1971-05-06

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT 20 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
24107-1£
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 6, 1971


[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.

[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Guay (Levis).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and as indicated in the reply given to question No. 838 on April 28, 1971, I now wish to table copies, in French and English, of pages 1 and 2 which were omitted in the October issue of the Foreign Trade magazine published by my department. That correction does not apply to the magazine Commerce exterieur.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), I wish to outline very briefly the achievements of the family planning program within my department.
For the past several months, health and welfare officials of my department have been engaged in launching a Canada-wide family planning program in co-operation with the provinces and with professional and voluntary organizations. Our aim has been to include both health and welfare interests and responsibilities, ensuring coordination and making full use of the resources and capacities available. The department is also working with the Medical Research Council and with the International Development Research Centre in this program.
I expect that during the coming months we shall be able, through our existing and developing programs, to enhance our support of the growing efforts of the provinces and of voluntary groups and agencies. In this regard, as the latest development I am happy to say that I have recently approved a direct contribution of $100,000 to the Family Planning Federation of Canada to assist that organization to extend its activities throughout Canada.
In order to strengthen our combined efforts to promote family planning, we intend to hold a family planning conference in 1972, with participation of provincial health and welfare authorities, professional associations, citizen groups and other organizations. Such a conference will provide an opportunity to assess progress and to develop measures to improve and extend family planning services throughout Canada.
I realize that the time of the House is limited and therefore I will conclude my remarks. However, because of the interest of the House in this subject, in accordance with Standing Order 41 (2) I wish to table in both official languages a document which outlines in more detail the achievements of the family planning program of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for supplying copies of his document on family planning in sufficient time for us to review its contents.
First I wish to say I am pleased that the government is making a reasonable start on introducing a program on family planning, but it is only a beginning and an elaboration of an information program which has been needed by thousands of families for many years. I would like to have seen more planning in the direction of needy families in line with the family income security plan.
The document indicates co-ordination with the provinces and other organizations but does not suggest, as it should, financial assistance for more family planning clinics in hospitals. This should be a very basic consideration. Only 23 of 948 Canadian subsidized hospitals have family planning centres. This brings up the fundamental question of the difficulty in providing counselling to the poor and poorly educated who live in areas that are far distant and isolated from this type of service. In this connection we hope that in order to overcome this difficulty a system of mobile clinics will be established to serve these remote areas in order to help those who need advice most. The dissemination of birth control information is important and in carrying out the task attention should be paid to those who, even at this sophisticated stage of our communications media, are far removed

