1971-05-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I rise to move a motion on a matter of urgent public importance. It arises out of the crisis conditions at the present time in the agricultural industry of Prince Edward Island. This is due to a very long period of below cost prices for our basic agricultural product, potatoes.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in recent days, in answer both to myself and to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), seemed to indicate that his only response is that prices are higher at the present time. This answer, I feel, is either misleading or perhaps even dishonest because most of the farmers have already sold their potatoes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has previously presented motions to the House under Standing Order 43 and I have had occasion to remind him of the terms of the Standing Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot argue the case. He can only indicate the urgency of the matter which he seeks to raise. The hon. member also knows that under the standing order no opportunity is given to anyone to reply to the motion. Thus, to my way of thinking it is basic and elementary fairness that hon. members should limit themselves to the terms of the Standing Order, indicate briefly what the urgency is, and not make accusations about other members of the House, which is what the hon. member is doing at the present time. I would invite the hon. member to respect the spirit and the letter of Standing Order 43 and propose as soon as possible the motion which he has in mind.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was deliberately trying to be very brief, but I felt I had to say a brief word in explanation of the urgency of the motion because farmers at the present time do not have potatoes for sale regardless of the present price and desperately need funds for seed and fertilizer in order to get into the new growing season. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That the government of Canada immediately consult with the government of Prince Edward Island to formulate an immediate program of assistance for P.E.I. potato growers and that the government present this program to the House of Commons within seven days.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard, as I have, that there are dissenting voices. Consequently the motion cannot be put in this form at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago in referring to the motion that I presented you suggested that perhaps it is not proper to present argument in the course of proposing such a motion. I would not want in any way to take away from the Minister of Agriculture the opportunity for him to make a statement on motions this afternoon with respect to the very serious situation of the potato producers of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Waison: 1.	Did the Department of Trade and Commerce advise the Bank of Canada and/or the Industrial Development Bank in January, 1985 that it had been informed of a takeover bid by Steinberg's Limited of Cartier Refined Sugars Limited?
2.	Did the Department forward a memorandum dated January 7, 1965 from the Commodities Division to the Bank of Canada or IDB outlining the takeover attempt?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary lo Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as
the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The Industrial Development Bank was so advised orally on February 1, 1965.
2.	No, however, a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Robin Austin of that date was forwarded to the Industrial Development Bank in February, 1965.

May 10, 1971
Questions


INCLUSION OF ORIGINAL CANADIAN LITERATURE IN PROVINCIAL CURRICULA
Mr. Rowland: Has the Government of Canada developed a program designed to encourage curriculum authorities in the several provinces to carefully consider the inclusion of original Canadian literature in their curricula and, if not, is the Government considering establishing such a program in the near future?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: The Government of Canada has no such program. The Education curriculum is under the jurisdiction of provincial Departments of Education.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RECIPIENT SAMPLINGS, ABITIBI, TEMISCAMINGUE AND VILLENEUVE
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What are the names and addresses of persons designated by DBS or other governmental agencies to determine unemployment insurance recipient samplings in the constituencies of (a) Abitibi (b) Temiscamingue (c) Villeneuve?
2.	How are such people paid?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) does not conduct either sample or full coverage surveys to provide information on unemployment insurance recipients. The Labour force survey, upon which Statistics Canada estimates of employment and unemployment are based, does not include questions relating to unemployment insurance.


YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What is the rate of unemployment in (a) the Yukon (b) the Northwest Territories?
2.	What is the breakdown of these figures for native population and other residents?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission report that they do not collect data on unemployment for those areas. Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) does not collect data on unemployment in the Yukon and Northwest Territories on a regular basis, due to the high cost of conducting labour force surveys in these areas. There are Canada Manpower Centres in Whitehorse and in Yellowknife. They report the following numbers of registered clients without employment on the last working day of December, 1970. Whitehorse, 545; Yellowknife, 429. These numbers represent the count of clients in each office and are not a measure of unemployment.
2. No distinction is made between the native population and other residents.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-DESIGNATION OF INTERVIEWERS BY STATISTICS CANADA TO DETERMINE NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the people designated by Statistics Canada or any other government agencies to determine the number of unemployed people in the constituency
of Beauce?
2.	How many people are consulted during each survey?
3.	What is the salary for this work?
4.	Are any expense allowances paid apart from the salary?


James Alexander Jerome: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: 1. The following people are interviewers for the Labour Force Survey of Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics), in the constituency of Beauce: Mme Annette Bisson, C.P. 172, Vallee Jonction, Co. Beauce, Quebec; M"" Marthe Morin Poulin, C.P. 74, B.P. Bolduc, St. Martin de Beauce, Quebec.
2.	During each survey, approximately 90 households located within the constituency of Beauce are interviewed for Labour Force information.
3.	These interviewers are paid at the hourly rate of $1.92 for time spent on interviewing and receiving instructions.
4.	These interviewers receive 13 cents per mile for use of a privately owned automobile. When it is necessary for an interviewer to work in an area which is more than ten miles from their home, the Regional Director can authorize that a meal allowance be paid in accordance with Treasury Board Travel Directive dated June 1969.


ACCIDENTS INVOLVING BUSES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of accidents involving commercially operated buses in 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	(a) How many fatalities resulted from these accidents in each of these years (b) how many injuries?
3.	What, in dollars, was the property damage of these accidents?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: Information on the number of accidents involving commercially operated buses is incomplete because only those commercial school buses operated by intercity or urban transit companies are surveyed. Also, information for 1970 is not yet available. The following information has been collected on Intercity and Rural Passenger Bus Firms for 1968 and 1969. This information includes all motor vehicles that were operated by the carrier.
	1968	1969
Number of companies reporting	159	154Number of accidents reported	1,053	982Number of persons killed	23	18Number of persons injured	471	377Not	NotProperty Damage	available available	
May 10, 1971

The following information has been collected on the number of urban transit buses involved in accidents subject to the limitation of survey response. This information includes all vehicles operated by the transit system.
Number of companies reporting	1968 82	1969 80Number of accidents reported	20,045	19,579Number of accidents involving motor buses	13,891	13,893Number of persons killed	42	51Number of persons killed where motor buses involved	19	19Number of persons injured	6,351	5,771Number of persons injured where motor motor buses involved 3,471	3,571Not Not Property Damage available available


WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS, MOSCOW-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
Mr. Yewchuk: Does the government have any plans to send technical representatives to the World Petroleum Congress in Moscow in early June and, if so, who will represent Canada at the Congress?


James Alexander Jerome: Canada will be represented at the World Petroleum Congress in Moscow by one technical representative of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and by a small group of senior officers of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and of the National Energy Board.


EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED BY GOVERNMENT OF NOVA SCOTIA SINCE JANUARY 1, 1971
Mr. McCleave: What amount of emergency relief has been requested by the Government of Nova Scotia since January 1, on what basis and with what response?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is quite lengthy and I wonder if we might have the permission of the House to print it in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned answer reads as follows:]


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned, the Government of Nova Scotia has indicated that in view of recent floods in that province a request for assistance may be forwarded to the Federal Government when realistic estimates of the cost of dealing with the flood situation become available. The Federal Government has indicated its willingness to consider assistance to the province on the same basis as it has assisted other provinces which have experienced similar problems in the last few years (see the answer to question 748 on page 3028 of Hansard, February 3, 1971).
Questions
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, the following Emergency Flood Assistance was provided to the Government of Nova Scotia since January 1, 1971, in accordance with the Order-in-Council 1962-13/653 dated May 2, 1962.
Bridgewater, N.S.
1.	Two Bailey Bridge bearing plates were provided on loan on February 16, 1971 to the Nova Scotia Department of Highways for a Bailey Bridge being erected at Bridgewater to replace the Highway 103 bridge over the Le Havre River, washed away by the weight of ice floes.
2.	An Engineer Section of 12 men was provided for the period 17-20 February, 1971, to carry out ice reconnaissance and demolition of ice jams in the area to prevent further flooding.
Truro, N.S.
An Engineer Section of 11 men was provided for the period February 18-March 3, 1971 to carry out reconnaissance and demolition of ice jams in the Salmon and North Rivers near Truro, N.S.


HOUSING-PERCENTAGE OF TENANTS AND HOUSE OWNERS
Mr. Laiulippe: What is the percentage (a) ol tenants (b) of house owners in Canada and in each province?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: The following table shows the percentage distribution of owned and rented dwellings for Canada and the provinces, from the 1966 Census of Canada, and from Household Facilities and Equipment sample of May, 1970.
Percentage
1966	1970
Province	Owned	Rented	Owned	RentedCanada	63.1	36.9	64.5	35.5N ewf oundland	84.1	15.9	84.5	14.6Prince Edward	Island	77.4	22.6	80.8	19.2Nova Scotia	73.7	26.3	74.6	23.8New Brunswick	70.4	29.6	71.9	26.7Quebec	47.9	52.1	52.0	47.9Ontario	67.1	32.9	67.8	32.2Manitoba	70.1	29.9	70.7	27.8Saskatchewan	74.6	25.4	77.4	22.6Alberta	67.9	32.1	66.6	33.4British Columbia	66.2	33.8	65.3	34.7[English]


CBC-&quot;MID-CANADA&quot; PROGRAM ON WEEKEND MARCH 14, 1971
Mr. Roy (Timmins): With respect to the "Mid-Canada" program on CBC Weekend March 14, 1971 (a) were any alcoholic beverages consumed by CBC researchers and other employees and, if so, was any of the

May 10, 1971
Questions
cost charged to expenses (b) did any of the participants in the program consume alcoholic beverages and, if so, was any of the cost paid or reimbursed by CBC (c) were any of the participants in the program paid or remunerated in any way (d) who were the CBC officials who approved the program as to its objectivity?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) Since the production of the "Mid-Canada" program took place over several weeks, covered numerous communities in Canada and included the filming of sequences for use on both French and English networks, it is not possible to answer this question, (b) Yes, in at least one of the sequences; cost was minimal and was borne by the CBC as an acceptable part of the expense connected with the production of the program, (c) Yes, in accordance with normal practice, (d) The producer
and executive producer worked in close collaboration and, as is normal, the program was discussed with the head of current affairs, and with the director and deputy director of information programs at meetings.


MONTHLY PRODUCTION OF CHEDDAR CHEESE 1969 TO 1971
Mr. Nesbitt: What was the monthly production of Cheddar cheese for each province from January 1, 1969 until March 31, 1971?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: The following table shows the monthly production of cheddar cheese for each province from January 1, 1969 to March 31, 1971.

Monthly Production of Cheddar Cheese, by Province, January, 1969 to March 31, 1971, inclusive
January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November December	YearProvince	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969	1969- thousands of pounds -	Prince Edward Island	101	70	92	190	283	355	333	275	237	139	98	90	2,263Nova Scotia	117	109	111	159	213	182	129	108	109	124	81	110	1,552New Brunswick	21	14	29	39	53	76	65	59	54	46	28	19	503Quebec	3,496	2,716	3,751	4,788	6,558	9,508	9,174	7,649	6,532	6,285	4,741	4,785	69,983Ontario	2,953	2,495	3,943	6,870	9,289	12,102	11,142	10,359	9,116	7,625	5,071	4,477	85,442Manitoba	137	148	211	271	344	386	386	339	298	261	205	249	3,235Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Alberta	172	153	189	222	269	313	327	320	281	240	186	210	2,882British Columbia	116	110	146	176	228	207	121	123	178	138	124	159	1,826Canada	7,113	5,815	8,472	12,715	17,237	23,129	21,677	19,232	16,805	14,858	10,534	10,099	167,6861970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970	1970Prince Edward Island	63	39	62	131	195	310	334	229	195	156	86	83	1,883Nova Scotia	112	123	130	140	160	171	92	106	122	105	52	120	1,433New Brunswick	16	12	16	28	43	60	54	45	42	35	24	16	391Quebec	3,965	3,934	4,636	4,997	6,262	8,838	8,696	7,421	6,538	6,104	6,430	6,066	73,887Ontario	3,706	3,424	4,474	6,325	8,644	10,758	9,481	8,759	7,606	6,819	4,753	3,868	78,617Manitoba	241	269	369	426	431	503	440	388	326	288	261	288	4,230Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Alberta	216	207	248	271	322	372	376	350	300	254	209	232	3,357British Columbia	176	167	194	174	228	217	87	103	174	143	152	178	1,993Canada	8,495	8,175	10,129	12,492	16,285	21,229	19,560	17,401	15,303	13,904	11,967	10,851	165,7911971	1971	1971	Prince Edward Island	63	41	76	Nova Scotia	124	109	157	New Brunswick	16	11	14	Quebec	5,166	4,262	5,637	Ontario	3,697	3,437	4,382	Manitoba	294	295	224	Saskatchewan	-	-	-	Alberta	229	214	265	British Columbia	166	183	243	Canada	9,755	8,552	10,998	
May 10, 1971___________ COMMONS DEBATES

May 10, 1971
Orders for Returns


MONEY SENT TO UNITED STATES BY CANADIAN ORGANIZED LABOUR AND COMPANIES
Mr. Alexander: To the knowledge of the government, how much money was sent to the United States last year (a) by organized labour in Canada (b) by Canadian companies controlled or owned by United States interests?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: (a) In 1968, the last year for which information is available, $41,-
792,000	in Canadian members' per capita taxes were paid to the United States headquarters of international unions. This included contributions of $278,000 to pension plans administered by entities separate from the unions, (b) It is estimated that Canadian companies controlled or owned by United States interests made investment income payments to the United States of approximately $700 million in 1970. These payments include dividends, interest on funded debt and profits of unincorporated branches.


USE OF NRC LABORATORIES BY CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA AND OTHER GROUPS
Mr. Thomson: Does National Research Council allow the use of its laboratories to groups such as Consumers Association of Canada and
(a)	if so, does NRC charge for such service and on what basis
(b)	if not, for what reason?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of fhe Treasury Board):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: (a) Yes. NRC Laboratories' services are made available to companies, associations or individual as well as Government Departments and Agencies except in so far as these would conflict with private firms engaged in providing such services. Where the amount of laboratory service warrants charges being levied, it is on the basis of labour, materials, and overhead. When the services provided are of scientific interest to NRC the costs are sometimes shared by NRC and the requisitioner. (b) N/a.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from the United Kingdom in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years?
3.	What is the balance of payment situation between Canada and the United Kingdom for each of the same years?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES FROM FRANCE 1960 TO 1970
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from France in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years?
3.	What is the balance of payment situation between Canada and France for each of the same years?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES FROM ITALY 1960 TO 1970
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from Italy in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years?
3.	What is the balance of payment situation between Canada and Italy for each of the same years?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN RECEIPT OF SALARIES OF $15,000 AND OVER

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 854
Mr. Dionne:: By department, what is the number of public servants receiving a salary of (a) $25,000 and over (b) $20,000 and over (c) $15,000 and over?
Return tabled.



INDIAN POPULATION AND EXPENDITURES ON HOUSING, 1970

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What is the Indian population by province?
2.	(a) What was the amount of money spent in each province for housing for Indians in 1970 (b) in each case, how many houses were constructed?
3.	How much was allocated to each agency in Saskatchewan for housing in 1970?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN RECEIPT OF MORE THAN $18,000 YEARLY

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How many public servants throughout Canada are paid more than $18,000 a year?
Return tabled.



STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN CONSTRUCTION AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES IN 1962 AND 1970

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	By province, how many (a) strikes and lockouts (b) workers involved (c) duration in man-days (d) settlements, were there in the construction and agriculture industries during the years 1962 and 1970?
2.	For each of the same years, what type of unions and affiliations were involved at the time of the strikes and lockouts in the construction and agriculture industries?
Return tabled.

May 10, 1971


Mr. Schumacher:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to question No. 169 standing in my name which first appeared on the order paper this session on October 14 last. It also appeared on the order paper of last session a year ago last January. I wonder whether some effort might be made to reply to that question in the reasonably near future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question concerning the currency and exchange difficulties to the Minister of Finance who has just arrived in time. While realizing that the revaluations that have taken place will perhaps benefit Canada's export industries and thereby ease our difficulties, may I ask the minister whether he intends to take any initiative with regard to bringing about a greater degree of stability in international monetary exchanges in view of the tremendous interest of this country and our economy in greater stability?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Discussions have been taking place through the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Speaker, and our director at the IMF has been in touch with the government for guidance in these discussions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does Canada intend to call for a special meeting with regard to the present difficulties or the degree of instability that seems to exist? Does Canada intend to call for a special conference or intend to put forward any recommendations for changes in view of the fact we have been through three or four crises in the last three or four years?


Edgar John Benson: I am trying to think back to the three or four crises in the last three or four years, Mr. Speaker. Discussions normally take place through the IMF. If it is decided that it is advisable to have a meeting of the governors of the IMF or the Group of Ten, of course Canada will take part.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the importance of the subject to Canada, is the Minister of Finance taking a position with regard to these difficulties and the present international arrangements regarding foreign exchange? Is the government of Canada making any recommendations or does the government regard it as satisfactory to have a continuing crisis?


Edgar John Benson: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The government of Canada does not regard it as satisfactory. The normal course of discussions is through the IMF. We are taking part in those discussions through our director at the IMF.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS TO INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ON METHODS OF FIXING EXCHANGE VALUES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since Canada is a non-conforming member of the International Monetary Fund in that it has floated its exchange rate for 11 months or so, would the minister not think that it would be incumbent upon Canada to make special representations now to the governors of the IMF that special measures be taken to consider alternative methods of fixing exchange values in light of the fact that there now seems to be a breakdown and we have a mess in Europe at the present time?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, studies of the exchange system have been taking place through the IMF. We are participating in these through our permanent director at the IMF.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of continuing developments in obstacles to interprovincial trade in agricultural produce which, if not checked, may extend to other products as well. Has this question been the subject of discussion at federal-provincial conferences or other meetings in the past and, in any case, has the government or any department of government been consulted by those provinces which have established obstacles to free interprovincial trade?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this subject has been discussed at federal-provincial conferences. The federal-provincial conference on the constitution of last September, I believe, discussed the matter at some length and, as I reported to the House at the time and since, most of the provinces present encouraged us to proceed with great haste with Bill C-176, because they felt that it was an honest attempt to meet the problem. The general subject, which I am sure also interests the hon. member, of the Canadian common market was put on the agenda of the constitutional conference at the initiative of the federal government some time ago. When time is found for that on the agenda, we will discuss the general constitution in relation to the need to preserve the Canadian common market.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I put this question seriously to the Prime Minister. Since Bill C-176 is obviously a permissive piece of legislation which may or may not be implemented by some provinces or may or may not be

May 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
accepted by the majority of some producing segments, has the government made any clear statement to the provinces of its policy with regard to a common market in Canada? Would he also consider, in light of developments, placing the subject definitely on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference which is to take place next month in Victoria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, concerning the agenda in Victoria, personally I would hesitate to suggest that it be put on the agenda. Of course, if the provinces so wish it will be done. But we learned from the previous federal-provincial conference that this matter of a common market is a very intricate and delicate one to discuss with the provinces. As a matter of fact, the leader of the New Democratic Party will remember that when we were discussing jurisdiction over taxation, and indirect taxation in particular, it was even then difficult to come to agreement with the provinces on how perhaps indirect taxation could be allowed to the provinces under the constitution without affecting adversely this Canadian common market. Therefore I would not have great hopes that even if it were on the agenda we could reach a solution in June which would be of a theoretical and constitutional nature. This is why, I repeat, the government has followed the approach of trying to set up, in co-operation with the provinces under the present constitution, national marketing boards of one kind or another.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-FEDERAL POSITION IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SUPREME COURT RESPECTING VALIDITY OF PROVINCIAL REGULATIONS

David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister a final supplementary question. The Minister of Justice has informed us that the government is entering the case that will go before the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject. He has stated that the government intends to defend the constitution, which is a little cryptic and not entirely intelligible. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether counsel for the federal government will take a position against the constitutionality of these varying provincial steps to interfere with interprovincial trade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
believe I can answer, Mr. Speaker, without giving a very intricate legal opinion. I draw to the attention of the hon. member that he knows very well how the constitution reads on this matter. It talks about free movement, without fiscal impediment, between provinces. But the hon. member also knows that the practice of provinces imposing regulations within their own boundaries is one which is also accepted under the past practices of the constitution.


Mr. Horner:: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the reason why the federal government, contrary to the advice of some hon. members, did not think the solution was in going to the courts. That is why we have pleaded with the House to get on with this remedy, Bill C-176-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -even if it is not to the satisfaction of the opposition, so that a chance might at least be given to try to implement these national marketing boards.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question. As the hon. member for York South stated, the Minister of Justice said, in response to a question from me, that he had instructed counsel to defend the constitution in so far as interprovincial trade and the British North America Act are concerned. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice do not always see eye to eye on legal matters, I ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of the government that the marketing acts and regulations passed by certain provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia, are repugnant to and offend against the spirit and letter of the British North America Act and should be struck down? If so, which regulations or regulations and acts of which provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is very interesting, but I suggest that he is asking for an opinion, legal or otherwise. The way I understand the hon. member's question, he is inviting the Prime Minister to state whether he feels that certain provincial legislation is contrary to the spirit of the constitution. At that point the Prime Minister would be expressing an opinion legal or otherwise. In those terms the question is not acceptable.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was careful to say the spirit of the act. With great respect, in that respect I think that the government, through the Prime Minister, should be entitled to indicate the position it takes with regard to this matter. This is not asking for an abstract opinion of law. Certain regulations have been passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not want to cause difficulties. I am prepared to allow the Prime Minister to answer, but the hon. member will note that I was careful in expressing my view; I said "legal or otherwise". The hon. member says he did not ask for a legal opinion. He asked for a non-legal opinion, and that is also against the rules. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question provided it is done briefly, because there are a number of other supplementaries on the same subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In his supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated that he was not talking in the abstract but about concrete regulations and laws which are now before the Supreme Court of Canada. I must confess that, unlike the hon. member, I would not be so bold as to tell the Supreme Court of Canada what they should be deciding.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman aware that if Bill C-176 were passed today or tomorrow trade barriers could still exist and, in fact, might well exist because of that measure?

