possibility.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
The amendment before us is important because it seeks to guarantee the farmer's income by taking costs of production into account. Unless those costs are considered there can be no justice for the farmer on the basis of simply saying, "We will try to maintain your gross income on an average of the last five years". Another bill that was recently before the House also deals with the problem of security. This House passed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which included additional benefits to workers who become unemployed or who cannot work because of ill health. The percentage of the pay which they can draw has been increased. Pregnancy benefits have been allowed under that bill. In fact, what we have done is recognize society's obligations to those who find themselves in difficulty because of technological change or changing market conditions.
Surely the farmer is entitled to the same protection, but this bill does not offer it to him. I think the bill could be drafted to cover it. Acceptance of the subamendment would go a long way toward improving the situation for the farmer. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are times in this House when one of my colleagues will ask a question about wheat or boxcars. When that happens, all we city fellows turn off right away because we know the question period has gone, that this subject is going to dominate. Sometimes we get a little peeved at the energy and enthusiasm with which they put forward their case. But as we follow this bill we can see why they feel as they do; we can sense the real grievance that exists in the prairie provinces about the insensitivity of this government.
Just the other day one of my colleagues blamed Ontario and Quebec. But it is not Ontario and Quebec-certainly not all of Ontario and Quebec. However, there has been a tendency for the Liberal party to think in those terms, and the farmer feels this. Sometimes you get the impression-


John Leroy Skoberg: The minister has arrived.


Max Saltsman: I am delighted to greet the minister.


An hon. Member:: It is nine o'clock.


Max Saltsman: With any luck we may continue this discussion so that we have the vote tomorrow rather than tonight, in which case the minister may feel it was worth his trouble to hear us-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) seeks the floor to ask a question.


Max Saltsman: Certainly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In view of the fact that the member began his remarks with a reference to prairie members, I fail to see why he is taking such an interest as a member from central Canada. How does this bill affect central Canada? Not that I think he is colloquial in his thinking-


An hon. Member:: "Parochial."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -but could he give the House some reason for these remarks?

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Max Saltsman: I am glad the hon. member asked me that question. It demonstrates better than anything else the difference between a democratic socialist and a conservative. As democratic socialists, we are concerned about all people and not just about those immediately surrounding us. It may be that the hon. member for Crowfoot is accustomed to thinking only about those in his neighbourhood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not parochial. The hon. member said "colloquial".


Max Saltsman: I am sure the hon. member is our friend. At least, that is about as close as a conservative can get in his attempts to think like a democratic socialist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: If my hon. friend from Crowfoot hoped, by asking that question, to make me lose my place in my notes, he has succeeded admirably. He asked why I am speaking. I do not pretend, as I said in my opening remarks, to be an authority on wheat. I am speaking because this party's six magnificent representatives from Saskatchewan have been twisting my arm and the arms of others in my party to speak. They said that farmers are part of this country, suggested they should not be the only ones to speak on behalf of farmers and that each member of our party should recognize the interdependence of the farmer and the urban dweller. I recognize that. Their advocacy has worked wonders and that is why I am tonight making a speech on farming.
There is something else that all of us from the city know. Canadian prosperity is based on agriculture. We sometimes forget that our country's prosperity rests on our farmers' ability to provide food efficiently. Before there is any industrial development there must be surpluses of food. We must have a rich and varied agricultural sector. Our farmers have achieved that. Not more than 6 or 7 per cent of our population consists of farmers, which is perhaps why the Liberals who look at these percentages say, "Farmers are not terribly important. They will not matter very much in the next election. After all, we do not hold many seats in the west. Even if we lose Otto Lang, he always has his university to go back to, and Mr. Richardson will not be selling pencils on the street of Winnipeg, so perhaps they are all expendable."


An hon. Member:: What about Pat Mahoney?


Max Saltsman: Pat Mahoney also has a little fund set up for himself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the hon. member is reviewing the future of his colleagues he should refer to them by riding.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That demonstrates the sort of difficulties that can occur when a nonfarmer becomes involved in a debate on farming.


An hon. Member:: Talk about the costs of production.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I appear to be having more difficulty with my colleagues, who are making remarks

and offering reminders, than with the official opposition and members on the government benches.
I wish to make another important point. Wheat is Canada's most important export. In recent years there has been a tendency to forget how important wheat is to Canada's future. There have been oil discoveries; we are exporting gas and a great deal of iron ore. We have forgotten that wheat is a renewable resource. We must remember that.


An hon. Member:: Otto, are you listening?