May 6, 1971
Family Planning Program
geographically from those to whom they can look for advice.
I think it is worth while questioning the sufficiency of the sum of $100,000 granted to the Family Planning Federation of Canada to direct the publicity and advertising informing families of this service. I hope that, as the minister has stated, during the coming months he will increase government support to the provinces and voluntary groups.
Another question which should be answered is when the minister and the government will initiate legislation or regulations under the Food and Drug Directorate to require manufacturers of birth control devices to indicate on the label the level of effectiveness of their products.
I hope that the minister will also consult with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, for the purpose of clarifying the Criminal Code so that sterilization performed by qualified medical practitioners at the request of the patient will not involve criminal responsibility on the part of the practitioner.
We are pleased that the minister has chosen to implement some of the recommendations set out in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and we hope that this year's program will consist of more than a mere introduction.
I had hoped that we would hear the minister speak today about the relationship of the basic need for family planning to assistance programs under the Canada Assistance Plan to provide increased benefits to those who are poverty-stricken. There will be great disappointment, that the family income security plan, as was stated by the minister, will not be introduced now so that the needy may receive the benefits announced in the white paper on income security. This is also a part of family planning. It is obvious from the criticisms of the white paper by the Canadian Welfare Council that new reviews and discussions will have to take place in the cabinet. The delay will have a serious effect on many thousands of our citizens, and I implore the government to take the necessary action as quickly as possible. I hope the upcoming conference of provincial ministers of welfare will show Canadians that positive action will be forthcoming, and that ongoing discussions will take place in order to make progress in line with the document introduced today.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy in making this statement and the accompanying document available in time to give us a chance to study it before commenting on it. I am sure all of us are very happy to be in on what the minister has described as the launching of a Canada-wide family planning program. I do not know whether he should have provided champagne for the launching. We will have to find out whether the ship is good, stout and seaworthy. She has been stuck on the ways for quite a while now, and I am very much relieved to see that at last she is going down to the sea.
It is not always that one has a chance to commend the minister for something really solid, apart from words, but there are certain solid features of this program which appeal very much to many hon. members. For one thing,
Mr. Speaker, the program is Canada-wide. This is an excellent thing at a time when the mobility of people is making boundaries, provincial or otherwise, less and less relevant.
Another point in the minister's statement on the program which I like very much was the indication that there is to be co-operation with the provinces, with the professions and with voluntary organizations. I am very glad that the minister used the plural-organizations.
Some people feel that the $100,000 to be given to the Family Planning Organization is not a great deal in comparison with what will be needed to handle the business of family planning across Canada but, after all, this is probably just a start with the major family planning organization. It is obviously a very good start, and let us hope that there will be more to come. What I am glad to see is that $100,000 in good hard cash is being made available for this purpose because, if the repeal of the provision in the Criminal Code which prevented the dissemination of birth control information was a milestone, as the minister described it, I am hoping this program will prove to be a second milestone on the way to helping people plan, space and limit their families. I am hoping that this will be a beginning in making the Canadian people realize that population experts are not just talking nonsense when they talk about the need to limit the average family to two children. If we cannot work in that direction, Mr. Speaker, then it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about improving the quality of life in this country because the quality of life is dependent on our keeping the population within bounds.
There is great need for this new planning program. I cite to hon. members the latest example that came to my attention. Just this morning I was told that more than half of the babies born in the Ottawa Civic Hospital last week were born out of wedlock. I am convinced it is not only in Ottawa that people need to be told about ways and means of not having children, particularly children that they cannot look after and do not welcome. I believe that contraception, family planning and birth control are the first line of defence against unwanted pregnancy.
I congratulate the minister on taking this action because it will mean that abortion will not be necessary on as wide a scale now that we are undertaking family planning by the other route of birth control and use of contraceptives. I know there is much lacking in this program, Mr. Speaker, but in the accompanying document I notice that the minister makes reference to the way in which the Canada Assistance Plan can be used or has a potential for use in dealing with family planning if the provinces come through with requests for programs and put up 50 per cent of the cost in order to get the other 50 per cent from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Also, Mr. Speaker, for training personnel to staff family planning clinics both professional training grants and the National Welfare grants program can be used.
This is a very important subject, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to trespass on the time of the House. I am just going to congratulate the minister on taking one of the very important steps recommended by the Royal Com-

May 6, 1971

mission on the Status of Women, that family planning be instituted across Canada. I believe this program will make that a possibility.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be patient enough to listen to the Creditistes who have things to say which are quite different from what the minister and the two hon. members who spoke before me had to say.
I wish to thank the minister for having distributed his statement in advance, a gesture which allowed us to study it from the first line down to the last.
I find the minister's attitude in the House-and that goes for the two members who spoke before me, too- simply scandalous. In my view, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) should promote the family ideal in Canada. However, when I look closely at the minister's statement, I see that while he appears to be promoting family planning, he is actually favouring the destruction of the family.
In the circumstances, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the Canadian family, should resign because instead of being in favour of the Canadian family he is against, as he has just most explicitly demonstrated.
The minister should, in this House, promote the respect for and the beauty of the Canadian family. But the statement that he has just made proves that he wishes to subject the Canadian family to the requirements of finance, because the financial system does not allow Canadian families to flourish, grow and be comprised of more than two children, as the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has just claimed. Although I could not have children, being of the male sex, I am still a father of seven, and quite happy with my lot.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I fail to understand how some hon. members, and the three who have spoken before me, can advocate the destruction of the Canadian family instead of its promotion. They may be influenced by the believers in the myth that the world is over-populated.
When people mention human pollution or over-population, I rather feel that the pollution exists in their own minds. It is a shame to hear them talking about overpopulation when Canada, a young country with only 22 million people, can feed and help develop and prosper over 100 million citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I can neither understand nor approve the attitude and the way of thinking of the hon. members who accept the position and the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister has also announced that, under the new law, it will be legal to advertise contraceptives anywhere in Canada.
He also announced that the Family Planning Federation of Canada will henceforth be recognized by the
Family Planning Program
Department of National Revenue as a charitable organization so that contributions to it will be tax deductible.
I am convinced that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not transfer him before long, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will come again before the House to announce a monthly bonus for each child that a mother will not have raised. Thus, the latter will be better rewarded than a mother who will have raised children.
Thirty-five years ago, the Department of Agriculture paid $2 to farmers of both eastern and western Canada not to raise any hogs, and at that time farmers did their best not to produce any. Some of them were resourceful enough not to raise 2,000 hogs.
I am therefore wondering whether the minister will not include in the legislation provision for an allowance to be paid by his department to mothers who use contraceptives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel I must remind the hon. member and, indirectly, other members participating in the debate, that according to the Standing Order of the House comments of party representatives after a minister's statement should be brief.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am taking your kind remarks into consideration and I must say that I was about to close. As I said before, I am shocked and surprised to see that in the House charity has become selfishness and selfishness charity. The Department of National Health and Welfare, according to the minister's statement, spent $90,000 last year to promote the destruction of the family. For this year, he has just stated that the department he heads will be spending a further $100,000, not to promote the family, as indicated in the document he has tabled, but to promote its destruction, to the prejudice of our beautiful country.



TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT, 1971

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages copies of the International Wheat Agreement, 1971.



CANADA-FINLAND SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill S-18 (from the Senate), to implement a supplementary income tax convention between Canada and Finland.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

May 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to make a statement to the House giving in some detail the situation in the international money market, and also how he foresees that the Canadian dollar position will be protected by steps taken to date so that we do not suffer any splash, shall we say, from this international monetary crisis which is building up to very serious proportions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would consider making such a statement when the position is somewhat clarified. I understand that the finance ministers of the European Economic Community are meeting in Brussels on Saturday and that the German cabinet has scheduled a cabinet meeting for Saturday afternoon. So far as the Canadian dollar is concerned, there has been very light trading in the Canadian dollar and its value has not been affected materially.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will appreciate, of course, that the Canadian dollar could be considerably affected if there is, shall we say, a movement away from certain currencies and the Canadian dollar becomes a currency of refuge for speculators. We must also consider the position of our exporters, and I think that is the position the minister must guard the most.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister seen the legislation to establish border control stations which the government of Quebec is proposing, or has he been consulted in regard to the implications of this legislation with respect to trade in agricultural products?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, Sir, not yet.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact that Bill C-176, which the minister referred to yesterday, does not provide any protection against obstacles to interprovincial trade, will he now join the government of Manitoba and support its application to the Supreme Court of Canada so that we may have a decision from the highest court regarding the crucial problem of interprovincial trade in agricultural products?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's supplementary is similar to a question which was asked yesterday or the day before.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. What is the policy of the government toward this move to balkanize Canada which could be followed by other provinces and would result in the effective balkanization of the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe our policy has been announced to the House on this matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the concern felt in the country over these moves to restrict the free flow of trade between provinces, which could have very serious detrimental effects on some provinces, including my own, I think the House deserves a much better answer than the Prime Minister gave, which in fact was no answer at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary.


Mr. Lewis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, a similar question was asked yesterday to the one asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar with regard to joining the government of Manitoba in its application to the Supreme Court of Canada. The answer was that Bill C-176 would do the job. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the question the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar asked took precise note of what the Minister of Justice said yesterday. He suggested to the minister that Bill C-176 does not have anything to do with it and asked him whether, in view of that, he would join the government of Manitoba in its application to the Supreme Court of Canada because the subject matter is of immense importance to the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-INSTRUCTIONS TO FEDERAL COUNSEL IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In light of the questions asked today and the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Justice and in view of the constitutional question of free trade and keeping this country together and unified, will the Minister of Justice now accept his responsibility, stand in his place and advise the House whether he has instructed counsel to represent the federal government, whom he has instructed, what province that counsel is from, and what are the instructions? This is not an ordinary case. It is a constitutional question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might reply to the supplementary just asked by the hon. member and the supplementary asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did say yesterday in reply to questions put to me by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member

May 6, 1971

for Peace River that I had instructed counsel to represent the federal government before the Supreme Court of Canada on the appeal from the Manitoba Court of Appeal. I can now add that I have instructed counsel to defend the constitution in so far as those areas relating to interprovincial trade and the British North America Act are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: With regard to the counsel we have appointed, I would like to get a more precise answer for the hon. member later.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. I hope Your Honour will not think that it is argumentative. It is not meant that way. In view of the answer of the Minister of Justice as to what instructions were given, if he knows the instructions can he now tell us to whom he gave those instructions? How can he give instructions if he does not know to whom they were given?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon.
member knows how this works. I gave the instructions to the Deputy Minister of Justice. Whether the Deputy Minister of Justice has asked that the department be aided by outside counsel, that is, counsel in private practice, or whether he is relying on the very capable officials and counsel within the Department of Justice, I do not know. However, instructions were given to the Deputy Minister of Justice and he will see that the department is represented before the Supreme Court of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the Minister of Justice thinking of resigning?