May 10, 1971



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister met with his counterparts, particularly in Ontario, Quebec but also in other provinces, to discuss the present dislocation of marketing? If not, is he planning a meeting with these ministers in the very near future in an effort to resolve the situation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not held such a meeting within the last few days but it is generally agreed that as soon as we have the legal authority on which to base an agreement we would meet at once.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Does the minister not consider the constitution as now written a sufficient legal basis upon which to hold conversations with his counterparts in the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is certainly not in order.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-COMMUNICATION OF FEDERAL POSITION TO PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Has the Prime Minister communicated the attitude of the federal government in this matter to the Prime Ministers of Quebec and Ontario, setting out the position the government intends to take before the Supreme Court and stating that the government considers that the action they have taken is ultra vires of the constitution? Has the prime minister set out that position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we set it out last September before the present case went to the courts. As I said in answer to the leader of the New Democratic Party a few moments ago, we did state our position quite clearly in September on the basis of the importance of finding a solution to the marketing problem in Canada. At the time, I repeat, we had the support, if not of every province, of certainly an immense majority of the provinces. I see the hon. member for Crowfoot wants to ask a supplementary. It is true that since then some provinces have apparently wavered in their support of the bill, but I am not surprised; they have been waiting for it for a year and a half because of the hon. member's obstruction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Crowfoot may I point out that we should give a chance to an hon. member representing the party seated at the extreme left of the House. I will allow a few more supplementaries and then invite the hon. member for Bellechasse to ask a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hon. members may laugh, but how can one man be so powerful as to stop a whole government? I have been accused of holding up the legislation. I do not think that statement can be justified or substantiated by the Prime Minister or anyone else. I am wrongfully accused.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is debate between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Crowfoot. Having stated his question of privilege, perhaps the hon. member might now ask his supplementary.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so modest, Jack.
FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILI^-EXEMPTION OF CATTLE


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My supplementary arises out of the Liberal party's policy convention held in April, 1970-I think it was on the third or fourth. They stated then that no provincial barriers should be permitted to prevent the interprovincial movement of farm products. The Prime Minister has based his case for Bill C-176 on the September conference with the premiers. Is he not aware that at that conference the premiers agreed that cattle would be exempt? Cattle are not exempt under the bill and therefore no province can agree with the legislation.


An hon. Member:: They are exempt.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are not.


An hon. Member:: Read the bill, Jack.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are again injecting into the question period debate on Bill C-176. I realize that this is an important matter and that questions can be asked about it, but those questions should not go to the extent of discussing what is or is not contained in a measure which is before the House. Hon. members should bear this in mind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said the provinces had agreed to early passage of this bill. They agreed on one condition, that cattle should be exempt. Cattle are not exempt at this date and therefore the provinces are disagreeing with the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure all these arguments will be made when we reach the debate on Bill C-176.



CONFIDENTIALITY OF PAYMENTS BY CANADAN DAIRY COMMISSION FOR BUTTER STORAGE

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question fo the Minister of Agriculture.
Further to the partial reply to my question No. 1,294 on the order paper concerning the total paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission for the storage of butter during the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, could the minister tell us why details of payments to individuals or

May 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
companies are confidential? Is the House not entitled to know those details?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it has been the general practice, I think, not to reply to questions of this type asking for exact details, including names, addresses and amounts of particular producers' business with the dairy commission.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West wish to ask supplementaries to the previous question. These are the only supplementaries that will be allowed for the moment on this subject and then we should move on to the next matter.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILL-EFFECT ON CONSUMER PRICES IN URBAN AREAS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government made an advance study of the effects of Bill C-176 on consumer food prices in urban areas such as Toronto, Ottawa and other cities across the country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read some of the clauses of Bill C-176 he would note that consumers' interests are to be taken into account.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILL-CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN FACE OF POSSIBLE OPTING OUT BY PROVINCES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has suggested to us that the passage of Bill C-176 might avoid certain constitutional problems in regard to import orders and free trade across Canada, and hopefully it will. But does the Prime Minister not agree that should some provinces or any province decide to opt out of the bill the government will still face the constitutional problem if the province that opts out insists on shipping its product into the common market area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is argument, it is debate, and a question in those terms is not in order. Does the hon. member wish to rephrase his question?


Mark Willson Rose: If I may raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister whether he did not agree and he appeared almost ready to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the hon. member asks a minister whether he agrees or does not agree he is of course inviting argument, and the hon. member puts himself out of court the moment he asks a question in those terms. The hon. member is now apparently agreeing to disagree and wishes to rephrase his question.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government will not continue to

face the constitutional problem should a province decide to opt out of Bill C-176 and continue to insist that constitutionally it can ship its products into the common market area covered by the bill?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree that there will be difficulties even after Bill C-176 has been adopted if we do not get the co-operation of the provinces in the implementation thereof. However, this is not new. The hon. member will remember that as long ago as the Rowell-Sirois commission they were trying to come to grips with the problem of national marketing and the difficulty of reconciling it with provincial jurisdiction. Now, after some 30 years, the federal government has come up with a bill that tries to solve the problem by way of cooperation with the provinces and I am rather distressed that the opposition will not even permit us to try that course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When does the government plan to make public its views on the important matter of foreign investment in Canada, and does it intend to do so in the form of a white paper so that public debate on this matter may take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question in those very terms a few days ago. If the hon. member will look back through a few issues of Hansard he will find the answer.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have looked through Hansard to see whether a satisfactory answer was given but none was. Would the Prime Minister say when the government intends to make its views known?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is the very question I answered last week.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago I asked the Prime Minister to advise the House when the government intends to make its views known on the importance of foreign investment in Canada. The Prime Minister told me he had answered that question last week. I have looked through all the questions last week. I find that on Thursday he answered an unrelated question but in no way did he make any attempt to say when the government intends to make its views known on this matter. Will he please do so now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Come on, get up on your feet.
May 10, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Come on, get up on your feet and stay there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The answer the Prime Minister gave me earlier is the kind of answer we get every day in the House. The Prime Minister is deliberately misleading the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Come on; have the guts to stand up, little X.ord Fauntleroy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED-PROJECT CRITERIA -PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATION

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. On a number of occasions I have been attempting to find out from the Secretary of State whether or not further funds will be provided for the Opportunities for Youth program in light of the heavy demands and the number of submissions made under the program. I should also like to know when the minister plans to make public the division of these programs according to the early criteria of a regional mix and the levels of unemployment across the country.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I told the House before that I was confident that additional funds will be made available to the Department of the Secretary of State for this program. I said on many occasions that I thought I would be able very soon to give a specific answer on this matter, and I reiterate this statement. As to the application of criteria for the distribution of projects, I think that they have been clearly established.
As far as the distribution of funds throughout the country is concerned, we said that it would be done on the basis of the unemployment rate among young people in various parts of the country, and this is how the distribution is being done now, that is, according to these criteria.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the minister heard me when I asked him whether there would be funds additional to the $15 million that has been provided. Perhaps he would answer that question and also indicate what steps are being taken to overcome the considerable frustration of the provinces in having programs adequately and effectively considered by the rational office. Would he also say whether steps
Inquiries of the Ministry
have been taken to have provincial representation in the national office, as I believe has happened in the case of at least one province?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think that as far as the first part of the question is concerned, the hon. member is wrong; in fact my answer was so lengthy that I thought you would lose patience, Sir, and ask me to proceed to the second part of the question. The hon. member will therefore find my answer in today's Hansard.
As for the second part, if the member knows of a case which is particularly serious, I would ask him to bring it to my attention.
In so far as frustration is concerned, I can understand the young people's impatience, but I announced in the House several weeks ago the deadline we have set-it is May 15 for the final designation of all subsidized projects. We are not quite certain of being ready for that date, but we hope that should delays occur they will be very brief.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. I did not hear the minister answer my previous supplementary about the steps that are being taken. Since there is considerable frustration regarding the consideration of projects on a regional and on a provincial basis, what steps are being taken to have representations directly from the provinces? In the case of Prince Edward Island there seems to be a very poor relationship.


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



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-NUMBER TO BE EMPLOYED-ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Is the minister yet in a position to say with any certainty how many jobs he expects will be created for students under the Opportunities for Youth program?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker, not with certainty, not with any certainty whatever at this stage.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that thousands of students are still likely to be without jobs this summer, is the government contemplating any further programs to employ students?


Gérard Pelletier: Not as far as I know, Mr. Speaker. However, the programs that are put into effect, and about which the government never said that they would completely solve the problem, do reduce it considerably, and this the hon. member may see for himself if he takes a look at what is going on in the provinces.

May 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PROJECT CRITERIA

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the minister. Do the criteria adopted by the department take into account the provinces as opposed to regions, and do they take into account such factors as the rate of unemployment per province and the population per province, because the projects so far approved for my own province, which has the highest rate of unemployment in the country and the fewest opportunities for jobs, would indicate that this is not so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply briefly, but again I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we will be running short of time and we have considered only two or three subjects so far.


Gérard Pelletier: To all the
questions asked by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. However, when he states that unemployment among the young is higher in his province than in any other, he is mistaken.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the Secretary of State did not mean to indicate I was trying to slander my province by my question. The translation indicated that the Secretary of State did not understand my question. I did not indicate in my question, nor did I mean to, that there was the highest rate of unemployment among young people in Newfoundland. What I said was that my province had the highest rate of unemployment-period.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have the difficulties he referred to in his reply to the hon. member for Egmont last Thursday in respect of the proposals made by the Ministers of Agriculture of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick regarding assistance to the potato industry in those provinces yet been resolved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, they have not, Mr. Speaker. One of the difficulties, which I did not spell out at that time, is that they are not asking for a deficiency payment but rather for assistance with regard to seed potatoes for this season. I am sure the hon. member will realize this is not one of the practices under the aegis of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The other problem in regard to the 1970 crop is that returns to producers for the two areas have been running between
CMr. Pelletier.]
95 per cent and 100 per cent of the long-term average. This also has to be considered.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a completely non-controversial question I should like to direct to the government House leader. In view of the fact we are now into the month of May and the Speech from the Throne last October promised a debate on abortion, is the minister in a position now to say when we are going to have this debate?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Presideni of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do so. I can assure the hon. member that it will take place before the end of this session.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the economic hardships faced by swordfishermen in Atlantic Canada caused by the mercury content in swordfish, has the minister established a policy to assist these fishermen and, if so, when can we expect the details of this policy to be announced?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the task force working on the swordfish problem has reported to both the Nova Scotia and federal governments in this connection. Negotiations are being pursued by our two governments to resolve this difficult problem.



SURVEILLANCE OF FOREIGN FISHING FLEETS IN CANADIAN WATERS

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the criticism levelled by the Fisheries Council of Canada that surveillance of foreign fishing fleets in Canadian waters was not being adequately maintained, has the minister worked out a formula with his colleague the Minister of National Defence on this matter, and how will information on the activities of foreign fleets be conveyed and provided to the Canadian fishing industry?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is close co-operation between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of National Defence in this connection. I might add that surveillance by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has continued and with our new closing lines the difficulties of policing Canada's exclusive fishing zones is much reduced.
May 10, 1971



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question tor the Secretary of State. In light of the fact that Quebec and Ontario now claim varying degrees of jurisdiction over telecommunications and broadcasting, is the government sticking to the position that the federal government has clear authority over broadcasting, including cable television, or is it going to consider this as an area of concurrent jurisdiction? In order to avoid asking a supplementary question, may I ask whether some conference will be arranged to resolve this policy anomaly?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the first part of the question does not call for an answer in absolute terms. I think the hon. member will agree with me: for instance, to state that broadcasting falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments, does not make sense considering the nature of our modern means of communications.
Concerning the second half of the question, I would say that we are willing-as we have stated so many times- to consult with the provinces after having, however, established-and intending to establish it even more specifically-that we consider some points of federal jurisdiction as being non-negotiable.



SEPARATION OF TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT FROM STABILIZATION PLAN BILL

Mr. John Burton (Regina Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the very strong objections voiced by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to Bill C-244, the grain stabilization plan, and its recommendation that the transitional payment be separated from the permanent plan, is the government now considering separating these two features of Bill C-244?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the first comments of the hon. member. It has been made perfectly clear that the various portions of Bill C-244 stand together as a whole and must proceed as a whole in the view of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that we should not transpose the question period by referring to debates which are progressing and proceeding to some extent in the House. I believe that after orders of the day are called the bill to which the hon. member has alluded will be considered by the House. I doubt whether it is in order to use the time of the question period to ask this kind of a question.


John Stratford Burton: I have a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow a supplementary question but I hope it is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


John Stratford Burton: My supplementary question is designed to facilitate consideration of the bill. In view of the widespread public interest in Bill C-244, will the minister facilitate steps to ensure that witnesses will be heard when the bill is before the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this again anticipates an order of the day and that the question in those terms is not in order.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether it will be necessary to have the difficulties in respect of Bill C-176 resolved by legislation, by decision of the Supreme Court, or by making funds available under Bill C-244 before he will call a by-election in Assiniboia?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.



IMMIGRATION


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he is in a position to tell us that he is going to bring forward his white paper on immigration and amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act before the end of June?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated not long ago in answer to a question regarding legislation at least that I hoped so. There has been no decision yet as to the date by which it may be possible to bring forward a policy statement regarding immigration in the broad sense.



FISHERIES


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether streams and rivers flowing into Georgian Bay and Lake Huron will be treated with lampricide this year? If not, what areas are receiving attention for lamprey control, and are sufficient funds available to cope adequately with the problem?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question but I will endeavour to get it to the hon. member as quickly as possible.
May 10, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



RECONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST RHODESIA

Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister reconsider our present attitude toward economic sanctions against Rhodesia, taking into account the fact that Rhodesia is offering employment opportunities to a wide variety of Canadians?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. The government of Canada intends to abide by the sanctions endorsed by the United Nations.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can state that the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices in seven or more Atlantic provinces' centres will not be reduced in staff by July 1?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. The only assurance I can give is that the unemployment insurance organization is designed to give the best possible service to people and not necessarily to please the employees at work.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the controversy surrounding this matter, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions explaining exactly the changes that are taking place and what effect they will have on the offices as they exist?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question is before a committee of the House and these questions are now, I presume, being directed in this regard.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister had a chance to examine the budget of the Ontario government in which it offers tax incentives to industry? Will he state whether he thinks this will affect the federal government's programs, and is a change in the kind of grants available being considered?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. The department is reviewing the implications of that budget, but we do not believe it will affect our programs.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister say when he anticipates he will be concluding his study and assessment of the situation and be able to report to the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to report on this matter. We merely want to know if there is any incidence on our own programs and we do not see any.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he indicate whether it is his intention to proceed with the previously proposed change in the family allowance plan which would discontinue family allowances to upper income families? Is it the intention to proceed with this during this session?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already indicated several times, particularly during the latter part of last week, in answer to a similar question that we are entertaining various suggestions for improvements in various features of our proposals in the white paper. These suggestions are coming in now and we are going to consider them. We hope to have legislation before the House in the fall.
* # *



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC ON DIVERSION OF WATERS- STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the federal government had any discussions with the provincial authorities in Quebec on the diversion of waters southward from rivers now flowing into Hudson Bay?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Randolph Harding: Will studies be initiated by the federal government on the possible ecological effects of any diversion?


John (Jack) Davis: That is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that any diversion southward is being considered.

May 10, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the other evening when we were debating this bill I suggested to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, that one reason the government could not charge a percentage of net income under this stabilization bill was that farmers had so little net income from the grains industry. It would not be practicable to do this.
I should like to suggest to the minister in respect of the threat to withhold $100 million in transitional payments from grain producers in order to get them to swallow Bill C-244, a universally unpopular scheme, that this represents money which rightfully belongs to the farmers now, and includes what they would normally receive this year under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. This $100 million is an overdue obligation. The sum has been arbitrarily fixed, according to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, but it is related to the payment which farmers would normally receive under an agreement which is to be cancelled with the passage of this bill. If the bill should not pass, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would remain in effect and payments under the act would have to be made on July 31 this year. Farmers are being bribed by the threat of the withholding of money which is rightfully theirs. They are being bribed in order that they might swallow a long-term plan which every grain producer and producer organization in this country condemns as disastrous in its long-term results.
This is not a $100 million bonus. It is an overdue obligation that is owed to the prairie grain farmer. It is a reprehensible act for the government to seek to force passage of an unpopular long-range scheme by suggesting that the money will not be forthcoming unless the bill is passed. The government is under a clear obligation to pay it, stabilization act or no stabilization act. If a two-price system, long demanded by prairie farmers, had been in effect during the past two years when world prices were disastrously low, the farmers would have had an effective bulwark against inflationary costs and a stabilization scheme which made sense during periods of acute fluctuation. As representatives of the grain producers have argued, consumers in Canada have no right to eat cheap bread. If the consumer were to pay a price commensurate with the price paid for everything else in Canada, the price of wheat would be at least $1 a bushel higher than it is at present. Considering that we consume
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act between 50 million bushels and 60 million bushels a year, this would represent $50 million or $60 million which the Canadian consumer, not the Canadian taxpayer, would be paying for this wheat.
We would argue that this would be the proper course. Why should the Canadian consumer get cheap wheat? If the government suggests that it should provide cheap wheat, flour or bread for the Canadian consumers, then it has an obligation to pay the money to the Canadian farmers and has no right to make threats to withhold it. A statement of intent with regard to the stabilization bill came to my office this morning. It is put out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I should like to quote one, two or three passages from it which I believe have some bearing on this subject. It also includes an expression of opinion of the farmers and farmers groups on this bill. I quote:
It Is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long term proposals contained in the bill.
I would like to quote another passage from the Federation brief:
It must be recognized that this bill is clearly designed to place definite limits on the federal obligation to support prairie income, even in the face of chronic income inadequacy.
It is also a policy which has a major objective the protection of the prairie and national economy-the businessman and the farm supplier-from the impact of sharp income fluctuations. It would be a great fallacy to view it as anything else.
In one of the recommendations at the end of this brief, the Federation has this to say:
It is just not right that we should be the only, or virtually only, wheat producing nation that accepts world price levels as an adequate guide to prices that should fairly be paid in the market place by domestic consumers. It is a shocking fact that in the entire post-war period since the Second World War there has been essentially no increase in grain prices and therefore no increase whatever in the amount the farmers receive from flour and cereal products sold to the consumer. This must be corrected by substantial increases in the price received by the farmer for grain used for domestic human consumption. The impact on the consumer would in any case be very small. The great bulk of the cost of cereal products to the consumer is transportation, processing and distribution.
I submit that the price the farmer receives for wheat is clearly out of proportion to the price that consumers pay for anything else. Had it not been for farmers engaging in the most efficient possible production of cereal grains on the Prairies, the bulk of farmers would have gone bankrupt before now. When we look at the increase in costs which farmers face we can only wonder how they still exist. We have seen great modifications take place in farm communities because of the economic pressures placed upon them by low grain prices.
I would like to ask the minister which farm group advocated the changes indicated in the stabilization bill? Obviously, it was not the Federation of Agriculture, because in its brief it has just said as much. Did the National Farmers Union advocate some of the changes? Was it the Palliser Triangle group? Did the Wheat Board suggest these changes, or the Grain Exchange? Are we to
5642