Max Saltsman: Every year we harvest and sell our wheat, and the next year, if the farmers have done their job in planting it, it grows again. It is renewable, which is not true of oil, gas or minerals. Those resources do not replace themselves. Once they are taken out of the ground, they are lost forever. If we are to pursue an objective in this country, that objective ought to be the export of renewable resources such as wheat and forest products. These are vital commodities and we ought to concentrate on their production.
At present we are undergoing an upheaval. I think we need to develop new trade policies. Our great friends to the south, upon whom the Liberal party from time to time relied when it wanted to get out of trouble, are no longer interested in helping Canadians overcome difficulties caused by our government. The Liberal party which forms the government of the day will have to redirect much of our trade. They will have to cut down the export of non-renewable raw materials. There has been much criticism about the way we export raw materials from this country. The oil and gas will not last forever and will not always be able to meet the insatiable appetite of our neighbour to the south. We will have to rely increasingly in future on our renewable resources to provide the exports of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: The attempts to phase-out the farmer constitute a most foolish policy. He is being punished because there is a glut in a number of products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: If we phase farmers out of production, this country may well regret such a decision. It seems to be government policy to get rid of the farmer. His own productivity has destroyed him. The government wants farming to be undertaken by corporate bodies. It is not hard to see that corporate farming methods will increase efficiency, and we can tell what will happen to our corporate farms. Not much of our industry belongs to us any more. We do not own many of our resources. Farming is one of the few fields we still control. Are we willing to see our farms bought out by the United States in the same way as that country is buying out our forests? Some day a tractor may start somewhere 100 miles below the border, cut a huge swath through Canada and go back with the money and the produce to the United States.


An hon. Member:: Without even stopping for the Customs.
October 5, 1971


Max Saltsman: That is right, perhaps without even stopping for the tax collector. Those corporations will need big machinery. They will not buy it in Canada. They will not buy their merchandise in the little country stores. They will not support any of the towns which are needed if there is to be any kind of society or civilization on the Prairies. Running a combine for 100 miles through the country is certainly no way to develop a country. It may be efficient, but it is not the way this country was built up in the first place.


John Leroy Skoberg: Right on.


Max Saltsman: Most of us in Canada enjoy some kind of subsidy. I am sensitive about that. Speaking as one who lives in a city in southern Ontario and whose preoccupation is with the manufacturing industry of Canada, I am not averse to seeing the farmer get a fair deal through substantial subsidies if necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the minister was granted two extensions. I wonder if the House would not agree to extending the time of the hon. member who has just spoken.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much time of the House this evening discussing the amendment to the amendment which is before us. I think we should recall exactly what this subamendment purports to do for the grain economy of western Canada. In my opinion it seeks to deal with a deduction from the gross grain deliveries of farmers in western Canada. This goes to the root of the problem we are facing today and that is why there is in western Canada such fierce opposition to this legislation.
The government seems to be puzzled about why there should be this opposition. In some respects it questions the validity of that opposition. It appears to me, on the basis of mail that crosses my desk, that there is no support for the bill. I have received a significant number of communications-not to be compared with the number I received about Bill C-176-from constituents who definitely oppose this bill. On the other hand, I have received but one letter from a constituent urging passage of the bill. That constituent is a barley grower. He said he did not benefit in any way, shape or form from the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. He thought this was a good opportunity to get some money out of the federal government which, although it was a one-shot deal, was at least something rather than nothing.
I felt it necessary to remind my constituent that he might be paying a rather high price for this one-shot
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
payment, in view of the fact that this legislation proposes what is in my view a new tax on the western grain economy. That is, in this 2 per cent deduction of gross grain deliveries in the foreseeable future there is no real anticipation of ever receiving anything back.
It is useless for the minister to keep reminding us that if this legislation had been in effect since World War II the farmers would have received almost four times the amount of their deductions. We are in a different factual situation. The minister should know that ever since Canada more or less left the International Wheat Agreement by default we have been consistently faced with smaller grain sales abroad. This has been reflected in the radical decline in prairie farm income in t}ie past five years.


Colin David Gibson: Oh, come on!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The government may have increase shipments but, I ask the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Gibson), at what price? If it has been at a decent price, why have the returns to the farmers been falling so greatly? The net disposable income fell from $1,100 million to something over $500 million in those five years. If something happened to the economy of the area which the hon. member has the privilege of representing, he would be making more noise than is presently being made by the responsible members on this side of the House who represent the area of the country that is suffering most because of the actions of this government.


Colin David Gibson: You are holding up the legislation, not us.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Have you been listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: We are not holding up any legislation. As I pointed out to the constituent who wrote to me about this matter, this is a one-shot deal which will prove to be a rather expensive payment for him in the future. While he may receive something in the order of $500 or less, considering the size of the farms in the area in which the gentleman lives, he will be faced with a deduction from all his barley payments in the future, with no hope of recovery.
These farmers realized that in the early days of the PFAA there was not much hope for adequate payment under the program because the block was too large. When the former Conservative administration took office it reduced the size of the block to make payments more available to farmers who suffered a crop failure.
What is proposed in this bill? We have a block consisting of the entire prairie area plus the Peace River area. It would take a complete and utter climatic disaster, or a continuation of the poor marketing policies of this government, to ever facilitate a future payment. In view of the ever increasing inflation we are faced with, even a decrease in real terms might not be reflected in monetary terms. This five-year average would result in no payment being made to the farmers who had contributed to the program. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that we are not being presented with a viable program for western Canada. I support the amendment to the amendment because it has the objective of reducing the tax that is being imposed on western farmers by the government