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-QUEBEC LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH BORDER CONTROL STATIONS-SUGGESTED DELAY-GOVERNMENT ACTION

James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. With the residual powers the minister has under the constitution, does he intend to ask the province of Quebec to cease and desist from the erection of these inspection stations until the matter has been resolved by the courts?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. Horner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice was about to attempt to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member was looking at the minister more closely than I. He did not appear to be rising very quickly. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a supplementary. Perhaps the minister might then indicate whether he wants to reply to both questions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the lack of clarification of the government's stand on this
Inquiries of the Ministry
issue, will the Minister of Justice very soon report to the House clearly and distinctly what action the government proposes to take?


John Napier Turner: The government's position has been made quite clear by the Minister of Agriculture, namely, that Bill C-176 will provide co-ordinated marketing legislation that might well be the vehicle for solving the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Translation\
Does the hon. member for Sainte-Marie want to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: I want to direct a different question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that we might return to this matter in a few minutes. I realize it is a matter which is obviously of interest to all hon. members, but at this point it might be desirable to recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere and then return to this matter.



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can he say whether he took part, before its publication, in the supervision of the booklet entitled "Canada 1971" which pretends to be the annual magazine about present living conditions and recent developments, prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and whose publication has been approved by the hon. minister himself?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere want to put a supplementary question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Did the hon. minister know that in this booklet, prejudice is inflicted directly to a political party represented in this House, a party whose name is "Social Credit Party of Canada" but which was known as Ralliement credi-tiste of Canada before this booklet was issued?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware, but I shall inquire. If there is any mistake and if there are apologies

May 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
to be tendered, I shall oblige on behalf of whoever wrote those words.


André-Gilles Fortin: 1 wish to point out the seriousness of the statements made in this publication and I shall quote from them briefly. I refer to the following sentence on page 46:
The Social Credit Hally is the former Quebec wing of the Social Credit party, which, outside Quebec, has now virtually disappeared from federal politics.
Since public funds are thus used to mislead the Canadian people and especially our younger generations, would the minister agree to request the immediate withdrawal of this book and to have it corrected so that Canadians will not be misinformed concerning the status of the Social Credit Party of Canada which is faring better than ever?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I could certainly crack a few good jokes on this subject, but I shall refrain.
I would simply like to repeat what I said a few moments ago, that I will peruse through the brochure and, again, if apologies are in order, I will make them.


André-Gilles Fortin: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may put a supplementary, but we must proceed with the question period because we will run out of time very shortly.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has undertaken to apologize if need be, but the situation is more serious than that.
Since in addition the English version differs from the French version, is the minister prepared to discontinue the distribution of the brochure and replace it with a new factual one?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might take measures which are somewhat less dramatic than those suggested by the hon. member. I read recently a booklet written by the leader of the Social Credit which contained a whole list of errata; perhaps we might use the same method with regard to this document.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I vnsh to return to the very important matter of free trade interprovincially in agricultural products. In view of the fact that Bill C-176 only comes into effect with the intervention of the provinces and some provinces have already indicated they will not support it in its entirety, will the Prime Minister indicate that the federal government's policy, if this is its policy, is vigorously and strongly opposed to any provincial regulations interfering with the free movement of goods between provinces which constitutes a basic and cardinal principle of confederation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have done this several times. The latest time I did so in the presence of the provinces was at the federal-provincial meeting, the one before last. This whole matter was discussed. We were urged by the provinces to get along with Bill C-176 which the overwhelming majority of them thought was the proper solution to this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, the opposition is really defeating its own purpose. It is criticizing the government for not having a policy when it is preventing that policy from at least being tried. I think the opposition is in a very sorry state in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The remarks of the Prime Minister are, of course, argumentative and should not be made. It would be equally argumentative for me to say we are in this mess because the government was too cowardly to do something about it some time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to limit supplementaries unduly, but I believe we should soon move on to another subject. We have spent about 15 minutes of the question period on this subject and we shall be running short of time. If hon. members feel this is in order, I might allow a supplementary to the hon. member for St. John's East. I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere has a supplementary also but for the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-QUEBEC LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH BORDER CONTROL STATIONS-SUGGESTED DELAY