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act assume that Ottawa knows best, or that the minister himself thought out these changes? Is the minister going to encourage these different groups to have witnesses appear before the Agriculture Committee to suggest changes in the legislation?
I would like to deal with some of the figures implicit in the bill. If we take the fairly top figure of $900 million, the 4 per cent works out at $36 million. When we consider that the government saves some $40 million in storage charges by doing away with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and saves an average of $6 million by doing away with PFAA, we find these savings total $46 million. If my arithmetic is correct, under the proposed changes the government will actually save $10 million on the whole transaction. If that is aid to the farmers, Mr. Speaker, I would like somebody to explain it to me, because on the basis of these figures it looks as though the government is saving money.
I grant you that if individual farmers are going to take up more crop insurance, then the costs to the government will be higher. Taking a top of $15,000 for the individual farmer, the 4 per cent comes to $600, which would be less administration costs. I cannot see where this necessarily has any relationship to the costs of that farmer. It might even be argued that it is too much, but how does anyone have any way of knowing? Does the taxpayer know that this is a fair sum to give to a farmer with a gross of $15,000? I do not think the minister has presented a very clear case on whether it is or is not. Anyway, now that the individual farmer will have to carry crop insurance on his own because PFAA will be done away with, we realize he has to pay a 6 per cent to 9 per cent premium. I phoned an insurance agent in my area the other day to see what the cost would be and those were the figures he gave me.
While it is difficult to arrive at a cost for crop insurance for a grain farm of a size that would yield a $15,000 income, because of the different rates applicable to different farms, I suggest the cost would run to several hundred dollars. Again, I do not see how this 4 per cent that the government is suggesting has any relationship to the costs the farmer faces, whether it be in relation to crop insurance or anything else of this nature. By and large I suggest that the 4 per cent would hardly look after the increase caused by today's inflation. A tractor required to work two sections, which in most cases is what a farmer must have in my part of the country in order to make a gross income of $15,000, would cost about $10,000, and there would be a similar cost for a combine. Admittedly, these costs are spaced over a period of years, but I suggest that the aid proposed by this bill does not correspond to the actual costs involved.
I would like to talk briefly about the contribution of the grains industry to the national economy. Since western Canada was first developed the grains industry has exported billions of bushels of grain bringing a great deal of new money into Canada. Over the last few years this new money has amounted to as much as $1 billion and even $1.2 billion. It has averaged between $500 million and $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, grain is a renewable resource, and it has generated much economic activity
[Mr. Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley) .1
throughout the country. I recall reading a short time ago, when we made one of our big sales to China, about the effect which this sale would have on the port of Vancouver. The people involved in the grain handling industry were shaking hands with themselves. They said their share of the deal would be $40 million. When the minister is planning aid to the grains industry, I ask him to consider whether his proposals have any relationship to the well-being of the industry or whether his proposals are just designed to keep it in a state of hand-to-mouth existence.
Is the minister concerned about the social implications of this plan for the people in the industry? Does he consider what the grains industry means to the wellbeing of the national economy? Farming is no longer a subsistence industry but a cash and carry one. Nowadays the number of in-puts is larger. In the spring many farmers have to purchase 20 tons to 30 tons of fertilizer, at a cost of $30 a ton. That generates a lot of activity in the economy generally and provides a great many jobs. When we consider the aid we are giving to some other industries, such as $12 million for one pulp mill which does not have a significant impact upon the economy, I wonder if it would not be more reasonable to look for a different approach to the problems of agriculture. This is an industry which has done a great deal for Canada, and hopefully will continue to benefit not only farmers like myself but the country as a whole. I think we have been concerned with regional development primarily because of the jobs involved. However, the grain industry itself has provided a great deal of employment on the Prairies and on a long term basis a healthy, viable agricultural industry will continue to provide employment.
I suggest to the minister that he should again consider the different aspects of that 4 per cent. Taking everything into consideration, I feel that the farmer's contribution is too high and the government's percentage should be increased. I was speaking to a member of this House who is involved in a different type of business and he told me that he receives a tariff protection of 11 per cent. What could the grain industry not do with 11 per cent instead of 4 per cent? It may be that the 11 per cent is too high and some effort should be made to remove this kind of protection. Obviously, some sections of Canada receive much better treatment than others. I suggest that the grains industry has not yet received its fair share of the national income when we take all factors into account.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to make a few comments on this bill which could very well be referred to as a two factor bill. One factor is very beneficial and will bring something like $100 million to the grains industry, which is at present in dire need of it. This amount provides something like $560 for each of the 181,000 farmers in western Canada. On Friday afternoon the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) moved an amendment which would separate the payment provision from the
May 10, 1971

stabilizing provision of the bill. I do not understand why this amendment was not supported to a greater extent. It is obvious that the payment factor is completely unrelated to the principle of the stabilization program and the provisions that are inherent within the plan. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who looks at it from an unbiased point of view that the $100 million is merely a bribe to try to get legislation through that will actually reduce the ultimate government payout to agriculture in this country.
I should like to read some comments with regard to the $100 million payout which were presented by the Federation of Agriculture in a brief presented in reference to Bill C-244, the Stabilization Act:
We cannot accept the assumption, as a ground rule set by the government, that to get the immediate payment the long term policy must be accepted. It is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long term proposals contained in the bill.
The urgent necessity of immediately supplementing the incomes of Prairies farmers is clearly seen in the disastrous figures on farm income recently released by Canada Statistics.
From page 5 of the brief I read:
The national responsibility to protect the farmers' prices when these are especially depressed as a result of competitive subsidization, and world surpluses in relation to commercial demand.
On the same page I find the following:
The transitional payment must be made immediately and not made conditional either upon acceptance of the rest of the bill as it stands or upon its rapid passage.
Then, the conclusion is:
-the bill is not acceptable as it now stands.
The other afternoon the minister said that one part of the bill was contingent upon the other. He knows better than that, Mr. Speaker. He is trying to mislead the public, because he knows very well that the payment of part could be put through as an estimate. The passage of such an item would take only part of a day, and the payment could be made to the farmers of this nation without accepting the principle of stabilizing their incomes at their present level. Referring to this matter of misleading the public, a press release dated May 7, 1971 issued by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board reads:
"It is simply a filibuster, and for no apparent reason," said Mr. Lang, who Is minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. "If it continues, it could cost the western farmers $100 million this year.
As reported in Hansard of the same date, the minister said in this House:
I think it important and I urge hon. members opposite to give up their constant reference to some malicious intention on the part of the government.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that this $100 million payout is in no way contingent upon the rest of this bill. The rest of the bill is unacceptable, and this payment could be
24107-7i
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act made through an item in the estimates. The farmers could have the money in their pockets within a few weeks.
The other factor of the bill which we are being asked to accept-and they are hoping that the farmers will put pressure on us to get it through-is the intent to stabilize poverty. At page 8 of their brief, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated:
If not improved as we recommend, the initial impact of the act will likely be for a period to in fact reduce the level of income available to the producer, because of the deduction of the levy and the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Moreover, the protection afforded to the level of farm income will be altogether inadequate over time.
That is a clear statement of the situation. It is useless to talk of stabilizing farm income today when farmers are going broke and their credit is stretched tight. Then, the minister comes along and says he is going to stabilize this situation. It is just as if a group of social workers were to go into the slums of Chicago, Detroit or even New York and tell the people not to worry. These people could be sleeping in the street, and they would be told, "Don't worry; your condition could be worse. We will stabilize your present condition." That is exactly what we are saying to the farmers of western Canada in this bill. We want to stabilize their incomes at near bankruptcy levels.
Last year the incomes of farmers in western Canada were the lowest since 1955. If you bear in mind the 45 per cent erosion in the value of the dollar, you can see that this bill will only make worse what is already an intolerable situation. The government proposes paying out to the farmers of western Canada $100 million, and nobody disagrees with that. On page 5604 of Hansard the minister suggested why the government would not pay out under the stabilization program this year. He said in part:
-we came to the conclusion that it would be better not to try to tie the payment to the stabilization fund formula this year. For one thing, the figures would not be available in time or in full, and for another it seemed possible this year to allow the payout to go not only to those farmers who had been marketing their full share-
In other words, the government did not have all the figures available for this year. Yet that is not the main reason, I suggest, for the $100 million figure. The government knew that if the average were based on some past years, the amount it would have to pay out would be between $200 and $250 million, and not $100 million. The latter figure has been brought about as a result of the drastic reduction in grain sales and that, in turn, reduced the averages which will come into effect when the program is implemented. Last year was one of the worst years farmers have experienced in the last 20 years. The payout will be made on the basis of this low long-term average, and that will make it more difficult for farmers to obtain more from the stabilization fund in future.

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Let us see how much money will be saved for the federal treasury as a result of doing away with certain plans. The federal government has been putting between $60 million and $70 million into the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act program. The government is doing away with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act with respect to which it spent each year $6 million on average. Look at the action taken last year by the Canadian Wheat Board. Admittedly it had to reduce wheat prices by between six and eight cents a bushel, yet the floating of our dollar cost the grain producer approximately $90 million. Look at what has happened under the Lift program. The government paid out under the Lift program something like $58 million or $59 million. The net loss to producers under the Lift program is hard to imagine. The amount farmers lost as a result of their inability to grow grain totals hundreds of millions of dollars. Figures have been bandied about in this House. When the Lift program was announced, figures of $125 million and $150 million were thrown about. Those were the amounts that were to be paid out under the program. When I asked the minister about these figures in the House last fall, he said that they were hypothetical figures and that, instead of the payout under the Lift program approaching $140 million, it was between $57 and $59 million, or in the neighbourhood of $60 million. Yet the people of urban Canada who had heard about the big, glorious figure of $150 million to be paid out under the program said to themselves, "Just look at all we are doing for our farmers; isn't that great."
If you look at Wheat Board reports you will see listed big, potential grain sales which were announced but fell through. There is page after page of orders which have not been taken up, yet all our people think that this government has been doing a great job. As I say, all they need to do is look at reports of the Wheat Board. They will see exactly what is being accomplished with regard to these sales. At any rate, what do all these savings to the federal treasury represent? Anybody who looks at the figures will discover that this country is in a far better position to support agriculture than some other countries are. I believe that these figures were mentioned in the House the other day. To support agriculture, Canada spends about $300 per capita, whereas a little country like Switzerland spends $1,500 per capita to support agriculture. We are reducing our payouts to agriculture.
May I return to the stabilization concept? This concept, which will stabilize incomes in rural Canada at poverty levels, is ridiculous. It is difficult to know why a minister like the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who supposedly has had some association with the farm belt in the past, should support this kind of program.
While we are talking about stabilizing the incomes of farmers, let us look at some of the increases in wages that have been granted elsewhere. In London, Ontario, sheet workers' hourly rates have gone from $5.40 to $7.60, a two year hike of 40 per cent, plus fringe benefits. Plasterers in Toronto have a new contract which takes them from $5.70 to $6.90 next year.


An hon. Member:: They have a union.


Cliff Downey: One recent study of 27 United States areas recently found that workers in seven of the lowest paid building trades already average $11,342 yearly in wages and fringe benefits. In Indiana, iron workers average $15,828 a year, while in southern California the figure for carpenters is $22,234.


Mr. Benjamin:: Does the hon. member have any figures for doctors' incomes?


Cliff Downey: You could include figures for doctors' incomes and bank profits as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And lawyers.


Cliff Downey: Let us look at the levels at which other segments of the population are being asked to stabilize their incomes. I read one statement that wage settlements in the construction industry have been twice as high as they were in manufacturing generally. In 1970, the average contract settlement in the building trades called for first year increases of 18.3 per cent, compared with 8.1 per cent in manufacturing.
Another article is headlined, "Toronto plasterers get 21 per cent raise to $6.90 an hour over two years". The increase represents an increase of 21 per cent over the current wage rate. The same article reads in part:
A number of Toronto area construction unions have their eye on a reduced work week of four eight-hour days and four hours on Fridays. At least six unions are on a 371-hour week.
Can you imagine the length of the farmer's work week after his income has been stabilized at near bankruptcy levels? Incomes for people in the rest of the community are increasing. It is small wonder that an article in the Edmonton Journal of Wednesday, March 24, indicates that few university graduates want to return to the farm. The article reads:
The economics of today's farming work is against many trained young men staying on the farm after they marry.
It then refers to the remarks of Mr. K. R. Parker, acting coordinator of agricultural education in Alberta.
He says better income prospects have been found in off-farm occupations because of the small returns on farm investments.
If the designation of the minister in charge of the wheat board could be changed to the minister in charge of getting rid of farmers, it would certainly be more appropriate in view of what is contained in some of the programs he has introduced. I heard a story one time about a professor. I have heard that the minister in charge of the wheat board may have been a professor at one time. This story concerns an election campaign. Several candidates were vying for the position, including a druggist and a farmer, a pretty tough old rancher from down by the "crick". They were both presenting their reasons why the people should vote for them. After the druggist made his pitch, the farmer made his.
(Mr. Downey.]
May 10, 1971

The farmer said that although the druggist was a fine fellow and a good druggist, this was a farming community. He said that a farmer should be elected to Parliament to deal with their problems. He asked the people whether they could imagine a druggist out on the range or himself working as a druggist. The farmer had long hair and was not too clean. He said that if he were a druggist, he might mistakenly give birth control pills to a woman who was looking for saccharine tablets and she would have the sweetest babies this side of heaven. In light of this, I suggest that we should not have professors looking after our farm problems. We should have people who are a little closer to what really goes on in the farm belt and are aware of the problems.
With regard to the income stabilization, I cannot help but associate the horrible conditions that now exist with stabilized poverty. In the 1930's there was almost as big a disaster in the farm belt as under the present reign of the Liberal government. The only difference is that there were compounding features then, such as drought and grasshoppers. What would have happened if in the 1930's someone had had the same foresight as the minister and introduced a program of stabilized farm incomes? With a program such as this, there would not have been any payout for over 20 years. There would not have been any payout during the crucial and critical 1930's. This illustrates what this plan is really all about.
Some provincial representatives think that this bill is all right. I suggest that they are being bribed politically to do so. They see a little of this $100 million coming their way. They are afraid of what Ottawa might do if they do not subscribe to the stabilization of poverty plan. The farmers of this nation are a very resilient group. They have overcome drought, hail and grasshoppers. I am not sure whether they are going to be able to overcome this present Liberal administration.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to appear to do much for the prairie grain producers. What it does initially is impose a 2 per cent levy at the time of sale, in addition to the various other charges already imposed. If, after various complicated calculations, it is determined that 90 per cent of the over-all proceeds from the sale of grain for a particular crop year are down more than 1 per cent from 90 per cent of the average grain sales for the preceding five years, the producer will receive a stabilization payment. Whether a producer receives a stabilization payment will not depend on his need for one in that particular year. In fact, the poorer his crops, the less he will likely receive. The only persons assured of benefits from this scheme are those who produce the calculations and carry out the administration.
I object to one of the conditions imposed by the bill on which transitional payments depend. To be eligible for the transitional payments, acreage payments, or whatever they might be called, the producer must be named in a permit book issued before a specific date. I maintain that as long as a producer is eligible for a permit book, there is no law that states he has to take one out for the
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
1970-71 crop year. If he wants to sell grain, naturally he must take out a permit book.
If a farmer does not have any grain to sell, I cannot understand why he must take out a permit book. Legally, he could still farm without one. Because of being hailed, dried or frozen out, or any other accident of this nature, he may not feel the need to take out a permit book. Not being a mind reader, he could not guess what the minister or the government will come up with next. We can understand that some method of proving a farmer's planted acres, but what about the prairie farm assistance inspectors? In these types of cases, they inspect the land. They have a record of the crops sown and the number of acres of each. In other words, the farmer is technically in default if he has not taken out a permit book. This is not fair.
A grower who has not taken out a permit book by the required date because something happened to his crop may be in the greatest need of this payment. The minister should announce some alternative method for determining this man's eligibility for an acreage payment or at least allow an appeal. There does not seem to be any such method at the present time. In answer to a question in the House, the minister was adamant in saying that the criterion stated would be the criterion used. I admit that the minister did not have time to consider this question. I realize there are many farmers who would be in this situation and this should be all the more reason for the minister to give this type of consideration. It would certainly not cost the government or the taxpayer much more and it would at least result in impartiality and fairness in a case where a man was hurt through no fault of his own. If this proposal is not accepted it would appear that one more effort is being made to shaft the operator of a small farm.
The clause relating to transitional payments has little relation to the rest of the legislation. There have been other instances of bills covering more than one subject; indeed, this has become a practice. Here, we encounter the same threat; it was expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the other day, and, since then, by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In brief, we are asked as parliamentarians to pass the whole of this bill quickly; if we refuse, we are accused of withholding much-needed cash from the hands of western grain producers. However, this kind of threat is no longer effective. Producers read the press and follow these debates very closely. They know the score.
My main criticism of the legislation is that it is not designed to aid those who are most in need. It could be that such people would be helped in particular areas, but the opposite might also be the case. The bill deals with gross income, whereas to an individual producer it is net income that matters, that is income after all expenses have been met. A stabilization fund is established by imposing levies on producers. The government will, or may, make contributions at times. One of my hon. friends who spoke before me drew attention to the fact that

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
prairie farm assistance would be phased out, and that the legislation under which the government paid for storage of farm-stored grain will also be phased out. All this will take a lot of money away from the western farm economy at a time when costs of production are rising year by year, placing producers in a worse position as each season goes by. I should like to end by saying that this legislation will not ensure the producer of an adequate return for his work.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The bill before us today really relates to two separate items. The first has to do with transitional payments to farmers in an amount said to be $100 million. The other part deals with the setting up of a stabilization plan and the fund required for its operation. I wish to join others in the House in calling upon the minister to withdraw this bill and reintroduce it as two separate measures.
The provision for transitional payments is short-term in its nature; the money is required for immediate payment to farmers. The stabilization provision, on the other hand, is a long-term plan, more fundamental in terms of income security for western farmers. We are not alone in asking that the legislation be introduced as two separate bills. I noticed earlier today that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board appeared to be stunned when hon. members questioned him about a statement made on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I want to remind him that the Federation has urged that this measure be treated as two distinct bills. As proof of this assertion, I wish to quote from the first page of a statement on prairie grain income and stabilization needs issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on May 7. The Federation stated:
The Federation can in no circumstances view these two parts as conditional upon one another in dealing with this bill. They should not be, and need not be, conditional. We cannot accept the assumption, as a ground rule set by the government, that to get the immediate payment the long term policy must be accepted. It would be highly improper for us to temper our criticisms of the long term grains policy in this bill-and we do have criticisms and very serious ones-out of a feeling of fear and urgency respecting a possible delay of these essential "transitional" payments. It is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long term proposals contained in the bill.
I doubt whether there is anyone in the House who would speak against the need for an injection of cash into the western economy, but it amounts to political blackmail when the minister in charge of the Wheat Board includes both the transitional payments provision and a proposal for long-range change into the same bill. In my view, he has done this intentionally; it is the type of thing the government often does.
I notice that in a press release issued on May 7 the minister responsible for the Wheat Board made the following statement with regard to the debate in which we are now engaged:
It is simply a filibuster, and for no apparent reason. If it continues, it could cost the western farmers $100 million this year.

Statements of this kind will not speed up the passage of the bill before us, or help accomplish anything for western Canada. The minister should forget about playing petty, partisan politics. He should agree to separate the different parts of this bill in order that the farmers can get this bit of money immediately. Parliament, in turn, will be able to seriously debate and consider ways of dealing with farm incomes in the future.
I wish to deal with the proposition relating to transitional payments. References have been made to a sum of $100 million in transitional payments to farmers in Canada. This, in itself, is misleading. Under the legislation before us, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is to be terminated and I am told this will mean a saving of approximately $50 million next year. The government will have got rid of that responsibility. PFAA will also be terminated. Under that plan, the producer was contributing 1 per cent of his annual earnings, and I understand that last year the government participated in the fund to the extent of between $5 million and $6 million. So, altogether, the government is saving around $55 million. On this basis, the increase in expenditure is probably closer to $45 million than it is to $100 million. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board should be honest with the Canadian farmers and the Canadian people at large and not talk of a payment of $100 million when it is by no means as much.
I also think that the transitional payment is much too small. As I have said, we are talking of an expenditure of about $45 million odd. I think a much larger injection of cash than this is needed. For some time the farm organizations have been calling for an injection of $250 million into the western economy, and their argument is valid today. The western farmers are still suffering severely from lack of income, just as they were last year.
For reference purposes I want to quote a few figures issued by Dominion Bureau of Statistics a short time ago relating to the net income of farmers, from which the House can readily see the seriousness of the situation in western Canada. We find that since the present government took office in 1968, net farm income in Canada has fallen in two years by $516 million. In Saskatchewan, the province from which both I and the minister come, net farm income over the same period has dropped by 56 per cent, a drop that is almost unbelievable and which illustrates why I and others from Saskatchewan are so concerned about this bill and other pieces of agricultural legislation.
According to these figures, the net income of farmers in Saskatchewan in 1968 was $462,348,000 while two years later, in 1970, it had fallen to $202,718,000, a drop of roughly 56 per cent, I think all members will realize that this suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with the western Canada economy, something that a small injection of cash, whether $50 million or $100 million, is not going to solve. In view of this I think members of this House should consider making some fundamental changes to the benefit of agriculture.
May 10, 1971

When an industry suffers a drop in income of 56 per cent over two years, it must give concern to all members of the House. If this can happen to one industry, it is bound to affect others in Canada. We have already witnessed lay-offs in farm machinery plants in eastern Canada as a result of the farmers not buying as much machinery as they used to buy. This, in turn, aggravates the unemployment problem at the present time.
Not only the members of the agriculture committee but the people of Canada should also have cause for concern in regard to the stabilization plan outlined in this bill. Under this plan, the farmers of this country will have to pay 2 per cent of their total or gross income and the government will contribute 4 per cent. The other day the Minister, in explaining why gross income instead of net income had been selected, said that his economists did not know how calculations could be made on net income.
I should like to inform the minister that net income could have been used had the government wanted to do so. Perhaps this is why the former Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), said that all the government's advisers are second rate. If they cannot calculate income in terms of net income rather than gross income, then they must be second rate. We have too many second rate advisers in the Department of Agriculture and on the minister's staff. It is not we of the opposition who suffer but the farmers, who find themselves over a barrel because of lack of concern and inefficiency.
Under this stabilization plan the farmers will have to contribute 2 per cent of their income up to a maximum of $15,000. Although the bill makes reference to the agricultural industry as a whole, it has no regional or provincial flexibility. In addition, the legislation repeals the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and PFAA is phased out. As I have already said, the bill has many long term implications. Personally, I think it is the first step toward implementing the report of the task force on agriculture which was released by the government several months ago. Passage of this bill will mean less government involvement in agriculture instead of more. The federal commitment, once this bill is passed, will be less than before when the old acts were in effect.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister says that is not true, but many farm organizations, such as the Farmers Union and others, say that it is true. Perhaps when the minister speaks he will want to comment on these matters which seem to be controversial and which are interpreted in different ways by members of the House. Many people think that this is true and, unfortunately, so do many of the farmers.
Another matter for concern under the stabilization section of the bill is that, to use the words of some farmers, it would stabilize poverty or low incomes in the farming communities of Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true, either.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister says that is not true, either. Perhaps the minister would visit the farmers in my riding and tell them that this is not true, because certainly that is not their impression. In addition, the minister has been unable to offer any explanation to them. Perhaps this is where many members of this side of the House differ with the minister. Many of us are fed up with the piecemeal approach that he has taken during the last three years, the lackadaisical and aloof approach he has taken to agriculture. The way of life in western Canada is being eroded, not gradually but rapidly. As I said, farm incomes have dropped by 56 per cent. The cost of farm machinery and the cost of producing a bushel of wheat has risen each and every year. The Barber commission has stated that the farmers have been victimized for years by the high price of farm machinery.
I should like to know why the government does not take some action in this regard. They have many economic tools in their hands to bring down the cost of farm machinery. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps they are more interested in protecting the farm machinery companies than the farmers and ordinary people of Canada. This is why the government has not taken action, and is probably why it will not do very much about implementing some of the recommendations made by the Barber commission.
Many people have left the province of Saskatchewan, having been forced out by low farm incomes and the lack of real stability in the province as a whole. Businesses have gone bankrupt, people have become unemployed. We have seen the erosion of small communities as a result not only of agricultural policy but other government plans as well. The closing of rural post offices, the removal of station agents and other changes of this sort have all contributed to threatening the rural way of life in western Canada. I think this is a way of life that is worth preserving, but only the government can act to preserve, to stimulate and to assist it.
The answer of the government has been to establish the task force, a task force on which the farmers themselves were not really represented and other people talked about the way of life of our farmers. What has this task force recommended? It has recommended a number of measures that the minister is now trying to implement. One of the recommendations is that two thirds of the farmers must leave their farms in the name of efficiency; another that there must be less government involvement in agriculture instead of more. Other countries in the world have governments that are becoming more and more involved in helping farmers by allowing them to plan and to organize for themselves.
If you analyse this whole situation, what is the logical conclusion? What is going to happen? We are going to see more and more farmers leave the land each and every year, perhaps at an accelerated rate, as is happening today in the west. We will see more and more of our towns, villages and small cities dwindle and disappear. These places are directly tied to the farming community. If this trend continues, we will have in western Canada,