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
through this legislation. At this stage we do not need the imposition of another tax.
The government has been paying directly into the western grain economy sums of money in the order of $40 million to $50 million a year. The government proposes to stop paying those sums to introduce a plan which will take money out of the western grain economy and not put anything back into it. I do not care what the minister says about contributing 4 per cent to some fund-this is a general revenue fund. It is like the CNR pension fund; it is non-existent. It is a future commitment that the government might meet at some time. It would be different if we were going to establish a particular pattern of earned interest for the benefit of the western grain economy, but this is not even proposed. It is easy for the minister to talk about a 4 per cent commitment, but when it is just a paper entry it is not meaningful to the western grain economy. For this reason I urge the House to give serious consideration to the amendment. I know it does not solve the problem of the program of the government, but it has an ameliorating effect and should be supported by all members of this House.
*


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to follow the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: The member for Palliser is a very congenial young gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: His riding takes its name from a celebrated British army engineer and explorer, Captain Palliser. The whole region of the Prairies was explored under his orders. After visiting the region for some months, it was described as a semi-arid region which would never be productive and there was no need for any population to settle there. It appears that the original viewpoint of Captain Palliser is being echoed in the kind of policies being put forward by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: After listening to my colleagues from prairie Canada it is apparent that there is substantial opposition to the bill now before us. I am putting it by way of an understatement. The government benches appear to view that kind of opposition as some kind of inflexibility or a move on the part of various parties or the members who represent prairie Canada to create some kind of blockade against very generous, much needed and crucial legislation. This is not my reading of it. It seems to me that if we can assume that a member from a particular region of Canada is not putting forward the views of his constituents, we would say it about every region.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right on.


Mark Willson Rose: The question which occurs to me is this: When member after member representing one of the five great

regions of this country rises to oppose this bill, if they are not speaking for those they represent, who are they speaking for? Are they speaking for the grain industry? Are they speaking for the government? It is obvious they do not speak for the government, because they are sitting on this side of the House. It is well known that I do not represent a constituency in prairie Canada. This is one speech that I hoped I would never be called upon to make. I think there are a number of members who probably shared this aspiration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: This is the highest legislative body in the land, if you leave out the Prime Minister's office which is not a legislative body but an oligarchy.
Mr. Speaker, I am having a very difficult time with certain hecklers around here. This is the body, it seems to me, which should deal with national problems. I do not think there are many members in any party who are so introverted, so ingrown, so parochial that they can consider only issues associated with their particular regions while ignoring others. This is precisely why I, as a member from British Columbia, am now involved in this debate in support of the position taken by my hon. friends in this party and by my good friends in the official opposition. I do so because it has not sunk through very well, in spite of some debate-not substantial debate but some debate-that by and large this bill goes against the grain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mark Willson Rose: There has been a suggestion from the government benches that the opposition is indulging in some kind of filibuster. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) nodding his head. I welcome him to the House. It is a long time since I have seen him. He is really not interested in the grain business. He is interested in the broiler business. This debate has not been unduly prolonged. I think I can say this with reasonable safety. I have in my hand a piece of paper which was published by the research bureau of the national Liberal caucus.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How did you get hold of that?


Mark Willson Rose: It may have been a cabinet leak; I really do not know. But it has come into my possession, and like all good journalists I protect my sources. I assure Your Honour there has been no burglary or anything like that. Maybe someone from prairie Canada, maybe someone from Quebec, secretly opposes this legislation and has placed this information in the hands of the opposition. The charge has been that the opposition is filibustering this bill and that if we would only sit down and be quiet the government would go on to do great things for Canadians. This may be so, but it would be for the first time since I came here three years ago.
The grain stabilization bill received first reading on April 29, 1971. That is not very long ago. At that time there was a miniscule four days of debate. This is an important and controversial piece of legislation, as I think all hon. members will agree, and four days does not seem unduly long for the careful consideration of legislation so vital to the future of western Canada. After that, the bill went to
October 5, 1971

committee. Approximately nine days were spent on that stage. The committee gave the bill a clause by clause study. My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggests I should have said "claw by claw" instead of "clause by clause". It took nine days. I think the general public would be pleased to know that Parliament took a searching look at a piece of legislation which came before it. I see the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) nodding his head; he agrees with me.
After the summer had ended, the bill was brought back to the House for discussion at the report stage on which we are presently engaged. The bill has been back with us four days. I do not think this is spending too much time on a measure which according to the government is worth something like $100 million to the prairie farmers.
While we are considering the subamendment I think it would be worth while to examine the source of this bill. I think it can safely be said that the bill was really born in Winnipeg on June 2, 1968, when a gentleman very important to this country visited that city.


John Leroy Skoberg: Who?