James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to pursue the matter, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Justice was attempting to answer my original question- which I shall now rephrase-but he did not catch Your Honour's eye. Will the government, using the residual powers it has under our constitution, ask the province of Quebec to cease and desist from the establishment of these inspection stations until the question has been resolved either by Parliament or the courts?


John Napier Turner: I do not
know what power the hon. member has in mind. We do not have the power to effect regulations. As far as the power of reservation and disallowance is concerned, that has not been exercised by the federal government since
[Mr. Pepin.)
May 6, 1971

1943. The matter is now properly before the courts and, short of legislation, it will be for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide whether any cease and desist order should issue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Prime Minister did not mislead the House with reference to the position of the provinces. I do not believe that the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan or any other western province would, because of their major primary industry being agriculture, endorse the balkanization of this country. I would hope that the Prime Minister, with his knowledge of constitutional law, would now rise and correct that misunderstanding.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was asked by the opposition whether I had made this point to the provinces. My answer is yes, I did. When the hon. member talks of balkanizing Canada he may be reflecting the result of the obstructionism of his own party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Since the hon. gentleman has said he has not seen the legislation which is presently before the Quebec legislature, the bill which purports to give authority to set up inspection stations for agricultural products, in this case, I think, eggs, and in view of the serious repercussions this could have for the rest of Canada, would the minister undertake to secure a copy of that legislation and make a statement on motions as to what the federal government's intention is with respect to this legislation in order to prevent very serious dislocation in the movement of agricultural products across provincial boundaries?


John Napier Turner: I shall certainly secure a copy of the bill before the Quebec legislature, but what action the federal government could take in expressing an opinion about that bill, or expressing a constitutional view about the bill, is highly doubtful. If the measure is to be challenged, it will be challenged before the courts, and the reference from Manitoba is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada. The other alternatives are, of course, interprovincial negotiation or the type of coordinated marketing legislation envisaged by the Minister of Agriculture.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the statement he made yesterday in the House, would he tell us if the government has decided
Inquiries of the Ministry
to offer financial or other assistance to the St. Jean-Yianney victims and, if so, what kind of help will it be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we will abide by the procedure in the present case. The municipality needs only to make a request to the federal government through the provincial government. To my knowledge, such a request for assistance has not yet been made. The hon. member wants, like us I think, to show consideration for the constitution and would not wish the federal government to intervene "over the head" of local authorities.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, without prejudice to the constitution, he has sent an observer who would keep him informed of problems experienced by those stricken people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the observers which I mentioned yesterday, that is some members of the Canadian armed forces and officials of the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, I can say that the one chosen by the constituents to represent them in Ottawa, namely the member for Lapointe, has been sent on the scene.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does he intend to defer any decision about the establishment of bilingual districts or the implementation of the Advisory Board's recommendations to a later date, that is after the prime ministers' conference next month, to allow provinces to make representations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Secretary of State answered that question yesterday in the House when he explained that the legislation itself forbids any interference in that area before a delay of 90 days. This gets us much later than June 15 and 16.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to include formally this item on the agenda so that all premiers can take part in the discussion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the agenda of the June conference is not yet settled. There are exchanges between the provinces and the federal government in order to know which items should be on the agenda. I cannot therefore answer with certainty any question on that subject.
5556

May 6, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY
whether the government intends to continue deficiency payments on wool at the same level as last year?