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
and Saskatchewan particularly, a few corporate farm units run in the same way as any other huge business, with an eye to the profit margin and efficiency. There is no concern about the human element or what will happen to the operators of small farms as well as other people who live in rural areas. What does this government have in mind for them? It seems it has nothing in mind at all except the welfare rolls and the unemployment cheques being delivered in large Canadian cities today.
These are a few of the long-range ramifications of these agricultural programs unless we have action right now in respect of rural Canada and the whole agricultural picture as it is in the west. I think the rural way of life is worth preserving. I think there is a certain quality to it. Instead of pushing people into larger cities we should be talking about repopulating, stimulating the agricultural economy and making the rural life viable. I understand the average age of farmers in western Canada is 57 years. This in itself once again underlines the fact that this industry is dying rapidly. This is another point which proves that we are not really just talking to ourselves when we say this is an industry in a tremendous amount of trouble.
I want to suggest to the government, and to all members in this House, that we should make agricultural problems a top priority. We should draft a bill to put $250 million immediately into the hands of farmers. Let us give them $250 million as some farm organizations are requesting. This is what the people who know about farming recommend. This is not what is being said by government bureaucrats or directors of corporations, but the farmers themselves. This is what is needed.
I think in the long range we must make some very important decisions, and I should like to suggest three that come to mind at this time. First, the government must make the fundamental decision that rural life is worth while. I believe it should not only be preserved but helped and stimulated in every way possible. I think urbanization is taking place much too rapidly in Canada, and in an impersonal way. The basic and fundamental decision which must be made is that rural life in this country must be helped. Farmers must be helped, and if we are going to do anything at all we must first make this fundamental decision. Secondly, if rural life is to be worth while, the farmers must make some of the decisions that effect him and his life. There is no reason that the farmer should not participate in these decisions. Farmers should be involved in agricultural decision-making process. Why are they not consulted in a really meaningful way? Why can farmers not have some say in respect of the prices they receive for their commodities? Why can the farmers not have a say as to what they should pay for tractors and other implements necessary to the production of grain? Many other sectors of our society have this power.
Perhaps to the minister of the government, this sounds like a revolutionary or new idea. I do not think the minister is ready to let the farmer have this type of authority over his own destiny. We could get involved in
a discussion about Bill C-176, but I will leave that for later. Under that bill, why not give the producer control over what is going to happen in his own area of concern and endeavour? These are things we must do in the future if we want to do something really significant to help the western farmer and rural life.
Finally, if we really want to do something about helping the farmer and western rural communities, the government and the people in this country must decide they are going to support agriculture in a really meaningful way. The government must finally, some time, do something to support agricultural prices. The price of a bushel of grain is probably lower now, or no higher than it was at the end of the Second World War. This should not be the case. This is about the only country in the industrialized world which does not support our wheat prices in some way when it comes to trading on the international market.
Once again I should like to refer to a statement by the Federation of Agriculture about the price of grain. There is a reference to the two-price system, with which this government has flirted for several years but has never done anything in a serious way to implement. The statement by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture reads in part:
Finally, an adequate two-price system must be made a part of the total policy package with respect to income protection for western grain growers. It is just not right that we should be the only, or virtually only, wheat producing nation that accepts world price levels as an adequate guide to prices that should fairly be paid in the marketplace by domestic consumers. It is a shocking fact that in the entire post-war period since the second world war there has been essentially no increase in grain prices and therefore no increase whatever in the amount the farmers receive from flour and cereal products sold to the consumer. This must be corrected by substantial increases in the price received by the farmer for grain used for domestic human consumption. The impact on the consumer would in any case be very small. The great bulk of the cost of cereal products to the consumer is transportation, processing and distribution.
I suggest that the time has come when the government should take organizations such as the Federation of Agriculture, the farmers' union, the wheat pool and others very seriously when they talk about policies with regard to farm income. It is about time the farmers themselves had a real and meaningful voice in determining the policy under which they will live. It is about time this government placed a high enough priority on agriculture that we put our money where our mouths are and supported the price of agricultural commodities. We can do many things to increase the incomes of farmers. We can do many other things, for instance, along the line suggested by the Barber commission concerning farm machinery. There is no reason farm machines should cost so much or that profits should be so excessive. We could do something immediately to bring down the price of farm machinery, and this will have to be done if we want to improve the farm income factor.
There are many other things I could add, some of which have already been mentioned by people such as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thom-

May 10, 1971

son), in respect of improving farm income. If we did these things we might find that farm communities would be more viable and much better places in which to live. This would improve the quality of life as well. Farming would then be something young people might become involved in, since they are not becoming involved in it today. The young people cannot afford to get involved in agriculture. This would be a positive result, and might be accomplished by a strong agricultural policy here in Ottawa. If we had a strong agricultural industry, all people in Canada would enjoy a higher level of income. Agriculture is still one of the primary industries in Canada. It is still the backbone of our economy. When the agricultural industry is adversely affected, other industries are negatively affected as well.
The only people who would really suffer as a result of implementing the suggestions I have made would be the huge corporations. These are the people who are really benefiting from the efforts of farmers. They are raping the farmers of western Canada. These are the people who are calling the tune. I refer to the farm machine companies and their friends, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and his friends. It is about time we turned the tables and allowed the potential wealth of this industry to be reaped by the farmers. Decision-making should be left to the farmers. Neither of these two things is being done today, and that is precisely why we are running into so much difficulty in respect of western agriculture.
So, to summarize, I should like once again to suggest that we break this bill into two parts, and that we increase the amount of the transitional payment from what it is now, probably $45 million, to something like $250 million, as has been recommended by farm organizations. We can see this amount is needed when we look at the DBS figures which show that farm net income in Saskatchewan has dropped 56 per cent in two years. I do not know how the minister in charge of the Wheat Board can sit in this House with a smile on his face when he knows that people in his own riding, which is near mine, have had a drop in income during the past few years since he assumed responsibility for them. It must take smug arrogance to sit here and defend those policies when we have all the wealth, resources, as well as the technology, in Canada to do something about the situation.
Now, I notice we are getting comments from the puppets in the Liberal backbenches. This is the only time they speak out. I should like to see them do or say something constructive for a change. They should come to my constituency or the constituencies of Regina Lake Centre and Saskatoon-Biggar and make some of these remarks to the people there who are facing the brunt of the agricultural policies. It is all right to jostle back and forth in the House of Commons, but we are pretty secure here. It is the people in the country today who are taking the brunt of the stupid, inhuman and immoral policies. This is what we must fight and change. Let us stop
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act talking about the small, irrelevant points and get down to the real business of giving the farmers a better living and allowing them to participate in making decisions instead of having them made by the bureaucrats or corporations. These are the issues and this is the time for action.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-244, I should like to pay strict attention to the minister's remarks as recorded at page 5603 of Hansard when he attempted to urge the members of the House of Commons to pass the legislation as quickly as possible and not project the belief that the government is trying to do away with small farms. A complete paragraph of his remarks on that particular page, in the right hand column, dealt with that subject. He said that members in the opposition are doing a disservice to the agricultural industry by attempting to project what is actually in the mind of the government. However, it would seem to be the intention of the government to remove the operator of the small farm from the land. The minister states that this is the furthest thing from his mind. Actually, this piece of legislation, along with other pieces of legislation, was spelled out very clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on June 2, 1968.
While I do not have a copy of the Prime Minister's remarks at that time, I do have a copy of an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 4, 1968 commenting on the Liberal farm policies. This article, in essence, paraphrases what the Prime Minister said on June 2 in outlining the farm policy. The article reads:
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 that 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 read this merely for the purpose of pointing out that this plan was already on the books before the present minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was appointed to that office. When we analyse this plan carefully, we might ask where it came from. Well, we can see it must have come from former Liberal party conventions and former meetings of the Liberal greats. I suggest it came from top bureaucrats, some of whom are in the Prime Minister's office today. These are people who know nothing about agriculture and whose main theme is to get the small scale farmer off the farm in the hope that the remaining farmers, will be able to sustain themselves in an economy which is inflating so much each year. One might say I am being overly critical of the Prime Minister and his concept of agriculture, but I do not believe one would think so after reading the speech in which he dealt with the program for small farms, and also the Liberal convention policy statement.
I have correspondence here in respect of a Liberal executive meeting of April 3 and 4 which deals with the redrafting of their policy document. It contains this reference to the Canadian Wheat Board:
Protein grading for wheat is a must.
5650

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
We have that. Then, there is this statement:
The federal government should pay for all saleable grains in order to have a storage reserve and to reduce costs to the farmer.
That must mean that the federal government should pay all the storage costs on saleable grain. Then, the statement continues:
Capital gains, estate taxes and succession duties should not be permitted to break up viable family farms, nor should capital gains deprive a farmer of his retirement income.
Those statements are very important when one considers the over-all aspects of the grain stabilization program and the eradication of the farmers. As I was saying, the name of the game in this whole series of farm legislation is the removal of the small scale farmer. If we look back at the Winnipeg speech of June 7 we will see that the Prime Minister had a specific policy for the operators of small farms. He said this:
While the situation varies from commodity to commodity, in general 30 per cent of Canada's farmers produce 70 per cent of our agricultural production. This great variation in farm size and with it productivity renders the development of agricultural programs appropriate to varying farm sizes most difficult. The problem could be met through the institution of a system of farm differentiation by productivity and size. This differentiation could provide a basis for modifying programs to meet the particular needs of farms of different sizes.
He continues:
In return for the differentiation level of assistance the smaller farmer could undertake that at the time the farm passed from his possession he would not dispose of it for other than farm consolidation or for movement into the public sector. Thus the special programs designed for farmers in this category would not perpetuate the problem.
When we look at that statement, we realize that no owner of a small farm can pass on his farm to his son. He must pass it on to a neighbour or to the government. These are the conclusions one must arrive at from reading this speech. Certainly, that statement differs markedly from the original Liberal policy which was suggested that the capital gains tax, estate tax and succession duties should not be permitted to break up the viable family farm. The policy proposed in this bill is directly contrary to the views expressed at the last Liberal convention.
Let us look at the grain stabilization program. When was it first proposed? It was proposed on October 29, 1970 in this House. When it was first proposed, the minister complained about opposition members of all parties holding up farm legislation. If this program is so necessary and so acceptable to the farm population, where has the minister kept it from October 29? The next we saw of it was the first reading of the bill on April 29, 1971, six months later. Mr. Speaker, amendments are proposed to many pieces of legislation asking that they be not now read a second time but read a second time six months hence. Nobody suggested that that be done with this bill, but the minister, in effect, has done so himself.
Since then, the minister has followed certain procedures. He has bombarded the Prairie farmers with at
least four or five pamphlets advertising this program, seeking feedback, and wanting to know how to change and modify it. Then, on March 15 he did modify it to some extent. On that date he said the federal government would make a contribution which would be twice the size of the contribution made by the farmer. He did not say that on October 29. But then he began to get the feedback, and so he made the change. Then, the minister had to tag on another $100 million as a temporary measure. He admits that this is an one-shot program, but I think he will agree that, in contrast, the stabilization program is a long-term measure. What have the two in common? This makes one wonder. Why tie them together in one bill? All along the minister has been attempting to devise some way to smooth the passage of this bill through the House and through the committee.
The minister has been attempting to persuade the farmers that he is right. He did not bring the bill before the elected representatives of the farmers because he was aware that they were knowledgeable of the legislative processes. They know what the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act mean to the farmer. The minister deliberately refused to allow these representatives to debate the bill until he had received enough feedback and had changed it to the point where he thought he could pilot it through the House. It took the minister six months to get the feedback, six months to try to convince the farmers that they should accept this program. Now, to the surprise of many, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-and in this case I think the primary influence would have been the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool- says the grain stabilization program is no good, that it won't benefit the farmers at all, and that in fact it will put them in a strait jacket.
This bill, coupled with a lot of other government legislation, is an attempt to remove the government's commitment to the agricultural industry. The government does not want to give any subsidies to that industry. The government feels it can best arrive at this solution by taking control from the farmers. When that stage is reached the government will tell the farmers, "We will manage your business. You plant what we tell you to plant, and take off what we tell you to take off. Then, we won't have to give you any subsidy." The aim is nothing less than state control of the agricultural industry. I suppose this all stems from the Prime Minister's famous query to the wheat farmers of western Canada, at a time when he did not know any better. He asked them, "Why should I sell your wheat?" When he found out that he had this responsibility, then he said to himself, "I had better control the industry so that the farmers won't produce a surplus, because I have other things to do; I have a whole world to see, and to see seven times over. I cannot be concerned with these mundane problems of the farmers. They are becoming less and less a political influence as time goes on, and the more of them we can get off the land the less a political influence they will be."
How does this attitude compare with what other governments are doing for their agricultural industries? Last fall, speaking to the Agricultural Congress, the Minister

May 10, 1971

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act that, initially only, special emphasis will be given to grain and oil seeds. This program may not be continued.
Here is another of the proposals made on October 29:
That the Canadian government continue its policy ot supporting credit sales of wheat, but that the costs, if any, of providing the buyer with medium term credit at interest rates below commercial rates be assumed as a cost by the pool.
This is another cost to the farmer, and another example of allowing the salesman to make the sale, then have the farmer pick up the tab. For far too long, the farmer has been picking up the tab. A former minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board said a few years ago that he did not have a thing to do with the Wheat Board, that the Wheat Board sold the grain. This minister is putting himself in a position where the Wheat Board will not be able to make a move without asking him how they are to sell grain and what interest rates they are to set. In the end, it will be the farmer who will pick up the tab.
Surely, the Canadian government should be creating a situation in which more flexibility could be given to the Wheat Board so that it could serve the farmer better, rather than the government. This series of bills is geared to creating a situation where the Wheat Board serves the government and the government is responsible to the farmer. Should we not put more emphasis on bringing in legislation that would make the Wheat Board directly responsible to the farmer? There would be less chance of sympathetic and slick politicians hoodwinking the voters at election time.
At the Liberal party policy meeting in March of this year the question of the Canadian Wheat Board was discussed. There was agreement that the Canadian Wheat Board should be retained but made more flexible. That is the point I am attempting to make now, but how is it being made more flexible? Today, a farmer has to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out what the quota should be, what he should sell and what he should grow. The old system moved grain because of the assistance of Operation Lift, but I do not want to get into that because everybody across Canada knows that Operation Lift was an utter failure. As someone said in the House the other day, a farmer told him that if he had one more Lift he would be out of business. That explains Operation Lift very well. What does the program do? This whole series of bills creates a situation in which the farmer is placed in a strait jacket.
He must be a producer of barley, wheat or oats with little opportunity of becoming the producer of any other commodity. Some may say that this is all to the good, because then the goverment will know exactly what is happening in the field. Well, the government attempted to tell the farmer what he should do last spring when it introduced Operation Lift. Then, this fall, we found ourselves short of barley and were prepared to sell barley at between 10 cents and 15 cents a bushel less than we ought to have sold it. Why, Mr. Speaker? Apparently the all-knowing eye, and I mean the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang)
did not know the answers. He was not superior to anybody else in knowledge and did not know about the corn-blight in the United States. Last spring he advised our farmers not to grow barley, and this spring he advised them to grow barley. Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear the minister taking objection to some of the statements I am making. I suggest that he advised farmers not to grow barley. I submit that before May 1 they were advised not to grow barley, and perhaps in June they will be advised that they can grow barley.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggests that I do not know what I am talking about. I think I know a great deal more about agriculture than the minister knows, and I care a great deal more about agriculture than the minister does. To give you some idea of how much he cares, may I read a report from the Free Press Weekly dated May 1, 1971. It reads, in part:
Canadian Wheat Board Minister Otto Lang put his head on the chopping bock of prairie farm opinion last week by introducing a Commons amendment that could give the board marketing control of flax, rye and rapeseed.
That gives you some idea of what the minister knows. He does exactly as he is told to do and is following policies laid out in the Winnipeg speech. If he does not do as he is told he will have to go the way the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) went. Since his old job at the University of Saskatchewan may not be open, he would rather stay here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me make one point which may or may not have been made with regard to the stabilization program. The PFAA program helped farmers, although not as much as had been hoped. In situations where drought or other hazards had brought farmers economic losses, the program worked almost on an individual basis. It was not quite as efficient on an individual basis as crop insurance, but it was almost as efficient. Under the program being discussed, we are considering the five-year average of income obtained from six major crops. If a farmer's income is 90 per cent or more of that average, no payment is made. On the other hand, if there is a drought in the Peace River area, or in southern Manitoba or along the Red River Valley and farmers lose their crops there, or if there is a drought or a crop failure in southern Saskatchewan, and these conditions do not prevail throughout the rest of the country which may enjoy a good crop, there will be no compensation at all under the stabilization program.


Otto Emil Lang: Has the hon. member not heard of crop insurance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister asks if I have heard of crop insurance? Why, I helped to have that legislation passed

May 10, 1971

in this House. I know how it applies to some areas. It applies to some areas of Canada, but not all areas of western Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: It will.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It will, as the minister says. First, a new program ought to be implemented before we do away with the one we have.


Otto Emil Lang: We have two years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see the minister nodding his head affirmatively in response to that remark. I do not see any crop insurance legislation on the books.