Mark Willson Rose: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of our country. Among other things he is reported to have said that day was the following:
One of the most pressing long-range problems for western farmers is the need for an adequate yearly income to get away from the boom and bust cycle which has become part of prairie farm life. To this end, the Liberals are proposing a plan which in effect, sounds like the equivalent of unemployment insurance for farmers. In good years they would pay into a fund; in bad years they would draw money from the fund, thereby, to a degree, stabilizing their income.
I think most of us would support that concept. So much for the gleam in the eye, so to speak. But when the bill was born it turned out to have some serious abnormalities. One of the most important is that the bill, as contrasted with unemployment insurance, does not apply to individuals. If an individual through no fault of his own becomes unemployed, he needs unemployment assistance. If he has the correct number of stamps on his card and has worked the required number of days, he is eligible for assistance and receives it without equivocation.
The situation is different under this legislation which does not apply to individuals at all but to the average of a group. The hon. member for Palliser ably pointed out that as a result of drought, hail, a grasshopper invasion, even an attack by the Bertha army worms or some other blight peculiar to agriculture on the Prairies, an individual farmer in desperate need of assistance could conceivably be ineligible for assistance under this measure owing to the simple fact that the national average in terms of sales was not sufficiently low to enable him to qualify. Thus, an individual in desperate need of assistance would not get a dime under this measure.
This is a major flaw in the legislation, as pointed out by a number of people. This party and the official opposition feel that the legislation should be based on net rather than gross income. Let me tell the House why I feel this way. I think we are all aware that there are very few sectors of the economy that are stable. For the last 20 years we have experienced a wave of inflation. Stabilizing the income of
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
farmers sounds fine, but that is only half the problem; you must also stabilize their costs.
Let me give hon. members a revealing example of what has happened to farmers' costs since 1949. These costs have been affected by taxes and interest rates. Using the base 1939 equals 100, by 1949 taxes and interest rates had risen to an index of 149.4. By 1970 that figure had more than doubled, to 323.4. We all know that the farmers need capital. Farms are now large operations; the little halfsections are no longer efficient units and have disappeared. If taxes and interest rates, as one of the indices, have more than doubled during that period, then it appears to me that the income of the farmers would have to match that increase.
The same increase can be shown in the cost of farm machinery. In 1949 the price index had risen to 158.4, and by 1970 had gone up to 339.6. Increases like this are the reason that the members of this party as well as the members of the Conservative party oppose the hill. I submit the cost base of production should be the year 1970. The minister is no longer in the chamber; indeed he is seldom here during the debate. When he is here he rarely listens. He usually just sits in his seat, writes in his notebook and occasionally looks up to give one a baleful stare like a recently hibernated iguana. We are rarely able to reach him.
One needs only to drive across the Prairies to see what is happening to western Canada. It is being depopulated. Small farms are being abandoned in favour of larger units. Opportunities for the people, especially the young, are disappearing. High schools, post offices and drug stores are closing down and whole communities are dispersing. People are migrating to the cities. The same thing is happening in Newfoundland under the present government. The once independent, self-reliant, if not wealthy, people under the new enclosure movement are being chased off the land for economic reasons. Where you once had the land owner you now have millions of Canadians living as cliff-dwelling tenants in cities across Canada, thus creating all kinds of urban problems. It seems to me that if we had done a little more research on rural problems we would have far less need than we have at the moment for a Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Congestion in cities has created many problems for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that when an hon. member details figures that can be substantiated by a chart, the document should be tabled. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) referred to the government's legislative progress chart and to the number of hours spent in this House. Could the hon. member table that chart?

October 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As I understand the rule, this request can be made of a minister. If an hon. member wishes to refer to a document in front of him and adopts it or interprets it as part of his speech, it is very difficult to ask him to table the document unless he reads exactly from the document itself. Therefore, the Chair cannot accept the hon. member's suggestion.
This might be a good opportunity to inform the members of the House that for a good part of the day the Chair has been attempting to try to relate many of the remarks made by hon. members to the debate on the amendment. The Chair has made an almost gymnastic effort to relate a large portion of the remarks of hon. members to the amendment. I know we have only a few minutes left and I do not want to impose any restraints upon the hon. member who will have the floor, but this is a matter hon. members might think about overnight in an effort to orientate their remarks in a suitable way tomorrow.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker. I did not plan to speak tonight, but I noticed that the minister was in the House and I wanted to say a few words in an effort to help my colleagues bring him to his senses. I am sorry to note that he has left because the remaining members on the government side look as though they might be difficult to bring to their senses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: Another thing that motivates me to say a few words is the fact that this government has been taking part in criminal activities for some months with gay abandon and' complete disregard for the law of the land.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's right.


Paul Yewchuk: They have done this by their failure to pay money to the farmers under existing legislation. In view of the fact there is no recourse to farmers to claim this money, there is no other way of describing it than saying it is equivalent to armed robbery. These people have no recourse and no one to turn to in their effort to obtain the money due them.
Another motivating factor leading me to make a few remarks is that the speeches I have heard from the government side today have been filled with deception and have smacked very heavily of blackmail. The blackmail consists of the government's suggestion to the farmers that they must support the stabilization plan or they will not receive the money the government owes them. That is the decision the farmer has to make.


Some hon. Members:: shame.