AUTOMOBILES-UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT DECISION RECLASSIFYING CANADIAN-FORGED PARTS AS DUTIABLE

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is related to a question I asked him on April 27 and concerns an United States customs court decision on imports of Canadian forged auto parts which is in direct violation of the auto pact. I would ask what results his representations have produced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did secure more information on that subject. I found the following. The Canadian exporters concerned have advised the department that their forgings are subjected to additional processing which both they and we consider to be sufficient processing to allow for the continued free entry of these forgings into the United States under the auto pact. In conjunction with the industry, the government has made representations to the United States Bureau of Customs to this effect. The bureau is expected to rule very soon, a,nd the decision is expected to be favourable.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What steps does the minister propose to take if the decision is not satisfactory?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is
hypothetical.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address my question to the Solicitor General who I understood was supposed to be in the House today according to the roster system. In his absence perhaps I might address it to the Minister of Justice who acts on his behalf. What was the reason or purpose of the RCMP inquiry into the procedure used by western ranchers and farmers of dropping literature from an airplane protesting against Bill C-176 at several rural points in southeastern Alberta?
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice: I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Solicitor General.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, an announcement was made some time ago and the cheques have already been issued in the amount of something over 17 cents per pound, bringing the support price up to 45 cents. If the hon. member is asking whether it is the same as it was in the past, of course it is not as high as it was last year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure us that the report of the task force on foreign ownership and economic nationalism, being chaired by his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will be made public and that it is not contemplated it will be in the form of an internal working document and thus be confidential?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. The minister has told the House repeatedly that this was not properly a task force which would issue a report to be published. It was a working group within the department, assisted by others, which will submit recommendations to the government for study. What will be done then, beyond a policy announcement, will have to be known by the opposition in due course.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielte):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
In view of the reply he has just given, namely, that he is willing to study the validity of Quebec's legislation dealing with the establishment of inspection stations in the interest of egg producers, could he at the same time assure the House that he will also study the Ontario legislation concerning broiler producers particularly?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.




Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the low cash returns to wool producers, will the minister say



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence
May 6, 1971

I should like to direct it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. In view of the announced protective wheat purchasing policy recently introduced in the United Kingdom, which may have an adverse effect on wheat shipments out of the port of Churchill because wheat is the only grain presently exported out of that port, will the minister confer with officials of the National Harbours Board to see if the necessary equipment can be installed at Churchill to handle coarse grains and oilseeds?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
* [DOT] [DOT]



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, last evening the Minister of Justice returned to the theme of a new bill of rights entrenched in the constitution. I wonder whether in contemplating this new bill of rights the minister can indicate to the House that it will have a retroactive aspect in the same manner as the bill introduced last fall respecting public order?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the assumption is wrong so I cannot answer the question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether in this bill of rights the government is now returning to the previously held position under English common law that there will be a presumption of innocence rather than a presumption of guilt as in the bill introduced earlier by the minister?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the
assumption is again wrong. We have always held the presumption of innocence as paramount.
* *
*



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Since the government reorganization measure, Bill C-207, which was before us some time ago, anticipates superannuation after 30 years in the Public Service, has the government considered altering the Statute Law Amendment Act in order that supplementary benefits of 2 per cent to 42 per cent will be available to ex-service personnel of the Canadian forces below age 60?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I would have to study the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER ON METHOD OF FINANCING

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Are there discussions going on at the present time between him and the Quebec authorities concerning the James Bay hydroelectric project and will the government agree to participate, financially as well as physically, in the development of this project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance spoke yesterday about the financing of the project. As for me, I have not had any official discussions on the subject.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary who appropriately is wearing a salmon pink shirt. In view of the fact that the new salmon fishing regulations require that an applicant for a licence must produce evidence of having held a licence last year, and in view of the fact that fisheries officers advised applicants last year that only the crew leaders of salmon fishing boats required to be licensed, what steps is the minister willing to take to ensure that all legitimate salmon fishermen may be eligible for licences irrespective of whether they held one last year?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the salmon pink shirt I am wearing was made in my riding. The matter referred to by the hon. member is under active consideration, but there are appeal boards set up to deal with such matters.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the new regulations announced by the department come into effect on May 15, will the minister's department immediately revise and review the regulations especially as they pertain to fishermen who may not receive licences now but who prepared for the fishing season by buying and manufacturing fishing gear during the winter of 1970 and now find themselves unable to use that fishing gear during this season? Will he immediately review the matter and clarify the position in the hope that these people will be allowed to prosecute salmon fishing during the 1971 season?


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I should again like to advise the hon. member that this matter is under active consid-

May 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
eration and we hope to be in a position to issue a statement on it later this week.



PROTESTS AGAINST PROPOSED WEST COAST FISHING


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the parliamenary secretary whether the protests against proposed fishing licence regulations on the west coast are also under consideration?