Otto Emil Lang: It is there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am talking about legislation on the books that could be applied this year, or next year or the year after. The minister suggested that we had to wait for two years in order to fully implement this crop insurance scheme. I do not know if an election will intervene in the interim. I think he meant that that legislation will not take effect for two years. I submit that the legislation we are considering will not take effect for two years. First, the farmer must average his receipts from six major grains over five years, to determine how much he is to get. Then, he must average these amounts out over the last three years. In other words, he must wait for three years before this legislation becomes effective, yet the government will have done away with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act by July, 1971. If that act had been allowed to stay in force, farmers receiving payments under it would have received more than the $100 million this program will make available because every year farmers receive on the average $46 million under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act program. The minister is not denying these statements. He knows that what I say is correct. The federal government's contribution to farmers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would be greater than it will be under this program.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It should be recorded that the hon. member is mistaking my views when he says that I agree with him merely because I do not argue with him. I should like it to be recorded that it is much simpler, as it was the other day, to let him know when he says something that is accurate. That way I shall not rise very often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One should not really criticize the minister. One can really only feel sorry for him. As a boy, he grew up on the farm.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true, either.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Haven't you grown up yet, Otto?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: His father owned a farm. The minister could not bear it and swore that he would have nothing
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
to do with agriculture. When he came down here the Prime Minister did not feel that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was capable of handling the Wheat Board. It was decided to divide the responsibility for agriculture. The Prime Minister needed someone from Saskatchewan in his cabinet, and so the load fell on the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. I feel sorry for him because he has no love for the farm and no love for the agricultural industry. He is only carrying out the wishes of the master in trying to eradicate the small scale farmer. In any event, this program does not take into consideration the plight of the individual farmer; nor does it consider the plight of a region. It applies nationally. There must be a national catastrophe before money is paid out.
The other glaring error in the program is that it ignores the effect of inflation. We know that the farmer's costs of production are going up each year. Some hon. members may say that, to meet this, the farmer ought to become more efficient. Mr. Speaker, in the last ten or 20 years, Canada's agricultural industry has been one of the most efficient of our industries. In terms of goods produced per man hour of work, it has been more efficient than most industries in Canada. This program will fail because it does not take into account inflation and because it does not take into account farmers on a regional or individual basis. We need more flexibility and not more rigidity in our system. Our salesmen ought to be more aggressive in selling wheat, oats, barley, rye, rapeseed, flax and other produce. This legislation will create a cushion for agricultural salesmen. They will sit back and not be induced to sell. The legislation is intolerable in the eyes of many farm organizations and farmers who have followed the discussion in the House and in Committee.
I might say that even on October 29, when the minister proposed this program, he had no idea of offering farmers $100 million. He did not even suggest that until March 15. It is interesting to note why the minister made this suggestion on March 15. At that time he realized this bill would not be accepted across the country nor would he get it through the House or the Standing Committee on Agriculture because many of the members who represent farm areas are willing to pass only legislation that will benefit the farmers. The minister knows he has to offer as a bribe this piece of the legislation. He has to use a bribe of $100 million. The last speaker pointed out that, in essence, there is only $45 million being offered because the minister is taking away the funds contributed by the federal government under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Acts.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: In speaking to Bill C-244, Mr. Speaker, I want to try to determine whether the government is concerned about the agricultural economy. I was surprised to see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, become touchy when the

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act hon. member lor Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was speaking a short while ago. It seems that he is somewhat ashamed of the legislation he has to bring before the House. He is ashamed of the legislation because he is unable to answer the questions which the agricultural producers across this nation are now asking.
After looking at the minister's press release of May 7, it would appear that if anyone is playing politics it is the minister. I suggest it is cheap politics that the minister is playing. When one becomes as touchy as the minister, there is a basis for this type of reference. In his May 7 press release, he refers to a so-called filibuster in the House which is working against the interests of all the Western farmers. Those involved in agricultural production are concerned that there may be some cheap politics used in this House to ram through legislation that in the long run is not in the best interests of the agricultural industry.
It amazes me that we are unable to divide the two factors in this bill, one of which is the $100 million figure which the government throws around as the amount that will be passed to the farmer. In his press release, the minister stated:
As long as these members continue to be more interested in making political hay in the House of Commons than in helping the prairie farmers reap the benefits of new legislation, the House cannot turn its attention to the huge backlog of other legislation which must be dealt with.
I suggest that it is only the members of the opposition who are interested in the agricultural economy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has today assumed the new name "Jack in the box", is not concerned about what really happens to the agricultural producers in western Canada. It appears that after being given two portfolios, manpower and immigration as well as responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister is not interested in trying to serve one or the other or he would say that he cannot handle both of these portfolios. Both are areas of great concern to the people of this country. If he was consistent and responsible, the minister would indicate to the Prime Minister that he cannot handle these two portfolios. Since he has to handle both portfolios, no doubt it is the bureaucrats in the department who are really calling the shots.
I like to think that the minister is concerned about the agricultural economy. When I read the minister's recent news release, I wondered whether the minister was saying it was just too bad, he had to ram through this legislation which does not mean anything to anyone, particularly the agricultural producers, because they do not understand it. As I said the other day, the minister was not on very good terms with the premier of Saskatchewan. He must have returned to the good graces of that premier a short while ago. In the address he made at Morse, the premier of Saskatchewan said he did not want to tip his hand on when an election would be held but he added, and I quote:
It would be very nice to have those cheques in the hands of farmers before an election.
I suggest that the premier of Saskatchewan and the minister are in cahoots in order to try to ram through a provision, the application of which the average producer is not aware. I am sure all members appreciate the fact that we must plan if we expect this nation to grow. At the same time, there is more to planning than philosophizing about what should be done for the agricultural industry. Not too long ago the Prime Minister was interviewed about what he considered to be the real problems of agriculture. At that time he said, and I quote:
Perhaps, to be quite candid with you, when you talk of growing disenchantment I must begin by saying that some of my reading of the west is that it is always disenchanted.
This is a typical example of the interest of the Prime Minister and his cabinet in the agricultural economy of the west. They give zero consideration to that particular area of our country. It is time we realized that this government does not care one iota about what happens to the agricultural economy. Later in the interview the Prime Minister said:
If this is the case, it is not so much a question of meeting the disenchantment by specific things, but by convincing the west that the way to beat this alienation is to get in there and fight.
The Prime Minister is suggesting that the farmers get in there and fight for what is rightfully theirs. The minister, members of the cabinet and members opposite are saying that we are trying to filibuster a bill which is not in the interests of the agriculture industry at this time. In the same interview, the Prime Minister said:
This is exactly what we did in Quebec. I am speaking now as a Quebecker and a French-Canadian. There was a great disenchantment with Ottawa in Quebec. It was leading to the breakup of the country.
I believe this interview took place before the so-called apprehended insurrection in Quebec. At that time the Prime Minister thought he had Quebec in the palm of his hand and could do exactly what he wanted. If the Prime Minister now believes he has any part of Canada in the palm of his hand, he better take another look because that is definitely not the situation.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-Industry-Aid programs for footwear industry.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.

May 10, 1971



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 26, 1970, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winch:
That, in the opinion of this House, the following matters should be referred to a standing committee designated by the Prime Minister, with authority to call for persons and papers and report its deliberations with recommendations (a) the use of animals for medical research purposes, their care and utilization, and procedures for government licensing and inspection of, and control over, all premises using animals for laboratory research or medical training (b) as far as federal jurisdiction permits, recommendations regarding legislation providing penalties for those abusing animals, and any persons making a business of raising or catching animals for sale to research individuals or centres and not keeping same in a humane manner (c) the most humane method of trapping furbearing animals (d) consideration of the entire Canadian picture relative to the maintenance of fish, bird and animal wildlife and the regulation required for conservation (e) consideration of federal and provincial jurisdiction on the aforementioned items, and proposals for an effective manner of attaining federal-provincial agreement and legislative action.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, I followed with more than usual interest the earlier debate on this motion, motivated in part by concern for the welfare of animals, particularly those used in medical research and, in addition, as one who has lived not only in northern Ontario. When one live's only a few minutes drive or walk from the virgin forests you probably come to appreciate the value, beauty and necessity of maintaining animal life in Canada. And as a resident of the City of Toronto, where drives and long trips have to be undertaken in order to recognize the beauty of Canada's northland, I probably take more interest in this subject than the average human being who has not had the opportunity to live in northern Ontario or for that matter in the Northwest Territories. In addition, it was brought home to me forcibly, as often happens to a father of children, by seeing programs on television or reading articles put out by wild life organizations and seeing the kind of abuse that cruel men sometimes commit when dealing with the animal world. A son or daughter who sees this kind of cruelty taking place recognizes that you are a legislator and asks what the government is doing in this field or, more particularly, what are you doing. So, from a sense of interest in the first instance, as a result of my early life and from a sense of obligation to children who look to a father for guidance and direction in this area, I have done a bit of research. I want to say at the outset that I welcome the hon. member's motion.
You know, he is not making suggestions or recommendations as to the kind of regulations we should have in dealing with animals. He is not suggesting the most humane method of trapping fur-bearing animals nor is he suggesting methods which might be used to preserve wildlife and animal life in Canada. He is suggesting that
Research on Treatment of Animals
a special committee be set up to consider all the things he would like to see done in this field. Why does he feel that this is necessary? I suppose he has done at least as much reading as I have. He is probably a member of a wild life organization, maybe of one or two, and because of his interest in this field I am sure that people not only from his own constituency but all over Canada write to him, knowing his concern.
Who can disagree that today there is a necessity and a sincere desire to safeguard the health and welfare of research animals? We do recognize that there is cruelty. No government can legislate against cruelty. A government can only draw up guidelines for the direction of people who are entrusted with the care of these animals. In the past I believe there has been an abuse and a waste of research animals, not because the majority of researchers are callous, but because in all societies there are people who, in the absence of guidelines, act in an uncontrolled and disdainful manner. Our society is still far from perfect and we must constantly strive to bring about improvements. One of the wonderful things about Canada is that we get as disturbed as we do about the destruction of seals, the destruction of wolves, the destruction of animals, hunting them by aircraft and even the licences which have been given recently for the killing of polar bear for what have been described as good economic reasons. This amount of concern makes me feel we have little to worry about in this area.
What improvement has the federal government brought about in the use of research animals? It has established the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Animal Care Resources Panel. Members of these responsible bodies, acting from a sincere desire and sense of obligation to provide the highest possible standards of care and treatment of animals used for scientific research and for teaching purposes, have produced a booklet called "Care of Experimental Animals-A Guide for Canada." I respectfully suggest that this be required reading for all engaged in this field. The concepts presented in this guide are derived from scientific principles, moral considerations and from a feeling of responsibility for the lower forms of life. Let me quote from the introduction to this guide:
Before the decision to use an animal for experiment is made, consideration must first be given to the possibility that lower orders, or non-sentient methods would provide the necessary information. If not, it is the responsibility of the investigator to choose judiciously the species of animal.
In this short quotation is summarized the entire field of responsibility of the scientific profession toward the use of animals in research, and I stress the word "responsibility" because the scientists in this group do recognize their obligation in this field. Surely, it is their responsibility to consider whether lower forms of animals or non-sentient forms of life can be used to provide the answers that research is seeking. This would prevent some of the cruelty which is inflicted upon animals and eliminate some of the waste to which I referred earlier.
The major principle for the care of experimental animals is the prevention of unnecessary pain and discomfort. We seem to be balancing two priorities here as so

May 10. 1971
Research on Treatment of Animals
often is the case. We need to carry out this kind of medical experimentation in order to find cures for cancer, and who can deny it would probably be necessary to inflict some pain, some death and some discomfort on animals in order to bring about a cure for this most dreaded disease. We recognize that there are situations in which pain or discomfort may be experienced by an animal being used for experimental purposes and this may be a necessary concomitant of the investigation. However, such experiments should be, and I think are, only undertaken when, on the basis of expert opinion, the significance of scientific investigation justifies the procedure. Here again a judgment must be made by those individuals who have the responsibility to do so.
What is the responsibility of the government? Would we, in effect, be in the research laboratory itself looking over the shoulder of research scientists? I think not. But I do feel that we have an obligation to provide some kind of guidelines so that the individual medical research technician or doctor will know what is expected of him. I understand that the guide being put out by the organization to which I referred earlier has become so sophisticated in its recommendations that even noise levels in animals rooms are controlled. Background noise may be provided to cover or modify the level of existing noise, depending on the specific need. If this had not been suggested to individual researchers, I wonder whether it would, in fact, have occurred to them.
I think that the care of animals goes beyond their immediate environment. There are also considerations of a structural nature. For example, the location of the building to avoid unnecessary transportation of animals over long distances and exposure to climatic extremes immediately before experimental use are two such considerations. Floors of buildings must be specifically designed to be hard, durable and impervious to water. All of these things to an individual who has little or no concern for the welfare of animals seems to be carrying it to a ridiculous extreme; yet if we do not set these high standards we will surely find that medical researchers will feel it is their moral right to drop below the standard is expected of them.
One further aspect that I should like to stress in connection with animal husbandry is the handling of animals so that they are accustomed to proper and frequent handling and made more suitable for experimentation. Only trained individuals who are familiar with animals and who have been trained in handling and restraint procedures should manipulate animals in order to minimize the possibility of injury to them and to the handler, and to minimize disturbance to the well being of the animal itself.
In conclusion, the humane care and use of research animals, indeed of all animal life, is the concern of any moral and conscientious society. Surely, it is the prime responsibility of those individuals who use animals for research purposes. One cannot underestimate the benefits to man that accrue from the use of animals in biomedical research. We must expect that such research in the
future will bring equal or even greater benefits to all forms of life. It is this expectation that justifies the necessity for animal experimentation.
As I said in my opening remarks, non-sentient and lower forms of animal life are used whenever possible. However, when higher forms of animal life are used, it is the responsibility of the user to provide humane care and treatment, to minimize pain and discomfort and to avoid unnecessary use. I have a daughter who wrote an article for a humane society competition and received an award for her concern for the welfare of the animal world. I am proud to have had the opportunity of playing my part publicly in this forum, as she did in the only forum that was open to her.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a request which I believe will be granted. The hon. member for Vancouver East is not able to be in the chamber this afternoon and he had hoped that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway might say a few words in this resumed debate. However, the hon. lady did speak when the matter was before us on October 26 and it would require unanimous consent for her to be given the floor again. I am asking that that consent be given; there was a previous understanding that it would.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that the hon. member for Hull, who also has spoken previously to this motion, will be afforded an opportunity of saying a few words on the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be accorded the privilege of speaking a second time in this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the House for its courtesy; I will not trespass unduly on the time of the House. I was very pleased indeed to hear the first speaker welcome this motion, and I should like to re-emphasize the purpose of the motion, which is to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) designate a committee to which various matters affecting animals would be sent for purposes of regular discussion. This committee would have the power to call witness and to call for documents, to study the matter and to make recommendations in its report.
I feel that it is of great importance that this be done. I say this because I do not think that animal well-being or welfare has received any concerted study by the House, partly because we are so engrossed in the welfare and needs of human beings that we have not yet got around to animals. I believe that one of the reasons for the establishment of such a committee now, and for it to be put to work without delay, is that the Canadian public as a whole needs to be alerted to the matter. Some of them are. Some members of the public have been pressing for this action for years. But the on the whole the Canadian public is not alterted to a number of the aspects governing animal welfare.

May 10, 1971

I want to touch very briefly on just a couple of these aspects. The first is the matter that has just been dealt with at length, namely animals used for experimental purposes. I do not think that in the year 1971 it is sufficient for animal experimentation to be carried on by voluntary guidelines; that is just not good enough. Certainly, it has not been regarded as good enough in the countries of the world that are ahead of us in restricting cruelty to animals and in seeing to their care. While I do not undervalue the work that is being done by the Canadian Committee on Animal Care, I do feel that they need the additional assistance of legislation to make sure there is proper care.
I do not think that this matter should resolve itself into a question of trying to find species of animals whose pain threshold is not as great as that of other animals that are higher up in the sphere of evolution. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), referred the last time he spoke to the establishmemt in the United Kingdom of the first research institute that does not use animals for experiments. This is the Walter Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, located in England which employs the techniques of tissue culture, cell culture, organ culture, robotics, films and computers.
Dr. Charles Mayo, one of the founders of the famous Mayo Clinic, has made this statement:
I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.
Perhaps this statement is going a little too far; perhaps not. But I believe that a committee of this House designated by the Prime Minister should go fully into such questions as the experimental use of animals for research purposes. They should attempt to find out how much live experimentation is legitimate, how much legislative protection this requires, and what other means can be made available. My colleague from Vancouver East has spoken earlier about the experiments taking place to devise less cruel animal traps for trapping wild fur-bearing animals. Several versions of traps are being tested. Such a committee should call witnesses in order to find the most humane means of trapping.
What I have said relates to the part of the motion about cruelty to animals. The other part I want to deal with relates to the protection of humans. Unless we can find ways and means of protecting animals, fish and birds in our environment, we are going to bring down the whole ecology necessary to our very existence as a species. Let me refer to the Montreal Gazette of May 9, 1970. This article reads:
The Canadian Wild Life Federation says 65 Canadian wild life species are being endangered and face possible extinction.
The article then asks why this is so. There must be reasons which could be provided the Canadian people in order thatthey might know the appropriate action to take. Of course we know bits and pieces of the total
Research on Treatment of Animals
picture. We know about oil and mercury pollution and the effects of pesticides. We also know the danger of over-hunting. But we have not had the whole picture put together in order to help us plan a concerted program to save our wild life. We know that at least eight Canadian species are in great danger of being wiped out, including the timber wolf, the fisher and the polar bear. There are supposed to be about 10,000 polar bears left in the world,
6,000	of which are in Canada. The Soviet Union decided some years ago to take measures against polar bear hunting. I understand we, in Canada, cannot contemplate such action because polar bears are the only animals the Eskimos can shoot in order to survive. We are not prepared to adopt ways and means to save either the Eskimos or the polar bears. The other species in danger of extinction are the cougar, the walrus, the grizzly bear and the bald eagle. There are some other species which have been saved in the nick of time as a result of proper action, including the beaver, the bison and the whooping crane. But these are still on the very precarious edge of extinction.
We should urge the government to set up this committee to study ways and means of dealing with the whole matter of animals and their well-being. The committee should study the aspects of experimental animals and how they are being looked after. We must also look into the over-all picture. We are not only talking in terms of saving animals but also in terms of saving human beings, our quality of living and the ecology upon which we depend. What is the use of talking about the tourist industry, with all the beutiful parks and that sort of thing, if we are going to kill off some of the most attractive features, namely our wild life species?
Without using any more of the time of the House I should like seriously to urge that we consider the intent of this motion. It is not the intent to have the committee study the narrow aspects of experimental animals, humane trapping or penalizing people who abuse animals and that sort of thing. These are all necessary features and are included. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East is making an appeal on the broad ground that we should look at animal species from every possible angle in order to determine whether we can deal with their welfare as a whole program, giving the Canadian people a chance to understand the situation. We want to get at the facts as a result of calling witnesses and asking for the presentation of documents to a parliamentary committee. If we do this, we will be taking one step in the direction of making Parliament very much more relevant in the minds of a lot of people in this country. These people are concerned not only about animals but that we shall have an increasing interest in living things. We must preserve our wild life for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. I strongly urge the Prime Minister to designate a standing committee of this House to make this the first piece of business for the fall session.


Eymard G. Corbin: In rising to speak on this

May 10, 1971
Research on Treatment of Animals motion I should like to deal specifically with parts (b) and (c). Perhaps I should read them:
(b) as far as federal jurisdiction permits, recommendations regarding legislation providing penalties for those abusing animals, and any persons making a business of raising or catching animals for sale to research individuals or centres and not keeping same in humane manner (c) the most humane method of trapping fur-bearing animals ..
Previous speakers have touched on some aspects of the trapping of wild animals. One of the considerations to be taken into account when dealing with this matter is the economic and sociological problems that would arise when the prohibition of trapping precludes the possibility of banning leg-hold traps. Humane traps are available but are much more expensive to buy and require further testing before being acceptable to trappers. In fact, a great deal of testing has been going on for years.
A number of committees have dealt with this important subject. So far there seems to be no valid or conclusive consensus as to which kind of trap would be the most efficient in the circumstances. Another consideration one must take into account is that trapping and fur management are provincial responsibilities, and although previously discharged to some extent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the Northwest Territories they have now been transferred to the territorial government. This matter also involves cooperation between various jurisdictions, in this case the provinces and the federal government. It is not an easy situation because the provinces are quite jealous of their jurisd'ction in this and other fields. This poses a number of practical problems in arriving at some viable solution. The point is that as far as the public is concerned, when there is some blame to be pinned on anyone it is usually pinned on the federal government. I should like to make it quite clear that perhaps the provincial authorities have not researched this important question deeply enough.
I would have to admit, however, that there has been some on-going co-operation between the two levels of government in the hope of arriving at an acceptable long-term solution. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping, CAHT for short, which is affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has established a trap development committee. That committee plans to test the efficiency of hunane traps available and establish further basic parameters for the development or modification of humane traps; a quicker kill is the obvious objective. That agency will deal directly with the provincial and territorial agencies once the humane traps have been evaluated.
Some time ago Dr. Nicholas Novakowski, who is staff specialist of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry now, presented a paper dealing with the efforts which have been made to date in arriving at what one would call a humane trap. He had this to say:
The subject of humane trapping has been discussed by the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference on several occasions over the past few years. You are probably all well aware of the joint efforts of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the National