Paul Yewchuk: Farmers generally have been objecting to this legislation but now they are starting to say they do not give a damn what the legislation is, they want their money. They are not objecting to it any longer in order that they may be paid. That is an extremely sorry state of affairs facing our farmers. The government has deceived the farmers by suggesting that under this legislation they will get more money than they would under the Tempo-
(Mr. Skoberg.]
rary Wheat Reserves Act. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.


An hon. Member:: It is extortion.


William Arnold Peters: It is fraudulent extortion.


Paul Yewchuk: The government says there will be more money coming to the farmers, but the money now owing is almost equivalent to the $100 million the government wants to pay out, at least theoretically.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is $92 million.


Paul Yewchuk: In addition, we will have a discontinuance of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and will lose the advantage of having the government pay the deficits incurred by grain pools. The worst part of this whole situation, as mentioned by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), is that the farmers will have to pay an additional tax. When we consider the net income picture which farmers have faced for the past several years, we realize that the last thing they need is another tax on their income. A 2 per cent tax on gross income could amount to 10 per cent of the net income. Let us say a farmer sells produce for $10,000; he would have to pay an additional tax of $200 per year. This is outrageous, but it is something the farmers are not being told. It is being hidden. They should know about it.
This kind of stabilization bill is a poor excuse for the agricultural plan about which the government has been bragging for the past three years. The government suggests it is bringing in long-term policies to solve agricultural problems. This is a very poor excuse for a policy to sell agricultural products. It is a very poor excuse when we realize that half the wheat surplus of the world exists in this country and that we produce only 5 per cent of the world's wheat production. This is a very poor excuse for an explanation as to why our wheat market has dropped from 35 per cent to 17 per cent.
The situation is not helped very much by the fact that we in Canada today spend $25 per capita for the importation of agricultural products, or by the fact that in 1969, the year of the last report, Canada for the first time in its history was a net importer of agricultural products. Can one conceivably imagine that in this country which is suited to agricultural production we do not produce enough to feed our own people? We were net importers of meat, poultry products and many other things Canada is well able to produce. This is a very shameful indictment of this government and the minister who is responsible for the Wheat Board.
The minister is not making any real or sincere effort to do anything on a long-term basis for this industry which is rapidly vanishing from our Prairies. We have heard many discussions and representations, some from agricultural groups, to the effect that we must do something to improve the declining net income of the farmer. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) appointed the Barber commission to study the ever increasing price of farm machinery. That commission reported and made several good recommendations but the government has done absolutely nothing to implement them. It has done absolutely nothing to bring down the price of farm machinery.
October 5, 1971

I should like the minister to explain why there is not legislation before the House to do something about this situation and the suggestions in the report. The only thing we have had from the government is this grain stabilization bill. The only thing this government has done is attempt to bribe the farmer with his own money. It has attempted to deceive the farmer by saying this is new money to be injected into the agricultural industry.
This stabilization bill might theoretically sound all right to someone who does not understand agriculture. The government suggests it is going to stabilize the income of the agricultural industry.


An hon. Member:: That sounds like a law professor.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, it sounds like what the dean of law would suggest as a good solution to the problem. Let us consider the average net income of a farmer in western Canada in the past two years. It has been around $1,000, perhaps $1,100. Mr. Speaker, would you like to have your income stabilized at $1,100 per year? That is what this government is attempting to do to the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: They are stabilizing poverty.


Paul Yewchuk: Having observed the actions of this government over the past three years I have come to the conclusion there is only one solution to the agricultural problem in the west, and that is to throw out this do-nothing government.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question. Would the hon. member allow me to pose a question at this time?


Paul Yewchuk: Yes.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the cooling-off period suggested following the meeting of the minister with the three prairie agricultural ministers on Friday, was it his expectation that this bill would be brought back before the House this week?


Paul Yewchuk: I regret that it is very difficult to expect anything at all from this government. I was surprised, or shocked would be a better word, that the minister made a commitment to the three agricultural ministers from the prairie provinces that the debate would be cooled off for a week.


William Arnold Peters: If he does not live up to the law, how do you expect him to live up to an agreement?