Research Council to design and develop a trap which is both technically efficient and humane. In 1966 the Indian Affairs Branch became actively involved in the development of the Mohawk trap, resulting in the production of 2,500 muskrat-mink models and 30 beaver models for field testing purposes. The Conibear trap-
Mention was made of this earlier in the debate.
-developed by the American Trap Co., has been available for several years, and its use has gradually increased, particularly for beaver trapping and other underwater sets.
When the Mohawk trap was distributed, a questionnaire accompanied each trap, requesting certain specific information relating to its technical efficiency, catching capability and killing qualities, and also to determine its market potential. Many of you are familiar with the questionnaire.
The over-all response to the questionnaire has been disappointing in that relatively few trappers have replied, and few detailed comments have been received from the field staff concerned. However, this may be due in part to the method used to solicit the information and the fact that only a small number of trappers were equipped with the traps. In any case, 20 questionnaires were returned on the beaver trap and 43 returned on the muskrat trap.
In addition to these returns, we have reports on several projects designed to test the traps under more or less controlled conditions. It is significant to note that reports from both sources are comparable. We can, therefore, assume the comments received are a fairly true indication of the Mohawk trap's technical efficiency and humane qualities.
Trapping using a leg-bold trap is offensive to many people. We have been exposed to this method of trapping on a number of occasions on television and through photographs in the printed press recently. It is understandable that there should be a very strong movement afoot to ban this form of trapping. One's humane emotions are aroused when one sees a small animal trying to wriggle its way out of a leg-hold trap. Naturally, our heart goes out to such an animal. However, until an efficient, humane trap is available at prices within the reach of trappers, the banning of leg-hold traps would impose real hardships on many Canadians. This would be true particularly of our Indians, Eskimos and Metis.
I have some figures I would quote. They are not very recent. The average annual value of raw fur production in Canada during the ten-year period 1950 to 1959 was $25.7 million. In 1958-59 the total production of raw furs in Canada was 5.2 million pelts with a value of $25.8 million. The value of wild furs was $9.7 million, and ranch furs $16.1 million. This proves that if one were to ban, starting tomorrow, the use of leg-hold traps it would certainly impose economic hardship on those people who have depended for years, indeed for generations, on such traps. It is a way of life with most people who have depended on this source of income.
Reference has been made during this debate to the conservation of birds and mammals. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) mentioned that eight species are in danger of extinction. I believe I could enlarge on that figure and mention some species which are in danger of disappearing from the Canadian wildlife scene.
There is the Roosevelt elk, which was found on the mainland in southern British Columbia and is now found in limited numbers only on Vancouver Island. There is
May 10, 1971

the California bighorn. This species, formerly present throughout the southern interior of British Columbia is now restricted in separate herds-the Chilcotin-Riske group, the Ashnola group, the Vaseaux Lake group in the Okanagan and some other groups associated in the same general area which total approximately 1,200 animals.
The wood bison naturally comes to mind when we speak of endangered species. There is also the northern kit fox. This species, once common on the great central plains of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, is now found only in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. Then there is the Vancouver Island wolf, the northern Rocky Mountain cougar, the eastern cougar, the blue bear or glacier bear and a number of brown bear groups which may disappear if we are not careful in the management of our wildlife.
There is the barren-ground grizzly, the Lillooet grizzly, and the big plains grizzly. This animal is another species of wildlife which is reported to be endangered. Another example is the black-footed ferret. This interesting species was once common in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan and was generally associated with prairie dog colonies. A predator of the prairie dog, the ferret, was reduced in numbers as a result of poisoning campaigns to reduce the number of prairie dogs which interfered with ranching operations and cultivation. There are very few records of any black-footed ferrets being sighted and the animal may be more common in the United States than in Canada. If so, rehabilitation is a possibility.
The Newfoundland pine marten is another endangered species on the list, as is the black-tailed prairie dog. And unfortunately in connection with this list we must mention those species which have disappeared altogether from the Canadian wildlife scene. These are the Queen Charlotte Islands caribou, the great plains wolf and the Newfoundland wolf. There are also many species peripheral to Canada which are in danger of extinction if man is not careful.
I referred a few moments ago to federal-provincial jurisdiction and I would like to return to that subject. Federal authority in the management of terrestrial wildlife, birds and mammals, is restricted at the present time to migratory birds as defined by the Migratory Birds Convention of 1916 with the United States, and to all forms of wildlife found in national parks. Responsibility for all other forms of terrestrial wildlife is vested with the provincial or territorial governments. This includes upland game birds such as grouse and pheasants, all fur bearers and big game animals such as deer, moose and caribou.
The management of migratory game birds is carried out under close federal-provincial co-operation and coordination. The principal mechanism is through a federal-provincial wildlife conference held annually in mid-July. All regulations relating to upcoming hunting seasons are reviewed at that meeting of chief provincial
Research on Treatment of Animals and territorial game officers and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Enforcement of the subsequent regulations is also a co-operative venture wherein all provincial conservation officers hold cross appointments as ex officio game officers under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. In addition to the major federal-provincial conference, provincial subcommittees have been established to discuss non-policy technical matters and provide a forum for briefing senior provincial and federal officers.
This will be the extent of my contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker. I see a lot of merit in the motion which is before the House and certainly I would not object to the establishment of a committee to deal with this matter. I am sure that the discussions which would take place in such a committee would enlighten not only Members of Parliament but the Canadian public generally as to humane practices in dealing with animals, as well as to our conservation efforts in the area of wildlife.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that this motion would come before the House quite so soon, so I am somewhat unprepared. But I would begin by saying that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and I many times have things in common, and this is one of them. I support him strongly on this motion which covers in part a matter which is close to the hearts of a number of people in this chamber, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I wish I could have been here to support her motion when it was put before the House but, as second best, I am glad to do so in the case of this motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I have been reading the debates, Mr. Speaker, particularly the one on the hon. member's motion when it was first presented on October 26. I am a little surprised and would like to make a correction for a situation which appears to have arisen in that in the various comments that were made at that time, no mention was made of an organization which I think is a valuable one which operates out of Vancouver and is called the Council for Laboratory Animals.
As you will notice, Mr. Speaker, the motion is in five parts, (a) (b), (c), (d) and (e). I will restrict myself to commenting on the first part of the motion which has to do with "the use of animals for medical research purposes, their care and utilization, and procedures for government licensing and inspection of, and control over, all premises using animals for laboratory research or medical training.'' What we are faced with here is a very natural conflict which arises within all our minds, namely, the conflict of the requirements for legitimate research involving experimentation on animals and our very natural concern for animal welfare that this research be carried on in as humane a way as possible and that no unnecessary pain be caused the animals which in some cases are giving their lives so that we can live better lives.
Just to point this up, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to put on record a remark made by Sir Graham Wilson, who was former director of Britain's public health laboratory, in testimony before a United States House of Representa-

May 10, 1971
Research on Treatment of Animals
tives committee on animal care in 1965. He used these words, which I think strike home:
There is a degree of pain which no human being has a right to inflict on an animal no matter what increase in knowledge might be expected to result.
I agree with that and that is why I support so strongly the Council for Laboratory Animals. In the previous debate on October 26 we heard of another very fine organization, the Canadian Council on Animal Care. But as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, the Canadian Council on Animal Care deals with animal husbandry, whereas it is the Council for Laboratory Animals which is dealing specifically in an area where apparently at the moment there appears to be no real effective law, namely, the welfare of animals while they are undergoing experimentation.
In the brief time at my disposal I would like to place on record a submission which was made to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) by the Council for Laboratory Animals as recently as the beginning of this year. It is very short, just one page, but it says a lot of things that need to be said and I think to place it on record in Hansard, which has such wide distribution, is the best possible use I can make of my time in bringing my remarks to a close so that a vote can be taken on the motion. It reads:
It is now some seven years since the Council for Laboratory Animals first drew the federal government's attention to the unsatisfactory treatment of research animals in Canada.
During the last three years considerable progress has been made in improving the housing and husbandry of laboratory animals in Canadian universities. The Canadian Council on Animal Care, set up at the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada in 1966 with National Research Council financing, has been active in encouraging the universities to upgrade the 70 per cent of animal facilities which were rated as inadequate at the time of the original survey. Animal care committees have been established at most universities, and steps taken to raise the standards of training of laboratory technicians responsible for the animals.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care has not, however, been given the responsibility of reviewing experimental procedures and this represents a major gap in the protection afforded to laboratory animals. The medical journals report considerable numbers of Canadian experiments involving pain or stress to animals each year, some of which appear, on the face of it, to be of doubtful value in relation to the suffering involved, and we attach a short list of examples to indicate the wide variety of experiments in which animals are used.
Here we come to the meat of this submission, Mr. Speaker.
We believe that, just as the private individual is required under the Criminal Code to justify the infliction of suffering on an animal, so the scientist should be ready to justify painful experiments before a competent body. We suggest, therefore, that the staff of the Canadian Council on Animal Care be expanded to include a small, but highly qualified, inspectorate of medical and veterinary scientists who would review proposals for experiments approved by university animal care committees and the subsequent reports of these experiments.
It would be the duty of the inspectorate to ensure that unjustified or excessively painful experiments were not conducted; that the statistical minimum number of animals required were used, and that suffering was reduced, wherever possible, through appropriate methods of anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia. The inspectorate would also examine every possibility of substitut-

ing one or another of the increasing number of techniques in which animals are not required, in place of the time honoured, but generally less reliable, methods of experimentation and testing on animals.
I should like to speak at greater length on that aspect of the matter, Mr. Speaker, but time is pressing.
The work of the inspectorate would not impede legitimate research in any way, as experiments could proceed on receipt of initial approval by the local university animal care committee-
One of the primary tasks of the inspectorate would, in fact, be to advise and assist scientists in the use of humane techniques, but in the event that a scientist deliberately disregarded the recommendations of the inspectorate, the granting bodies would be advised to take note of the fact in respect to future grant requests.
One province has already recognized the need to exercise a measure of control over experimentation through legislation which requires that "every animal used in a research facility in any experiment that is likely to result in pain to the animal shall be anaesthetized so as to prevent the animal from suffering any unnecessary pain." Supervision of experimentation requires, however, a high degree of scientific and veterinary expertise and it makes little sense, financially or administratively, to establish separate inspectorates in each province for this purpose, when a small but highly qualified federal inspectorate, in close touch with the national granting bodies, could handle the job more effectively and at considerably less expense.
We suggest, therefore, that the federal government take steps: (1) to provide permanent funding for the inspectorate of the Canadian Council on Animal Care in order to ensure its continuity and (2) to make the inspectorate responsible to the Minister of Agriculture rather than to the institution whose facilities it is required to supervise. The council would then become advisory to the minister and its membership could be expanded to include a higher proportion of persons concerned with the interest of animals.
If the inspectorate was placed under the aegis of the federal Minister of Agriculture, it could also take over the inspection of federal government institutions engaged in animal research and testings, and of those pharmaceutical companies conducting research with animals which sell their products to the federal government or its agencies.
Under the above proposals, while the university animal care committees would retain their local autonomy, every phase of animal use in all fields of Canadian research and testing would be brought under centralized supervision, with its attendant advantages of uniformity of application, high qualify of personnel and administrative economies.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this submission was prepared by the Council for Laboratory Animals in Vancouver, British Columbia, and was submitted to the Minister of Justice in January, 1971. I have no hesitation whatsoever in placing it on record because I think it lends support to a portion of this motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East, from the far west, and I leave it now to the decision of this chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing for some time quite interesting discussions on animals used for research purposes. I do not wish to rise without paying a tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who introduced that motion, because I know that he is a dedicated man and a
May 10, 1971

very active politician. As he is ill, I hope that he will soon recover, in order to contribute with his customary enthusiasm to the proceedings of this House.
I continue to speak on the motion, because I wonder where medicine, whether it is dentistry or other branches, would stand if we had been unable to carry on our medical research on animals.
I wonder what stage medical science, and particularly surgical science, would have reached without the availability of research animals.
Finally I wonder what Best and Banting would have done, those great research scientists who discovered insulin, who succeeded in extracting from the pancreas of animals a fluid called insulin which has enabled the great number of diabetics-and God knows that among the Canadian people as among the population of the world the proportion of diabetics is great-to lead a normal life, that is to live like first class citizens.
In the treatment of shock as well as in the treatment by antitoxins, I wonder where we would be if animals had not been available.
Furthermore, I would like to say that the Food and Drug Directorate uses several species of animals in its laboratories in order to test new products which arrive on the market every day-


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
John Leroy Skoberg: May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I could draw on many statements from different sources in this country that spell out in detail what I am talking about. The Manitoba pool elevators did not hesitate to criticize the stabilization plan. They passed a resolution at their December, 1970, meeting dealing with the stabilization plan. The resolution reads:
Whereas Mr. Lang is urging the immediate passage of his grain stabilization plan through the House of Commons:
And whereas a lack of information to the western farmers on detail, and implications of the proposed plan are not available nor forthcoming;
Be it resolved that Manitoba pool elevators urge our provincial government and all Western MPs to do everything possible to delay passage of this bill until farmers are fully aware of the contents of the bill and what benefit it will be to the farmer.
This resolution was forwarded to all Members of Parliament, including the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It appears from this resolution that the Manitoba pool elevators are questioning whether the stabilization program proposed in this legislation is really telling the agricultural producers what may happen if the plan goes into effect. They suggest that serious consideration be given to this type of stabilization program.
The attempt by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) at the outset of this debate to divide the bill would have made it more worth while discussing. We could have dealt with the bill in two areas, instead of suggesting that because we are going to hand out $560 to an individual producer this is enough to make members vote for the bill. I have some figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I realize that they were quoted last Friday. I think it will be sufficient to read the net farm income for three of the prairie provinces. In 1967 the figure for Manitoba was $154,392,000; in 1970 it was $78,631,000. The 1967 figure for Saskatchewan was $354,896,000, and $202,718,000 for 1970. For Alberta, the 1967 figure was $282,953,000, and $226,231,000 for 1970.
When talking about stabilization, the government should be asked whether it is using the 1970 or 1967 figures with regard to stabilizing farm income. I am sure the minister will have something to say about this situation when he winds up the debate, whenever that may be. Although the government talks about an average five years, the fact remains that there have been terrific differences in the figures from 1967 to 1970. This situation can again occur, if we use the figures put out by DBS.
The National Farmers Union have clearly pointed out the situation. They have stressed the importance of stabilization payments being based on realized net farm income rather than gross farm income. Surely the minister realizes the difference between net and gross income. I am sure the agricultural producers of this country will not hesitate to state their costs of production. The difference between net and gross has definitely been missed by the minister and the cabinet in general. I quote from the National Farmers Union "National Newsletter" as follows:
The net income base is essential if the plan is to help individual farmers and rural communities.
Hon. members with constituencies composed of rural and urban areas realize that the people in both areas are
concerned about the net income that individual producers will receive. The government believes it can talk about gross income and completely forget about net income.
An article in the Financial Post of March 13, 1970, talks about the government's new big farm policy. It may be "big farm" for some individuals who may be lucky enough to become big farmers, but in the area I come from we are still concerned about the basic, individual farmer. In many areas throughout Canada today, particularly in the west, we are concerned about the basic farmer, the part he plays in the community in which he is involved, the type of recreation he enjoys and contributes to, and the type of income he must receive to make his a viable and economic rural community. The article reads in part.
The federal cabinet has approved a broad national plan designed to speed up the exodus from Canada's farms and encourage larger-scale farm operations.
Larger-scale farm operations, to me, really means corporate farms and it would appear that this government is hell-bent on a program of ensuring that corporate farming will take over from the individual farmers we have always had. I am also of the opinion that the rural people in our agricultural economy are very tightened of this stabilization program because they feel that the only people who will be stabilized are the corporate farmers. Past history has taught them that the government is really not concerned with making sure that the smaller farm can be a viable, economic unit. I quote further from the article in the Financial Post as follows:
One result of the long-awaited adjustment program should be to speed up the exodus from the farm and to accelerate the process towards larger, more economically viable farms.
Again I would suggest that if it is the intention of the government to speed up the exodus from the small farms and accelerate the process toward larger, more economically viable farms, then the government should say so right now. It is not fair for agricultural producers in this country to be left in doubt as to what the government is really talking about. It seems to me it is only right and fair to let the individual farmer, the person who has made his life on a farm, know whether or not he is to be allowed to remain on his farm.
As we read some of the statements which have been made-I refer now to the statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-we see reference to the fact that the federation believes strongly that one program or policy cannot and should not attempt in itself to meet all the outstanding needs to which I have referred. The federal financial commitment in meeting the economic needs of farmers and the prairie economy involved in the stabilization plan is far too low in terms of present conditions and prospects. It appears to me the views of the federation should have been recognized by the minister. Perhaps he does not listen very often to the opinions expressed by the federation or to the views of outside sources generally, preferring advice from inside his department. The minister should be thinking about the
[Mr. Skoberg.)
May 10, 1971

statements which are being made, recognizing that they come from practical people.
Many times I have said in this House since I came here about three years ago that we need more practical individuals to deal with problems affecting our agricultural community. Unfortunately, I seem to make no impression with my view. We involve ourselves with people coming from universities, with people who have never been on a farm in their lives, with people who really don't give a damn whether or not the agricultural economy survives in this country.
This is one of the main questions which I am asked when I tour my constituency. I am asked whether there are any practical people involved in the decision-making process. This in itself is one of the most important areas which we as parliamentarians should be considering. The statement of May 7 by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-I am surprised that the minister had not read it before the question period today-is as follows:
It is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made, and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long-term proposals contained in the bill.
At some point, Mr. Speaker, it appears the minister ought at least to consider that there should be two sections to the bill which he could quite easily bring before this House. There would then, in my humble opinion, be no difficulty in having the fundamental portion of the bill referred to the committee in order that we could look at the proposal in greater depth than we can in the House at this time. As long as the minister continues to talk about a $100 million stabilization plan, when in effect he is talking about $560 per individual, this debate could continue for quite some time. I believe that the minister and the cabinet will have to accept reponsibility if the farmers receive only the paltry $560 to which I have referred.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture continued in its brief:
The urgent necessity of immediately supplementing the incomes of prairie farmers is clearly seen in the disastrous figures on farm income recently released by the Bureau of Statistics.
I read those figures to the House. It would also be worth while, Mr. Speaker, to read another paragraph from the brief of Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
It must be recognized that this bill is clearly designed to place definite limits on the federal obligation to support prairie income even in the face of chronic income inadequacy.
Perhaps the minister would look up from his seat for a moment and realize that there is a chronic income inadequacy contained in the legislation introduced into this House of Commons. It would appear to me that the least the minister could do would be to realize that right now there is a problem in the rural areas of Canada. He should realize there is something which he could do immediately, that is, divorce the two issues dealt with in the legislation before us.
Another quotation I should like to use is taken from a statement issued by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. A
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act resolution passed in February urges that the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction be expanded to cover the marketing of flax, rye and rapeseed. Further, that the federal government should guarantee initial prices at realistic levels for each grain. No attempt has yet been made by the government to do this. It may be an attempt has been made to guarantee a basic level for each grain which, in fact, as has been pointed out many times, is a poverty level.
In fact, as I pointed out the other day, the individual grain producer is not making more than four cents a bushel on his grain. This is a disgrace, to say the least. It is a disgrace that the government should sit back and do nothing for a producer who cannot make more than four cents a bushel on his grain. Another point made by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is that an adequate grain reserve should be established to meet all market demands, the costs shared jointly by producers and government. When we look at today's situation we realize there is no adequate grain reserve.
In a quotation attributed to the minister himself he suggests that there can be other areas where individual farmers can make private arrangements with elevator companies to store grain; that this could be done despite the amount of grain presently in the elevators.
What surprises me most of all is that the minister has said many times in this House that we need space available in elevators to meet any situation demanding immediate attention. With this I agree wholeheartedly. But in the next breath the minister goes on to say that private arrangements may be made by individual farmers to use country elevators for storage. This makes me wonder whether the government is really concerned to see that grain storage space is available. I suggest it is high time this situation was looked into.
I should like to remind the minister of one of the proposals submitted by him on October 29 of last year. It concerns encouraging adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size. The minister proposed:
The problem of farm consolidation is one which is not peculiar to the prairie region and which, perhaps, is less critical in this region than in other areas of Canada. It is therefore believed that it would be inappropriate to propose programs for the prairie region to deal with the consolidation issue in advance of the availability of programs to deal with this problem in Canadian agriculture generally. Such a general plan is in preparation.
I should like to ask the minister just what he means by encouraging adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size, if he is not in fact talking about corporation farms. I suggest the government should be charged with wanting to destroy the family farm, especially in view of proposals like the one I have referred to and the introduction of legislation that does not explain what the government is talking about. I believe that if the minister is interested in rural life in western Canada, he is obligated at this time to indicate just what he means by encouraging adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size.

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Many people, the majority of whom have means and do not have to try to live on a modest income, have suggested that we should consolidate farm units into those of more efficient size. I suggest that rural Canada today is still the best place in the world to bring up a family. I also suggest that in rural Canada you do not find the kind of problems which are facing our large urban areas. When the minister talks about the adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size he should also take into consideration the amount of money being spent in urban centres to try to meet changing conditions. In effect, in talking about encouraging the adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size you are really talking about phasing out the small rural centre. The rural people of this country should be given the opportunity to examine the implications of the proposal made by the minister before deciding whether or not to support the so-called farm stabilization program, because you cannot talk about the one without talking about the other.
I suggest a deliberate attempt is being made to reduce the amount of grain in storage at elevators in order to avoid making payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Perhaps not too many people can argue with that, but the fact remains that we should find out exactly what the minister and the cabinet mean by the elimination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and whether or not there is a satisfactory substitute for the storage policy under that act. I can recite without hesitation the cost of storage facilities, and the minister knows that the sum to which he has referred as being sufficient for the average farmer, $560, would not even come close to buying one storage facility to store the quantity of grain that the agricultural producer will have to store on his own premises once the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is repealed.
On February 26 an inquiry of the ministry was tabled. It asked, first of all, whether payments were being made on a monthly basis to the Canadian Wheat Board under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act; secondly, if so, whether the payments were still being made; and thirdly, if not, why not? If the government were on its toes, and the Canadian Wheat Board-which provides the answer to this type of question-and the people in the department realized the implications behind the question, an answer would have been furnished by this time, but I am still waiting.
We all realize that there must be a maximum normal carryover of all grains in position, at government cost. If this government intends to go into the wheat exporting business, there is no question that we have an obligation to ensure that grain will be in position for export to our overseas customers. I have heard statements made in this House that criticize the Canadian Wheat Board. As far as I am concerned, if more politicians would keep their cotton-picking fingers out of the Canadian Wheat Board's operations we would be a lot better off. It appears to me there are too many regulations, too many bureaucrats and too many people lacking practical knowledge condemning the Canadian Wheat Board to the extent that it cannot do its job.
The Canadian Wheat Board is in a position to know exactly what is required by way of grain exports. I recommend to the minister that when he has finished reading his novel the government should give the Canadian Wheat Board the tools to do the job. Let the board travel the world and do a proper job of selling our grain. I have seen too many brokerage firms trying to sell our grain today. I believe the Canadian Wheat Board can do the job if given the tools.
In closing, I urge the government, and particularly this minister, to reconsider the bill. Once again the minister should remember that he cannot gain political favour with the farmers of this nation by suggesting that they should accept this $100 million-$560 for each individual producer-with the rest of the legislation. If he separated that part of the bill there should not be any problem in taking a realistic look at the legislation before the House.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement of this program in October last most members of the House and many farmers across western Canada have been waiting rather anxiously for their legislation hoping that an effective measure might be incorporated in it in order to cope with continuing deterioration in the prairie grain economy. Unfortunately, it is rather questionable whether this measure will be very helpful in the long run. Obviously the government has high hopes for it, because it seems that every question directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in the last six months respecting the prairie grain industry has been answered by reference to the legislation coming forth under the stabilization program.
It would be a gross oversimplification to suggest that this bill will cure all the ills of the prairie grains industry. On the contrary, it is conceivable that within three years the results of this bill will only add to the already long list of producers who have fallen by the wayside. It is no surprise that this bill is in close conformity with the bureaucratic, complicated red-tape programs that have preceded it.
Before dealing with the bill specifically I think in all fairness one has to take exception to the comments made by the minister in his press release of May 7, charging opposition members with deliberately working against the prairie agricultural industry. He want on to say that if this continued it would cost the western farmers $100 million this year. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this supposed to be some kind of a threat? The farmers understand this bill very well. They are not going to be taken in by this kind of gimmick. They certainly will not be bought off that easily, in spite of the fact they are now suffering very severe hardship.
I do not believe it is wrong to rise in this House of Commons and inform hon. members of the desperate plight, which is growing, in the west. This is our responsibility. Many members of this House come from western Canada and feel very strongly about agriculture and the legislative measures being introduced, ostensibly to assist the industry. We are in very close contact with the producers out there and know their reaction. It is
[Mr. Skoberg.l
May 10, 1971

quite obvious that many of these measures are not acceptable to the majority of producers. It is fair to say that the minister is not communicating very well with the vast majority of producers out west, because the programs instituted under his jurisdiction simply do not provide solutions and to a very large degree these programs conflict with the aims, aspirations and wishes of the majority. I believe this bill fits that category. It merely sets out to stabilize incomes rather than improve them.