Paul Yewchuk: I am surprised that no opportunity was provided for consultation with ministers of the prairie provinces to see whether the bill could be made more acceptable. Instead, the minister brought the bill back before the House at the first opportunity. That means one of two things. It means either that the minister deliberately deceived the three agricultural ministers from the Prairies or that he does not have sufficient authority with his cabinet colleagues to persuade them to agree with his decisions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You cannot trust Grits.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Paul Yewchuk: The third possibility, as my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says, is that you cannot trust Grits. To sum up, I believe that to save the agricultural industry-I am saying this not only to members of the House but to the people of Canada-we must to re-elect a Conservative government which has some understanding of agriculture, which has a feeling for the people, which is concerned about the individual and about individual industry which is being destroyed. We must have that kind of government returned to power in this country.
As I said before, this bill basically is a piece of blackmail. Farmers here and there are saying they need the money and that therefore we should get this legislation through the House. I think this is outrageous. I believe that this, added to the policy of the government which is designed to remove two-thirds of the farm population from the farms, is too much to swallow at one time. Farmers do not want to be removed from their industry, especially when there is nothing to replace that type of employment. It might be all right if we told them we would retrain them for a certain job and then offered them that job, but under this administration we do not have jobs for those who are already involved in factory work, industry, and soon.
We have a shortage of housing in cities for people who are already there, and at the same time have set our sights on removing two-thirds of the farmers from the farms and placing them in the cities. Where are they to live? The only alternative offered is the Liberal alternative: Get off the farm and go on welfare.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member, before he took the floor heard the remarks of the Chair concerning the rule of relevancy. The Chair agreed that some leniency had been given to hon. members during the day, but I believe hon. members should at least make an effort once in a while to refer to the amendment before the House.
It is very difficult for the Chair, even when it wishes to be lenient, to permit hon. members to open the whole subject of agriculture or even the whole subject matter of the bill before us. The occupants of the chair during the day have tried on different occasions to obtain the cooperation of hon. members concerning the application of the rule of relevancy. The Chair cannot do more than remind hon. members a few times of this rule, which is a basic rule of debate.
Without the co-operation of hon. members, the Chair feels we may be, not destroying but minimizing the parliamentary system. I am not speaking at this moment only to the hon. member who has the floor; I am inviting other hon. members in their participation in the debate to try to adhere closely to the rules of debate. In respect of an amendment to a bill, the rules should be observed much more strictly than they have been.


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize you have been extremely lenient with me as well as with previous speakers. I believe most of my remarks,, with imagination, could be linked to a consideration of the cost of production and net income about which I have been speaking. I am sure you will be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear that I have almost completed my remarks.
8470

October 5, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I indicated that the cost of production has become so high that many farmers are leaving the farm. I described the terrible social dislocation which has occurred as a result of that. In general, I am critical of this legislation because it would in no way solve this problem. Therefore we must look a little more closely at the kind of things which must be done in an effort to stabilize farm income at a reasonable level.
It is a sad commentary when we look around the world and see so many people hungry and starving, and then look at our own country and see that we who are so well equipped to produce food for the world are not doing so and are being asked to cut back. This government obviously does not have the kind of imagination that is necessary to reconcile these two factors. That is the simple point I want to make.


John Leroy Skoberg: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Paul Yewchuk: Yes.


John Leroy Skoberg: It may seem strange to some people that a medical doctor is so concerned about this bill. Would the hon. member indicate his real concern and the type of constituency he represents in which the concern is so evident?


Paul Yewchuk: That is a very complex and intriguing question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it is ten o'clock, perhaps I could answer it at a later time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the usual question, I wonder whether I could ask a responsible person on the government side, if there is one, what is to be the business for tomorrow, Thursday and Friday. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition desires to expedite the business of this House and it is essential to know what is to be done in the next few days.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, we intend to proceed tomorrow with'the consideration of today's business, namely, Bill C-244. I expect we will make considerable progress with this matter on Wednesday and then deal with the tax reform measure on Thursday and Friday.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do I understand that on Thursday and Friday we will definitely be on Bill C-259?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Assuming, of course, that we complete Bill C-244 tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on September 22 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) if the Canadian delegation at the United Nations General Assembly would be making efforts there to bring about a situation whereby the people in Mainland China and Taiwan would be represented in that body by delegates of their de facto governments.
I must say, Sir, that the minister's reply was a good deal more smug than informative. He indicated that there was only one question immediately before the United Nations, and that is who speaks for China, who occupies the China seat; and with a casualness that was somewhat unbecoming he suggested that the question of the future of Taiwan is something for the future to decide.
It sounds so easy and so clever to suggest that there is nothing involved but who occupies the China seat. In fact, Sir, there is a good deal more involved. Involved is the whole concept of universality of membership in the United Nations, a concept in which I believe and in which I thought the present government believed. The support of the Albanian resolution at the General Assembly will mean clearly and definitely the expulsion of the government now in control of affairs in Taiwan. It will mean that over 14 million people will lose representation in what we like to think is a universal body, the United Nations.
I cannot believe that a move which will result in the expulsion of the representative of Taiwan is one which should be entered on so casually and easily by the government of our country. I have long believed that this country should recognize the de facto situation and extend diplomatic recognition to the People's Republic of China, and I am pleased that this has come about although I do not share the view of those who believe that a new era has been entered into by the mere fact of recognition. I am hopeful, however, that it will have a good and helpful effect.
I was especially delighted that the leader of my party made such a valuable and useful visit to Mainland China and made such a good impression there. Indeed, I am not reluctant to say that we should long ago have recognized the de facto situation and extended diplomatic recognition to the government of Peking. But the same pragmatic acceptance of a de facto situation in Mainland China should not be abandoned when we look at Taiwan. The government of Chiang Kai-shek-regardless of what we think of it, and this is not at issue here-undoubtedly is in control and is governing Taiwan just as the government of Mao Tse-tung is governing in Mainland China.
It is easy to use the numbers game and say that the great majority of Chinese citizens are under Mao and that there are only 14 million across the straits. But surely we are not in the game of counting heads, and I think that kind of attitude is unbecoming to a charter member of the United Nations. But if we do count heads, it can be pointed out that there are more people in Taiwan than in two-thirds of the member states of the United Nations
October 5, 1971

today. In other words, Taiwan is not an inconsiderable part of the world community.
Last fall, when the minister announced recognition of Peking by this country, an announcement which was greeted warmly in nearly all quarters of the House, he declared:
Our position ... is that the Canadian government does not consider it appropriate to endorse or to challenge the Chinese government's position on the status of Taiwan.
In other words, the Canadian government took note of Peking's contention in this regard but did not endorse it. It seems to me that in supporting the Albanian resolution at the United Nations the government of Canada would in fact be endorsing the contention of Peking that it, and it alone, speaks for all of China including Taiwan, despite the fact that that island is clearly and obviously administered by a government not subject to Peking. At the very time that the admission of China to the U.N. is being developed, the support of the Albanian resolution would be yielding to the maximum demands of the People's Republic of China in regard to its claims to Taiwan.
Having read the minister's speech, I do not know whether or not Canada will be supporting the Albanian resolution. I do note that at the General Assembly the minister indicated that Canada endorsed the principle of universality and even looked forward to the time when the divided states could be represented at the United Nations. We all say amen to that. But if we move in the direction of admitting the divided states, it would seem inconsistent for us at the same time to adopt a policy which would prevent Taiwan from being represented in the world body.
One cannot but wonder what happened to the eloquently expressed views of the minister's predecessor, the Hon. Paul Martin, who used to win applause from government benches when he said that our policy is not one China or two Chinas but one-China and one-Taiwan. He said in 1967:
We believe Formosa should continue to be a member of that organization and for that reason we will abstain on a resolution which seeks both to seat mainland China and to expel Formosa.
I have noted the present government's casual attitude toward the laws of the land and I am sure they would not at all be inhibited by their own promises; but our recollection is that in the campaign of 1968 it was the Martin one Taiwan, one China policy which was being put forward to the Canadian people as the government's point of view.
I hope, therefore, that it will not be Canada's role to assist in the expulsion of a member from the United Nations, that we will not deny the principle of universality to which we have long given allegiance and that we will not turn our back upon a reasonable, rational settlement of this long troublesome problem of representation in the U.N. for the people of Taiwan and for the people of China.


Mr. Hogarth:: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that by practice it has been established that unless a member has a very very strong point of order, points of order are not recognized during the adjournment debate.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I think that on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crouse:: There is no such thing as a point of order at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair cannot prevent a member from rising on a point of order if that point of order is valid, but I would ask the hon. member not to ask to be recognized at this time unless he has a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Pierre).


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary ol State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who sits on the same side of the House as I do, I think it best to reiterate what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) told the House on September 22. This was also in reply to a question by the hon. member for Hillsborough. It is simply that Canada has a one China policy. We consider that the only issue immediately before the United Nations is one of representation, that is, what government should represent the approximately 800 million people living in China.
As hon. members know, although the regime in Taiwan has continued to occupy the Chinese seat in the General Assembly and on the Security Council, a growing number of countries, including Canada, have come to believe that a realistic appreciation of the situation requires that the People's Republic of China be recognized as the government of China and that its representatives should take their place in the Chinese seat at the United Nations.
The issue, therefore, is not one of membership but of who shall represent a country which is already a member, and Canadian policy in the United Nations is consistent with our recognition of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China.



INCOME TAX-EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS ON CREDIT UNIONS

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 1971, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in the House of Commons, whether he could allay the fears of Canadian credit unions who consider the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act as a threat to their existence. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance did not have the opportunity to give me a definite reply. That is why I am raising the question this evening.
As an active member of the largest parish credit union in Ontario, the St. Stanislaus Parish Credit Union Limited, with a branch at St. Casimir's parish in the constituency of Parkdale, and as a former member of the board of directors in that credit union 25 years ago, I am familiar with the representations that have been made to the Minister of Finance by Canadian credit unions expressing
8472