An hon. Member:: Stabilized poverty.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: All it does is perpetrate a program of stabilized poverty. The vast majority of Canadians know it is of no use to talk to the minister responsible for agricultural policy or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. They know they will not listen. Their promises are empty and meaningless.
The minister also talked about making political hay. Who was trying to make political hay when this program was first announced? The headlines across the country suggested the western farmers would receive a gift from the government. They were going to get a bonus in the form of a huge cash injection. The newspaper articles were misleading. They were distorted; they did not tell the people all the facts. There was no headline to the effect that the government intended to withdraw the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and coverage of the pool accounts.
This bill sets out to reappropriate the expenditures and funds which have normally been supplied under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and losses on pool accounts which amounted to $131 million in the last crop year. We must remember the withdrawal of PFAA payments which have amounted to an average of $6 million a year paid by the federal government since the program was incorporated. Who was making political hay when the Lift program was announced? When that program was introduced the suggestion was that western farmers would receive another gift of $100 million to $140 million. Again this was misleading and the facts were not completely detailed. Now that the smoke has cleared, we find something like $55 million or $60 million being paid out under this program.
I have not seen any headlines retracting the grossly misleading statements made when the program was instituted. In addition, the measure was useful to only about 50 per cent of the people engaged in the production of grain in western Canada. Certainly the measure discriminated against and penalized those who engaged in a voluntary reduction of wheat in the previous year. Many more were short-changed by the program because of the complicated, bureaucratic devices and regulations surrounding the measure, not to mention the ambiguous statements made and misinterpretations in respect of it.
This is the kind of misleading and distorted propaganda facing the agricultural industry in western Canada. This performance is being perpetrated by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). We know very well that the
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
same thing happened in respect of Bill C-176, which was to be a producers' bill. We found out that it was nothing more than a bureaucrats' bill or a government bill. This bill was supposed to serve the interests of producers but it was designed merely to set up another political haven for the government, administered by government appointees. The producers caught on very quickly and wanted no part of this measure. They have rejected it completely. They know they cannot trust the Minister of Agriculture. He has broken faith with the farmers.
A great deal has been said about Bill C-176. There has been a fair amount of political in-fighting. Let me quote a short poem which I believe puts the matter in proper perspective. I do not know who is the author of the poem but it is signed by "Old Rancher". The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) suggests it was written by one of his constituents.


Mr. McIntosh:: I didn't suggest; I told you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It goes like this:
Big Jack Horner got Bud in a corner,
Said your promises sound rather strange,
At this stage in the battle you've included cattle,
And sold out your home on the range.
You saw easy pickin's for backing French chickens,
May the goose pimples rise on your neck,
When you see the visions of voters' decisions,
And a chicken farm down in Quebec.
The Minister of Agriculture was crying in the same manner as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board when the House was considering Bill C-175, the new Canada Grain Act. In the June 30 issue of the Globe and Mail we find the following passage:
Opposition MPs "performed a real disservice" for western grain growers by holding up passage of a new grain act, agriculture minister H. A. Olson said yesterday.
Refusal to let the act through before the Commons summer adjournment, started last Friday, may seriously impede Canada's ability to market wheat with a guaranteed protein content, the minister said in an interview.
Many wheat importers seek a protein content guarantee before they will make a purchase.
Mr. Speaker, this is a distortion of the facts. I had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Lloydminster, Alberta, where the now chief commissioner, Mr. Vogel, was in attendance. I asked him whether Canada was losing any significant grain sales because of our inability to guarantee protein grading. He said that losses because of our inability to guarantee protein grading were negligible. When I asked how many countries had requested guaranteed protein content, he said one or two. So we see this is nothing but sheer nonsense.
The bill did not become law until April 1. We heard the minister say over and over again that we were making record grain sales. We were told we have made sales of 256 million bushels this year, compared with 181 million bushels last year without protein grading. These are the kinds of distortions and misrepresentations that are being made across the country. The minister speaks

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
of a huge backlog of other legislation which must be dealt with. Well, Mr. Speaker, other than Bill C-176, the agricultural products marketing bill, three agricultural bills have been introduced and have been before the House for less than one month. Each and every one of us who has constituents engaged in the business of agriculture must have an opportunity to speak on these measures and an opportunity to place our views before this House.
I do not believe any minister of the Crown should deny us the opportunity to express our views. I believe it is fair to say the minister knows very well that any measure introduced which would truly assist the western farm economy would be passed with a minimum of delay. Certainly this government's record in respect of introducing perfect legislation is far from adequate. We have only to look at Bill C-176 to see that only 42 amendments were adopted out of 129 proposed. There are some 30 more amendments to be considered. The grain act had 20 or 30 amendments incorporated, and yet the minister says this is just a senseless waste of time. Here is what the Free Press had to say about Bill C-176, the new Canada Grain Act:
Despite continuing objections from some quarters, the new bill seems to be a step in the right direction, designed to help Canadian wheat secure and hold its fair share of world trade. It is a definite improvement on what was offered at the last session of Parliament in Bill C-196.
So I say much the same feeling has been generated in respect of Bill C-176. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, the producers do not see this as a senseless waste of time. This bill undertakes the payment of $100 million, or a reappropriation of the expenditure of funds. Certainly this is welcome. However, over a long period this measure will have very deep and underlying implications for the grains industry. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the government will withdraw from its responsibility under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as well as its responsibility in respect of the coverage of losses in pool accounts. In total this amounted to $131 million in the crop year 1968-69. The federal government's share under the PFAA, which resulted in an average payment of $6 million per year since its incorporation, is also being withdrawn.
The future impact, in my opinion, will have a very detrimental effect on the industry, particularly smaller producers and those who are at the lower end of the income scale. Because the $100 million is tied to the legislation, it is also very difficult to examine this legislation objectively and in an accurate manner without any pressure. I say the opposition and farmers of this country are being blackmailed by the $100 million payment which is hanging over our heads. It is difficult to be effective and constructive in attempting to put forward amendments and recommendations to improve the operation of this legislation. Believe me, it needs many. It certainly needs major improvement, as I see it, if it is to provide any effective measures for the welfare of the western grains industry. To do this, of course, will result in a delay in the payment of the much needed $100 million transitional payment.
There are many aspects to consider in conjunction with this bill. For example, we are currently dealing with other important aspects of the grains industry. We know that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will be withdrawn. We are enacting changes in the advance payments legislation. We have just recently been informed of a new quota policy. A number of reviews are being conducted. The Menzies committee has tabled its final report. There are many changes and redirections of thought in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board's policies.
In dealing with this legislation and a program which will affect the future of the prairie grains industry for many years one must take into consideration all these matters. Certainly, with the attitude of the thin-skinned minister which was displayed in his press release, and his threats, we can only assume he is very touchy and wants to ram through this legislation while attempting to recoup some political gain-I may say, temporarily.
If the minister is sincere and understanding about wanting to assist and help the western grain industry, the payment should have been made in time for seeding operations, at the same time as he announced his intention to withdraw the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the coverage in respect of the losses in the grain pool accounts. Then the bill could have been dealt with in a constructive and careful manner, taking into consideration all potential developments and implications which I believe are very serious. They must be considered very carefully because we are dealing not only with an industry and with dollars and cents, but with people, of course, engaged in the industry. Therein lies the problem which must be dealt with. It is not only an economic problem; it is a social problem as well. Instead, we are being blackmailed and coerced into accepting this bill without having an adequate and uninhibited opportunity to study it.
I reiterate that the payment should be made now, without further delay. Farmers are in desperate need of this money. The agricultural industry in western Canada is depressed to the state that it is probably in the worst condition it has been in history. We might take a look at the net income for the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. According to figures taken from "Outlook '71", we find that in 1970 Alberta had a net income of $86 million, Saskatchewan had a net income of $56 million and Manitoba had a net income of $32 million, for a total net income in western Canadian agriculture of $174 million.
This is less than $1,000 net income per farmer, Mr. Speaker. While this includes receipts derived from the sale of other products, we have only to subtract the sale of those items to know that the income derived from the sale of grain is considerably less than that. If this is the kind of income the bill is intended to stabilize, I as a member of this House certainly do not want any part of it. When you study these figures it is little wonder that the farmers are having such difficulty meeting their commitments, their bank payments, their Farm Credit Corpo-

May 10, 1971

ration loan payments, their farm improvement loan payments and their cash advance return payments.
Some time ago during an adjournment debate I urged the minister to consider proposing a moratorium on the repayment of farm cash advances because of the difficulties being experienced in western Canada. Such a measure would have alleviated much of the hardship and I think it could have been easily implemented. However, the minister saw fit not to do that; he merely suggested the stabilization bill would solve this problem and urged speedy passage when it was introduced.
Western producers who are confronted with these difficult times are being subjected to harassment and intimidation by debt collectors. Threats are being made to throw them off the land. Is it any wonder that there is such anxiety, frustration and apprehension being suffered by them-not promoted by the opposition, as the minister would lead one to believe, but by the policies of the government? Is it any wonder that the rural population is constantly declining and that rural communities are dying? The population of rural Canada is declining at the rate of 1,000 persons per month, as was pointed out by the National Farm Union's director, Mr. Hubert Earl.
Is it any wonder that the Farm Credit Corporation has noted such a significant increase in the number of foreclosures that have taken place in western Canada, with many more pending? Does it not mean anything to note that Farm Credit Corporation arrears outstanding in 1971 doubled over the previous year, from 8.9 per cent to 17.9 per cent, with the situation particularly bad in western Canada? For example, Mr. Speaker, total arrears outstanding in Saskatchewan in 1969 represented 6.6 per cent; in 1970 the amount outstanding had doubled to 12.2 per cent; and by 1971 the figure was triple the 1969 figure, having risen to 21 per cent. In Alberta, in 1969, the figure was 14.9 per cent; in 1970 it was 21.7 per cent, and in 1971 it was 26.3 per cent.
This also had a marked effect on the business community. Many small businesses have closed their doors. Communities are stagnating and, of course, there have been many bankruptcies. In my own province of Alberta, in 1968 there were 75 business failures with liabilities of $7.3 million. In 1969 there were 87 failures with liabilities of $4.5 million, indicating that many of these corporations and companies were small in size because of the smaller ratio of liability, and in 1970 the number of failures had increased to 135 with $12 million outstanding in liabilities. Saskatchewan and Manitoba recorded similar experiences.
While this situation continues to develop, along comes the task force report which recommends that the government withdraw its support from agriculture and that it should not institute any ad hoc programs to meet unfor-seen conditions and circumstances affecting the industry. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, other countries are taking a different approach. For example, look at the United States. I quote from the Manitoba Co-operator of
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
April 29, 1971, under the heading, "Recharging Rural America":
Recognizing the contributions agriculture makes ... in terms of our high standard of living, and agriculture's importance to the balance of payments, he said, "For the first time agriculture and rural America will be given due priority, which it has not had in the past."
The President explained that it is essential for rural America to get fair and equal treatment; essential to develop a sound economy for the family farm, adequately financed. He said we must develop opportunities for education and employment or we will have the continuing problem of rural erosion (migration) which adds to the problems of the cities.
Mr. Nixon admitted all this is a big order and there is no simple answer. Progress can be made, he said, through rural development and revenue sharing. He called this a process, not a program. It calls for additional funds totalling $1,100,000,000 (an increase of 25 per cent) to be spent in rural America for education, health, transportation, environmental improvements, housing, or for whatever local authorities may choose. Money would be shared with the states based on need. Need would be determined by such things as loss of rural population and rural per capita income.
These are the kinds of programs at which we should be looking. Instead we have the program initiated by the task force report, which was certainly endorsed by the government. All these pieces of legislation had their origin in the task force report. Apparently we are saying that Canadian agriculture must fend for itself. Not only must it shoulder the vagaries of climate and the elements, but also the vagaries of the international marketplace and even of the federal government.
We have seen the government grant assistance to other industries-the automobile industry, the shoe industry, the textile industry. We have watched more money being poured into these industries under the guise of rationalization programs. But what are we seeing for agriculture? There is a constant withdrawal by the federal government. This is evident in the Department of Agriculture's estimates for the current year, which show a decrease in expenditure of $30 million. It is about the only government department to show that sort of reduction. One of my hon. friends says the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must get money for his staff somewhere, and perhaps this is the easiest place from which it can be obtained. The whole theme of the task force report now constitutes government policy. It emphasizes efficiency at any price without regard to the social and economic disasters entailed for rural communities. This cannot continue forever. It must stop, or rural communities will sink into oblivion.
What can be done? Certainly a two-price system, long advocated by many knowledgeable agricultural personnel and endorsed by the majority of farm organizations, could be incorporated with relative ease. As my hon. friend suggests, perhaps even a change of ministers would help. But with respect to a two-price system I must say I share the minister's dedication in trying to convince his cabinet colleagues that a two-price system is necessary. However, it seems that the minister's colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), is the big bottleneck. That minister is concerned only about consumers. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act Affairs is so concerned about the consumer, I suggest that he inquire into the price of pork products in the stores, because it is much higher than the price received by the producer.
I have here a document prepared by the National Farmers Union which indicates that a farmer receives an average of 19 cents a pound, or about $29.07 for a hog which is ready for market. When it is sold across the counter we find that it brings something like $107.30 in downtown Ottawa. In other words, a farmer would have to sell four hogs at market in order to realize enough money to buy one back across the counter. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned about the reaction of the consumer if a two-price system is instituted, perhaps the minister in charge of the Wheat Board would pose that question to him. Certainly a two-price system would not solve all the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction. I feel the producer should have some measure of guarantee based on costs of production, but it should be a simple formula and not a bureaucratic one which would entail inspections and regulations. We have already seen too much of them.
The transitional payment is a relatively simple matter but the administration and handling of the stabilization program will be expensive, complicated and in many cases confusing. We have had experience with this in the Lift program and then ew quota programs now being announced, which are difficult to understand and somewhat confusing. The measures being introduced, this one included, tend to create a false note of optimism in my opinion. The government will herald this as another great measure, but we have heard this all before. For instance, "Grow all the wheat you can and we will sell it". And last year all we heard was, "Let's diversify". Then, of course, the Prime Minister came along and said, "You can sell your own wheat".
A great deal could be achieved by the adoption of a two-price system or a guaranteed price geared to production costs on, say, the first 2,000 bushels of wheat sold by every farmer. The unit quota should be reinstated as well to assist the smaller operators and preserve their rightful place in the community. The emphasis on the Wheat Board's policy has changed from that of equity to that of efficiency. This will only tend to speed up what I call the eradication process.
Another point which must be considered is the exorbitant interest costs being incurred by the Canadian Wheat Board. Something should be done to alleviate this problem. Probably the best method would be for the government to provide sufficient funds to cover grain purchases. If we look at page 59 of the latest annual report of the Wheat Board we find that approximately $4 million have been spent in interest and this is the responsibility of the producer. Then if we look at the 1968-69 annual report we find that approximately $11 million became the responsibility of the producer in respect of interest costs which were incurred in the provision of funds required to purchase grain. At the present time the Canadian Wheat Board has a liability of close to half a billion
dollars to the banks, while its liability to its respective buying agencies is in excess of this, for a total liability in excess of $1 billion.
Under clause 15 of this bill the producer will again be subjected to further interest costs covering deficits in the pool, on which interest will be charged. So, Mr. Speaker, for the present the payment of $100 million will be welcomed, but looking at the long-term effects this bill is nothing more than a vehicle to stabilize poverty and to exacerbate the small farm massacre. It will eradicate the rural community and the rural life style to which we have grown accustomed. The 2 per cent payment into the stabilization fund will further aggravate the low net income position of farmers and will affect those who are at the seriously low end of the income scale. As mentioned by other speakers, there is no formula to take into consideration the effects of inflation.
The total withdrawal of storage obligations by the government seems to me to contradict the concept that Canada's wheat producing abilities and its ability to provide food for a hungry world are not only a national asset but an international asset. We see now that the government has pretty well left the grain producing community on its own, and I suggest that from here on it will never be considered a national asset. Canada can remain the great trading nation she has become through her grain industry if we adopt effective measures to aggressively pursue sales. With this in mind, I believe it is reasonable to suggest that it should be the duty of the government at all times to cover the costs of carrying at least one year's supply of wheat for export. I believe the Canadian Federation of Agriculture suggested something along those lines and mentioned sharing the cost on about 400 million bushels. I submit, however, that the federal government should cover the total cost.
With the passage of this legislation, coupled with the recommendations of the Menzies report, it is evident that the responsibility for storage of wheat and other grains will be left solely to the producers. This will mean new facilities and increased costs, all at the expense of the producer. With the new quota system, the concept of terminal non-cumulative quotas, the small operator will be under great pressure. In addition, with the commercial system reduced by 100 million to 150 million bushels, the grain elevator companies will lose revenue because of the reduction in storage income. I believe this, too, will result in an increased rationalization process of the elevator system, to the detriment of the producer. Coupled with that we have-


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


An hon. Member:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?

May 10, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to thank hon. members who have been kind enough to permit me to continue. It will take only a few minutes to finish my remarks. I merely point out that a reduction of grain in the commercial system and the terminal system only aggravates the situation. It places the responsibility on the farmers to provide more storage facilities, and affects the producer in this respect: as long as grain is in the system, it will be paid for and the cash will be distributed. Nevertheless, the reduction of 150 million bushels or 200 million bushels means that that wheat will not be purchased, and this relates to a corresponding amount of cash and that is lost to the prairie economy.
I submit that the long-awaited report of the grains group which has been studying handling and transportation problems of the grain industry should be made known before this legislation receives passage. This study is long overdue and I believe that the benefits of its recommendations should be considered. I presume that the report will attempt to suggest ways of streamlining the handling system and the shipping system, and no one can argue about that. There is some suggestion that perhaps a new inland terminal system ought to be developed. I only remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if this is to be developed, the producers will be paying the shot.
I wish to make another point. Since the industry is considered as a whole in the three prairie provinces, it seems to me it is conceivable that in one province there could be a total crop failure in any one year while in the other two provinces there might be sufficient receipts to exceed the five-year average. Thus, the farmers in the province that suffered crop failure will be deprived of any assistance. Withdrawal of PFAA will literally force those producers to buy crop insurance. That, again, will mean added costs which, as I must point out, producers can ill-afford at this time. Also, the crop insurance program is not available in all areas and this fact must also be considered.
In conclusion, I say that the concept of the grain stabilization program may be all right in theory; however, the level of stability has a great deal of bearing on this question. This whole matter must be considered in terms of the current social and economic realities of our society. Those realities have not been considered in this bill. Second, there is a danger of those who are responsible for marketing relying too much on the fact that a half-conceived insurance policy will cushion any lost sales, and thus those engaged in the marketing of these commodities may not be as aggressive as they ought to be.
Conceivably, those in our sales mechanism might adopt a laissez-faire attitude which would have a negative rather than an aggressive effect on their marketing approach. This matter ought to be considered. Without doubt there has been a great degree of complacency in this area in past years, something that producers can
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act ill-afford at this time. It seems to me that when a country produces 5 per cent of the world supply of a commodity and carries in excess of 50 per cent of the world surplus, something is very wrong. The bill will do nothing to overcome this problem. The bill, Mr. Speaker, is a buy-off. Although farmers urgently need the $100 million, we would be remiss in our duty if we failed to predict the consequences of this measure, consequences going beyond the payment of the $100 million. In my opinion, passage of this bill will hasten a reduction in the number of small farms. Unless major changes are incorporated in the bill, I shall have serious reservations about supporting it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because about 5,500 square miles of my constituency is farm country, most of it being grain farm country. I am also rising because we are in the middle of another national tragedy, one that is being looked at mostly by the people of the three prairie provinces and not by many people in the rest of Canada. I say that in light of the kind of legislation that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.Olson have recently brought down to cope with problems besetting agriculture generally and besetting prairie farmers particularly with respect to grain.
I say that this is a national tragedy because, since this government took office, since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) assumed office, since the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt joined the cabinet, and since the time his predecessors who were just as incompetent as he is, took charge of the Wheat Board and of the grains business of the three prairie provinces, net farm income in Canada-you must see this figure to believe it-has dropped by $516 million.
Only the organizational genius of this kind of government could arrange that, Mr. Speaker. Canada grows a lot of grain. We raise great quantities of food products and are possessed of resources which few countries in the world possesses. Only the organizational genius of this kind of government could arrange for people involved in primary production, fishermen, grain farmers and other primary producers, to lose money.


An hon. Member:: We import agricultural produce.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has presented this legislation to the House. He has threatened us with it. Let me say at once that I fully accept his sincerity. I believed him when he said, as reported at page 5603 of Hansard for May 7:
This leads me to say how much this emphasizes this government's real belief in the desirability of maintaining farming as a viable and effective way of life.
He went on to say:
I want to state, as a fundamental matter of our philosophy_
Meaning, the philosophy of the Liberal government.
-that we do not in any way have the view that anyone should be made to move off a farm if he chooses to live on it.

May 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I accept the minister's sincerity in this regard. I believe him when he says that the viability of family farms in Canada is important to the entire national interest. We take him at his word when he says that. Yet, Mr. Speaker, he continues to perpetuate policies that will speed up, not slow down, those practices which have been adopted with respect to agriculture in Canada since 1945. We have lost over 300,000 family farm units in this country. It is not surprising, perhaps, that most if not all of our quarter-section farms have gone and that most half-section farms have disappeared from the Prairies. But when farmers farming 1J sections, 2 sections or 2i sections have lost money, as they have in my riding, we know that something must be wrong. When you find that net farm income has fallen by $516 million since June, 1968, or approximately since this government took office, you know that something must be fundamentally wrong.
We can find $120 million for uranium. I am not against that sort of payment. It has saved the life of several communities in Canada and the payment has enabled us to stockpile uranium. But what does the minister propose? He proposes that we abandon the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. He suggests that the government should not pay its share of the cost of keeping in this country an inventory of wheat and other grains. Mr. Speaker, he can threaten us with his press release. Yesterday it was being handed out, I gather, while he was making his speech in the House. He can threaten us that way if he likes. If he likes, he can act like the typical ward-heeler of the Prairies who went out with the dinosaurs in the 1920s or 1930s. Oh, yes, he can threaten us if he likes. While his press release was appearing in the nation's newspapers or was being carried on the news wires, the minister was making his speech on this bill and telling us we were filibustering.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The way the minister was talking, it had to sound like a filibuster in the sense that this government is determined to get out of supporting agriculture. The task force report on agriculture outlined that policy for the government. It is not unexpected that the government would follow the recommendations of the task force.
The minister says we are filibustering for no apparent reason. I wish he would return to his ivory tower law faculty of the University of Saskatoon. If he would return now, he would do both the law faculty in Saskatoon and all the farmers in Canada a favour. When the minister says we are filibustering for no apparent reason, and net farm income has dropped by $516 million since he joined the cabinet, he is talking through his hat. The minister suggests we are working against the interest of grain growers in the three prairie provinces and trying to make political hay. If fighting a fight that has been going on here since the end of World War II for grain growers in western Canada is making political hay,

I	plead guilty. I hope the minister will visit my constituency and butt into grain instead of post offices. I would appreciate it. I will never write a letter to anyone in his constituency urging that a post office be closed. I would like the minister to visit my constituency and talk about grain.
I would like the minister to explain to the farmers in my constituency, let alone in the three prairie provinces, where this $100 million will come from. I have some opinions. I might be wrong, and I am sure the minister will correct me when he closes the debate, but when the minister abolishes the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, albeit we can store uranium for five years at a cost of $120 million, the government will save $40 million a year. That is almost half of $100 million. When you add to that the amount the government will not have to pay out for the grain pools at the start of the next crop year in the form of losses, it can be seen that the government will more than recover the $100 million.
As another member pointed out during the debate on the pay increase for Members of Parliament, there were
II	people sitting in the press gallery. When talking about wheat, there are only a couple up there. I hope they are farmers. In any event, for the benefit of those Canadians who do not live in the three prairie provinces I hope they will point that this program will not cost the government or our taxpayers anything. This $100 million is not a gift from the taxpayers.
I now wish to deal with the transitional payment. It is called a transitional payment because the minister has not been able to persuade his colleagues or to set up the machinery to establish the stabilization fund for the current crop year. That is the main reason it is called transitional. The minister is a very nice man. He is very smart; but when it comes to wheat he is incompetent. We are going to say so all over western Canada. The minister can try political blackmail if he wishes. He can object to a filibuster on this bill while he is still making his speech, but that is not going to stop us.
At the beginning of my speech I spoke of a national tragedy and a drop in net farm income of $516 million. The minister is going to pay out $100 million. This means he will still owe us $416 million. If the minister wants to add that into his transitional payments, this bill will go through so fast he will not have time to speak to close the debate. With regard to the stabilization fund, if one were to assume $1 billion worth of sales of the six grains at 4 per cent that the government is going to contribute to the stabilization fund, that is barely equal to what the government will save by cancelling the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Each year, starting with the next crop year, the government will pay no more into a stabilization fund than it has done under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. If you add to that the deficit, which I understand is $51 million on the 1968-69 pool account, there is the whole $100 million.
It has been said several times in this debate, and it will be said several more times, that all the minister is doing is stabilizing a grains income that for the past several years has been below what the grain growers needed to
May 10, 1971

operate economic farm units of one, two or three sections. In the term "prairie grain stabilization fund" the very words mean something. They sound as though this legislation could be a real step. However, when one looks at the fine print he realizes what could and should be in the meaning of a grains stabilization fund. What the minister proposes perverts any kind of meaning that should be there. Political perversion is not an unknown pastime of various Liberal governments.
If the minister's grain stabilization took account of farm costs, farm net income and an inflationary rise in either the cost of living or farm costs-it does not do any one of these three things-it could be legitimately called a grain stabilization fund. In essence, all it does is even out an inadequate income. The minister can bandy about the phrases of his agricultural experts and the ones he learned from the law class at university, but he cannot get away from the fact that his stabilization fund stabilizes what has been there for the past five years and has already proven to be inadequate. The minister said he was as anxious as anyone in this House and in this country to make family farms, particularly family farms producing grain, viable, useful and worth while. I accept that; I believe he is sincere, but he introduces measures which will not do anything to improve that income.
The 4 per cent which it will cost the government of Canada will already have been saved. That is not an increase in farm income. The minister will not get away with threatening me, but he may be able to hoodwink or kid some people east of Thunder Bay that the opposition is holding up these acreage payments. These acreage payments will go out, Mr. Speaker. Whether they go out in June, July, September, October or November, they will go out. As soon as they have been sent out, there will be a by-election in Assiniboia and a provincial election in Saskatchewan. In fact, it is very possible that the cheques have already been made out with the names, addresses, and so on, on them but not the amount. We know the minister can do that. He should not kid us. The minister can try to hoodwink the people of eastern Ontario that the opposition is holding up $100 million in acreage payments, but it is not going to work. We are going to fight to get something better in this legislation.
We are now at the crunch. I will say this to the minister and the government. For the first time in a number of years, probably since the days of Jimmy Gardiner, the government is coming out with something which is substantially or fundamentally different from what it has been doing. It is fundamentally different in its mechanics but not fundamentally different in what it thinks should be the kind of society and the kind of economy we should have. I believe the minister when he says he is in favour of maintaining family farms. But he brings in legislation which perpetuates what has been going on for the last 25 years: it cannot help but do so, because even if the minister is correct when he says the stabilization fund will make it easier for small and average farms in terms of equalizing the farmers' income, he
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act has forgotten to say that this income is still inadequate to enable them to survive. Whether the income is stabilized over a period or whether you get it all at once, it is still inadequate.
One has only to consider how many farmers have left the land. In the ten years from 1955 to 1966 during which we were blessed with both Liberal and Tory governments, we lost 38,000 farm units in the three Prairie provinces. We had interim payments and final payments in those years. We had the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act payments, and all of this was based on farm prices none of which were designed to meet farm costs or to give farmers a net return on which they could live decently.
The bill before us continues the same way of thinking. As I said, the minister can threaten if he likes. In government terms, the legislation is trying something new. It reminds me when I was a child in the dirty thirties. Every time the wind blew, the gophers were 20 feet in the air digging. But at least when Jimmy Gardiner came around, he knew about horses and he knew about people. The horses had gone but he still knew about people. Now the horses are gone and these Liberals have now forgotten about people.
They have policies for agriculture, they have policies convenient for the railway industry, they have policies that are convenient for the grain trade, very nice for the Winnipeg grain exchange; they have policies which continue to handcuff the Canadian Wheat Board. But they still do not have policies for farmers. Just policies for agriculture. When the minister interrupted one of the members this afternoon while he was talking about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, he asked him: Have you never heard about crop insurance?
These Liberals are the birds who in the fifties decried crop insurance and similar legislation when it was brought in by the government of the day in Saskatchewan. These are the birds who said the premiums would drive farmers out of business. These are the birds who have formed the national government of Canada before and since and who refuse to pick up a larger share of the tab in connection with crop insurance. When one talks to them about all-risk crop insurance, they don't want to talk to you.
The minister conveniently forgets that in the main grain growing areas of southern Saskatchewan and south eastern Alberta it is almost impossible to buy crop insurance. Let him just try it. Unless he can tell the House that the federal government intends to triple, quadruple or multiply by five times what it is paying into a crop insurance program,-an all-risk crop insurance program-there is no way any farmer will be able to pay those premiums. The premiums they would pay would be a great deal more than they are to receive in one year under the minister's so-called stabilization fund.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that those areas in which PFAA has been so important might not be exactly the ones to benefit from the incentive program which would induce
May 10, 1971

Prairie Grain Stabilization Act farmers to put the land into forage and not leave it in a crop which fails all the time?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What it cost grain growers under PFAA with a 1 per cent deduction does not come anywhere near what it would cost per acre under crop insurance in the grain growing areas, particularly in the gumbo country of southern Saskatchewan. The minister knows this. He should not try to kid us that crop insurance will replace PFAA until he has crop insurance legislation to offer. The minister has not yet settled anything with the three Prairie provinces, or with any of the provinces for that matter, with regard to a crop insurance program. If he had, I am sure he would be rushing in here to tell us about it. In fact, he would be rushing into the Commonwealth room to do so. Until the federal government is prepared to do a hell of a lot more about the cost of an all-risk crop insurance program, the cancellation of PFAA will in fact be a loss to grain growers.
The minister professes to be in favour of maintaining people on family farms. Yet the most efficient, the most energetic farmer you can imagine, the man with the most initiative, the man who has diversified, who has specialized, who has increased his acreage, who took the minister's advice in connection with operation Lift, has his back to the wall. I am not talking about some friendly farmer or so-called farmer who is owned by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). I am not talking about the kind of farmer who is owned lock, stock and barrel by some friendly packing plant. I am not talking about the fellow who farms for a hobby. I am talking about grain growers whose families have farmed for two or three generations, who have achieved an economic size. The price they receive per bushel does not meet what it cost them to pay for their land and equipment and earn a living.
The minister proposes a stabilization fund which still is inadequate. He perpetuates what every government prior to this one has done. He says: Canadian grain growers will sell their grain in competition with the treasuries of the United States, France, Argentina, Australia and other countries. If we can get $1.50 a bushel with no interim or final payment, this government says "fair ball". But, Mr. Speaker, in 1949 farmers got $1.75. Name me another industry which has suffered a decline of this proportion in the price of the product it has to sell. If the minister is the champion of rural Canada, he should be placing his constituency and his job on the line right now.
If he really means business he will get the support of every Prairie member in this House. If he really means business, he will say: From now on, the whole of Canada will do something about carrying a share of production costs. We carry a share of costs when uranium, textiles or some other product is concerned. But when it comes to grain, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) say we cannot have any new money. And the minister will not get any new money. None of the money which will go into the stabilization fund or into so-called transitional payments will be new money. Over the next three years, and I hope I am wrong in this
prediction, because if I am maybe the farmers will gain a few million dollars-


Otto Emil Lang: You are wrong.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope so, but I shall need to hear a lot more from the minister before I will believe it. So will more than 100,000 permit holders. They will have to hear a lot more from the minister before they will believe it.
Mr. Speaker, this represents a transition for the government. It involves getting out of what should rightfully be a responsibility of the nation as a whole. It implies placing a greater share of the burden on the backs of the grain growers themselves. One can make this plea for a lot of other sections of our society; we just happen to have this one in front of us at the moment.
If the minister meant what he said on May 7, he will persuade the Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and the member of his caucus that there is not another industry of any shape or form in Canada that has had a drop in net income such as the grain industry and farmers have suffered. There is not another industry in Canada that has lost over half its employees-at least, not an industry that counts for anything in the economy.
I do not want to be sentimental. If the quarter-section farmer has gone and the little hamlet of 50 people has gone, it's too late. But when thousands of farmers leave and many Prairie communities become ghost towns-the minister has some in his riding with vacant stores, vacant houses, towns where once there were five farm machinery dealers and now only one or two, with no station agents, and so on-that is a different matter. I do not know how often the minister goes around these towns, but I would be glad to show him some in his own riding.
If the minister meant what he said, he will persuade his colleagues to accept the proposition that the nation as a whole is responsible for the preservation of primary production. It is wrong to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Not that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in itself is good, but I agree with the minister that we are doing the thing backwards. Surely the minister can say to his colleagues and the nation, and have the support of agriculture if not of his colleagues, that we should establish a national granary concept where the government and people of Canada maintain pick your figure, 150 million, 200 million bushels of grain in store at terminal elevators, and over and above that the farmers pay the storage, which is just the reverse of what the government has been doing.
What happens in our export markets is something of concern to the nation as a whole. If we are worried about the textile workers or automobile workers, is it not equally valid to be worried about grain production and our export markets? If the United States treasury or the treasuries of countries like Australia, Franoe and Argentina ruin price agreements-I do not fault the IVhnister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board
[Mr. Lang.)
May 10, 1971

on this score, because we are in a big league-it is time to call upon this Parliament and the nation as a whole to say to these other countries. If you boys want to play that kind of game, we will play along with you.
We should have continued to pay prices that bore some relation to the cost of production, with the nation as a whole picking up the losses. But no. This minister, who says he is worried about family farms and that he will not take a back seat to anyone in his concern to preserve viable family units, brings in a stabilization plan that pays no attention to farm costs or to farm net incomes, which makes no provision for any increase in the cost of living. If we can agree to escalation provisions for MPs and old age pensioners, what about similar provisions in this stabilization plan?
The minister can continue to threaten us if he likes. He can accuse us of filibustering if he likes. But this is bad legislation because it betrays the grain growers and family farmers. It does nothing to preserve the family farm unit in rural Canada. It is merely continuing what has been happening to us for 25 years. I wish the minister would explain why there are only two rural Liberal members left from the three prairie provinces. Surely that state of affairs should tell him something. If he wants to get rid of idiots like me, all he has to do is to bring in legislation that is really meaningful to the grain industry of western Canada, legislation that will really preserve family farms in the three Prairie provinces.
These birds opposite have been running around promising a two-price system. They even promised the Gardiner dam for 35 years and then the Tories built it, though they named it after a Liberal. Then the Liberals named a lake after a Tory. I do not know who is friendly to whom, but they are both the same breed of cat. We still keep losing thousands of farmers, with dozens of communities dying on their feet.
If the minister wants to get rid of NDP members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and Tory members from Saskatchewan and Alberta, there is an easy way to do so. If I do not make it back here it will be because the minister has really done something to improve farm incomes, to keep people on farms and to preserve viable communities in the Prairie provinces. If that becomes the case, then I do not need to be here. If the minister beats me in that way, fair ball.
However, if the minister thinks he can horse around and threaten us, telling the press that we are filibustering, then he has another think coming. If he thinks that he will get any semblance of this legislation through by talking in that way, then he has two thinks coming. It is about time this minister started listening to farmers and western Members of Parliament, to guys who are growing the grain, instead of experts on task forces and from the Winnipeg grain exchange.
I for one do not intend to vote for this legislation, not unless it emerges from the committee much improved. I will take my chances. The minister is welcome to come into my riding and to tell every farmer that I voted against this $100 million. I shall be glad to take him on 24107-9
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion exactly on those terms. He can even name the towns we go to in my riding, though I should like to visit some towns in his riding too. This $100 million is coming out anyway. I do not want to call it a buy-off. It is conscience money. Farm incomes have gone down by $516 million. The government is putting up $100 million, so it still owes grain growers $416 million.
As I say, we are not going to be threatened or blackmailed. I hope the minister will prove, as he said in his speech, that he has as much or even more concern than any other member of this House about the number of people in rural Canada, and that he will bring in improvements to the bill that will have all of us cheering for him in front of the city hall at high noon. If he does that, then I should be glad to join the cheering.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Chairman, I tried to call once again the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to the conditions prevailing in the footwear industry in Canada, because workers and leaders of that industry had once more shown their "despair" publicly. As a matter of fact, in the Monday, May 3, 1971, edition of La Presse of Montreal, Mr. Rene-Frangois Desamore wrote the following:
At a meeting held in Montreal on Saturday, union representatives of the workers of the footwear industry in Quebec City, Montreal, Beauce county and the Mauricie cried out in despair because their industry is dying.
At least 34 footwear manufactures have closed down in Quebec since 1961, thus putting hundreds of people out of work. Moreover, the manufactures still running are only operating at half capacity and work only one week out of two.
Mr. Speaker, we find the minister's attitude quite strange under the circumstances. Last year, in several questions I asked in the House, I indicated to the hon. minister certain figures supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to the shoe manufacturers who used them to prepare their brief. As recorded on page 8338 of Hansard of June 19, 1970, the hon. minister stated, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I am at the present time reading the brief submitted by the Shoe Manufacturers Association of Canada. This document contains certain questionable statistics-
In view of the current situation, the minister remains completely unconcerned despite our rising unemployment and above all despite the many difficulties met by the shoe manufacturers and by the thousands of workers

May 10, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion who have been and will be forced to a premature retirement.
Is this due to the Canadian shoe industry? Absolutely hot, since the Canadian worker's productivity increased by 67 per cent between 1948 and 1968, which means that it is 35 per cent higher than that of the Economic European Community countries.
Nevertheless, the union representatives, meeting in Montreal under the chairmanship of Mr. Eugene Ran-court, stated, and I quote:
Imports are the major problem in the footwear industry. In 1956, Canada imported only seven million pairs of shoes, that is 11.7 per cent of its national production, hut, in 1969, 46 million pairs were imported, that is 79.4 per cent of the national production.
It is estimated also that footwear imports in 1969 were equivalent to a loss of at least 15,000 jobs in Canada. Canada is the country which is most open to shoe imports from Asian and state-controlled countries. In general, Canada's imports from those countries are almost as high as those of all the Common Market countries together, although its population is only one tenth of that of the European Community. All that meant that in 1968 there was an excess of footwear imports over exports of the order of 46 million.
It is obvious that nothing has yet been done in that respect and, which is even more serious, the skilled men in that field have no hope whatever of being hired back, since Canadian manufacturers are getting ready to avail themselves even more of easy import conditions.
A letter which the Slater Shoe Company (Canada) Limited sent to its customers on the closing of its Montreal plant is another proof of this alarming situation.
Let me now quote that letter dated April 1, addressed to the company's customers.
During the past few years. Slater has secured the co-operation of the best master shoemakers from Europe in order to give you a product of superior quality.
Today, after years of discussions, an agreement has finally been entered into in connection with quality control, data checking, choice of models, and so on.
Our national advertising campaign throughout Canada will be stepped up and we hope that you will join that program by taking advantage of our co-operative system.
On April 7, the Slater Shoe Company (Canada) Limited sent to its customers another letter which reads as follows:
As you know, the famous Slater shoes, known for their quality for 102 years, are now made in Spain, Italy, France and Great Britain.
Everything is going according to plan, and you will soon be able to admire a magnificent collection of Slater shoes both in current and high fashion models.
Our new models will soon be on display and our representatives, whom you know so well, will certainly be proud to show them to you.
The letter was signed by Mr. Phillippe Ayers, vicepresident of Slater Shoe Company (Canada) Limited.
Mr. Speaker, because of very strong competition from some countries where labour costs less, the Canadian government is allowing plants to close their doors.
[Mr. Godin.)
The same thing is happening with regard to household appliances. This includes radio and television sets that are imported at the expense of Canadian manufacturers and workers.
We also import textile products, claiming that in so doing we save money because it would cost too much to produce them.
On the same principle, the government does not exercise any control over shoe imports from other countries. It is not profitable to make them, so we buy them.
Mr. Speaker, if this keeps up, how long will the Canadian economy hold out? If we are not given protection to manufacture here what we can manufacture, according to the needs of Canadian consumers, how long can we hope to remain idle, while buying elsewhere?
In peacetime, trade should be limited to international transactions. Our production is constantly chalenged by foreign competition, again, because of the allegedly good wages paid in these countries. But when war is declared, all this is forgotten.
I remember the 1939-45 war, when England became our best customer. I remember also that our manpower was not considered too costly to be sent to fight in these countries, and even to destroy them.
In war time, cost is no object. To keep troops in Germany, cost is no object. To keep troops fighting in Korea, Greece or Turkey, the wages paid our soldiers are no problem.
So, I wonder whether the minister can assure us that he will take measures, and will soon let us know what he intends to do so that Canadian manufacturers are considered essential to the operation of our economy.
Canadian industry, the shoe trade in particular, deserves protection and I would like to know what the government intends to do in that regard.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Portneuf that I am well aware of the difficulties of the footwear industry.
Increased imports have hurt some sectors of the Canadian shoe industry. However it has not been clearly specified what field of production was affected and how serious was the damage. Special statistical analyses should show where pressure is strongest. Furthermore, the department, in co-operation with the industry, has undertaken a special study in order to ascertain whether low cost imports have really hurt the Canadian industry.
If so, the interdepartmental low price import policy committee will make recommendations to the minister in order to cope with the situation.
The government is ready to pay special attention to cases where competition due to imports is unfair. The Minister of National Revenue recently completed an inquiry into possible dumping in the case of shipments of shoes from France, Spain and Italy. If it is true that there was some dumping, the matter will be brought to the attention of the Anti-dumping tribunal, which will be asked to rule on the matter.
In December last, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced new steps proposed under the
May 10, 1971

General Adjustment Assistance Program, that is the GAAP Program, about footwear industries needing assistance to get reorganized in order to improve their competitive position on domestic or world markets.
These industries may receive incentives up to 50 per cent of the cost of consulting services required for the development of viable re-organization projects-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion v


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
5677

Tuesday, May 11, 1971