October 5, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
their fear of the proposals in clauses 135, 136 and 137 of Bill C-259, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The whole question of tax reform has been debated by the Canadian public since the publication of the white paper in 1969, and that is very good.
The result, Bill C-259, is now being studied by various people with deep knowledge of the taxation system and its implication for the whole of Canadian life, and they are offering detailed and responsible criticism. I am aware that urgent submissions have been made to the Minister of Finance by representatives of the credit unions from Ontario and other provinces, including the caisses populates in the province of Quebec.
Throughout the history of Canadian tax legislation, credit unions have been treated differently, for tax purposes, from ordinary corporations because they are different in their structure and operation. Credit unions have played a great role in assisting people in lower and middle-income brackets, especially new Canadians in need of loans, to establish themselves in this country, because lending institutions of all descriptions were demanding high securities, high interest rates and other conditions and most of those conditions were, I think, burdensome for most of those people. Consequently, credit unions sprang up and flourished among these groups of people. Credit unions have assisted their members not only with low-cost loans but also with low life insurance premiums and other programs of mutual assistance.
The present income tax amendments affecting credit unions are, to say the least, ambiguous and need clarification. The principle of proper understanding of credit unions and fairness is necessary in devising tax laws with respect to credit unions. A close analysis of the proposed legislation in Bill C-259 reveals that the new taxation will be harmful to the legal characteristics of credit unions and caisses populaires and that these characteristics will place them at a disadvantage with other corporations.
Both the Porter Royal Commission on Banking and the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation recognize the essential "savings nature" of share deposits by a credit union member. Similar recognition should be given in clause 137 of the bill. But the area which causes credit union members the greatest concern is that relating to dividends to members on their share accounts. We have always looked upon these dividends as being an interest payment similar to that paid by chartered banks on their savings accounts. The major difference has been that banks set their rates in advance, whereas credit unions determine their rates on the basis of the profit for the year.
Chartered banks are able to deduct the interest paid on savings accounts from their income to determine their taxable income. The tax reform bill does not appear to provide for the deduction of the dividends paid by credit unions to members on their share accounts. Moreover, there is no provision in the tax reform bill concerning existing allowances for doubtful accounts or the so-called guaranteed fund. The other area which causes a problem concerns the starting point for depreciation of fixed assets.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of Finance to take into consideration the brief presented to him by the National Association of Credit Unions on September 22, 1971, outlining their major objections as well as their proposals regarding income tax amendments so that taxation of credit unions will be fair and equitable. Only then will the government provide credit unions the opportunity to continue their worthwhile role of great service to people who have joined them in order to help themselves, and of providing a much needed service to their fellow Canadians which is not offered by other financial institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize, also, that credit unions are a unique agency form of collective enterprise. They have an unusual personal, owner-customer relationship with their members, with any surplus earnings, apart from necessary provincial statutory reserves, being allocated to the members. This feature is certainly distinguishable from the operations of the banking system.
In conclusion, all of us in the House of Commons should take very seriously the representations which have been made to us and to the government by credit unions with respect to the effect of the proposed amendments in the income tax bill. I think it is imperative that the Minister of Finance announce without delay amendments favourable to credit unions. I am hopeful that our appeals to the minister will achieve a result which will enable credit unions to continue their great service to the people of Canada and to the economy of our country.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The matter raised by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) has been canvassed extensively by members who have to date taken part in the second reading debate on Bill C-259. From this side of the House, the hon. members for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Howard), among others, all made a point of bringing the views of the credit union and caisses populaires movements to the government's attention in an effective way. I have the impression that it was referred to by some of the 36 opposition members who have so far taken part in the debate. Most of those who dealt with credit unions and caisses populaires also dealt with the related, although not identical, views of the cooperative movement.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and I met here on August 11 with a large delegation from the Co-operative Union of Canada and Le Conseil Canadien de la Co-operation, as well as several of their constituent organizations. On September 20, the Minister of Finance met representatives of Les Federations Des Caisses Populaires and the National Association of Canadian Credit Unions upon his return from the Group of Ten meeting in London. These associations have discussed their views at length with officials of the finance department.
I would like to reward the Canadian Press writer who has stayed here so long waiting for a big news story. However, I can only say at this time that they have done a very effective job of bringing their views to the government's attention and that these views are being seriously considered. What, if any, changes the government deems

October 5, 1971

appropriate will be indicated when the pertinent clauses of Bill C-259 are reached by the committee of the whole.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-ALLEGED PRESSURE BY BANKS TO ACCEPT CREDIT CARDS

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the sitting I asked a question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I drew his attention on the fact that some finance companies and banks are exerting pressure on people to have them accept Chargex credit cards. Even if these people do not ask for these cards, they receive one or are urged by mail to accept one. And even if these financial institutions receive no answer, they send these cards to people thus inviting them to spend without measure. They enclose pamphlets detailing all possibilities for people to travel and for the housewife to buy all kinds of things; however they do not talk about the reimbursement of the money thus advanced. There is hardly a mention about an interest of 18 per cent that will be charged to the client's account.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a rather high handed way of forcing people to accept such credit cards, inviting them to spend more, when we know to which extend such advertisings can be harassing to consumers. Through all kinds of ways, people are sometimes urged to spend much more than they can afford. The advertising is skillfully
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
designed to create the illusion that all kinds of goods can be brought with no obligation to pay and in due course the bills are sent and you have to pay up.
Mr. Speaker, I object to such procedures and I call upon the hon. minister to enact a departmental order or bring forward legislation making it illegal for such companies, whether Simpsons-Sears, Eaton's or others, to force those credit cards on people.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I can offer complete assurance that no one can be forced to accept a credit card issued by a bank or any other institution. Anyone who is sent a credit card and did not ask for or does not want it is under no obligation to accept or use the card. His best course of action is to destroy any credit cards he does not want.
A number of provinces have specific legislation which relieves consumers of any liability arising from unsolicited credit cards unless they accept their terms and conditions. The government hopes that such legislation will be adopted by all the provinces. If there is any evidence whatsoever that individuals are being pressured to accept credit cards, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) would very much like to have that evidence.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Wednesday, October 6, 1971