Eymard G. Corbin: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I shall look into the matter.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Perhaps the minister can answer this question when he returns to the House. On March 16, as recorded at page 4293 of Hansard, I asked a question in respect of a publication issued under the authority of the minister of the environment. This is a publication called BiMonthly Research Notes", put out by the forestry division. My question referred particularly to this publication for the months of January and February. I have now the next issue of the magazine for the months of March and April, again issued under the authority of the minister of the department of the environment. In view of the fact there is a bill before the House relating to the establishment of this department, and an amendment to that bill, I feel that this affects my privileges and that the House is entitled to an explanation.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that matter to the minister's attention.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Notwithstanding the fact that the work on the Ste. Scholastique project has resumed while there still remains a problem as to whether the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or the provincial code is applicable, can the minister advise whether he is aware of this peculiar problem and, if so, has he directed any written and definitive statement to the contractors involved as to which code is actually in effect?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Some time ago I notified the contractor that his obligation to the federal government was a contractual one and that his obligation to the province was a legal one.



STE. SCHOLASTIQUE AIRPORT-USE OF FEDERAL OR PROVINCIAL MANPOWER OFFICES TO PROVIDE WORKERS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in charge of manpower aware of the fact that the Minister of Labour in the province of Quebec has indicated to the contractors that they are to deal with the provincial manpower department rather than the federal department and, if so, will he advise the House what action he is taking in terms of advising the contractors involved?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are of course fully aware of the advice and the legislation in this area in the province of Quebec. It is also a fact that contractors have certain obligations under their contracts in connection with certain developments undertaken by the federal government. The services of the Canada Manpower Centres are involved in this obligation and are fully available. In many cases, they are being used.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. I wonder whether the minister could perhaps advise us right now in respect of federal projects? Am I to understand from the minister that it is the federal manpower service which takes precedence?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the obligations of the contractors are with the federal government under certain terms of the contract. In those circumstances, our offices are offering services and are making placements.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1969-70 CROP YEAR

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the concern by western farmers about the final wheat payment this year, can the minister indicate now whether or not there will be such a payment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the pool for the 1969-70 crop year for wheat was closed effective April 30, but in the ordinary course it takes a fair number of weeks before the Wheat Board can make a final calculation in respect of the final payment since there is involved the transfer of a certain amount of wheat from one pool to another. There is every prospect there will be a payment, but at this stage I could not attempt to estimate the figure.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether this payment will be out in time for the election?


Otto Emil Lang: I should hope so, Mr. Speaker.

May 6, 1971



SUGGESTED SALE OF SWORDFISH TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious financial difficulties presently being experienced by the swordfish fishermen in Atlantic Canada as a result of the mercury scare, has the minister made any inquiries of European countries or Japan in an effort to sell swordfish to those countries, since they are still catching them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker. May I deal with a question asked previously, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the minister has tried to catch the Speaker's eye, and this may be the time to recognize the minister. However, I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are only five minutes remaining. I shall allow the minister to answer a previous question, but I hope the reply will be short and that subsequent questions will also be short.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked on Tuesday by the skeptical member for Edmonton West I wish to inform him that Statistics Canada-the Dominion Bureau of Statistics-is as I assumed, looking into that matter. There is widespread interest among statisticians, I am informed, in the possibility of developing a set of "social accounts" which might provide in a different sphere the sort of logical structure-obviously, I did not write this-which the "national accounts" and "gross national product" have provided for many years.
The topic is under study by the statistical agencies of the OECD and the United Nations, and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is participating actively in this work. Thus far the project has been exploratory. At the moment, a senior officer of DBS is at meetings in Europe on the matter.
So, obviously NSB was something quite well known among enlightened people.



RAPESEED-REPRESENTATIONS FROM JAPANESE IMPORTERS RESPECTING POSSIBLE INCLUSION UNDER WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Has the minister or his department received any communications directly from Japanese importers on the possible inclusion of rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and, if so, would he say what the tenor of the communications was?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of wires from sources, including sources in Japan, on this subject but also broadly related to the question of the rapeseed market. In some cases it was not easy to tell whether their concern was about the suggested closing of the Vancouver futures market which had been contemplated by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange or some other steps being taken or whether it was the result of the erroneous report about the bill which was given initially. I have also received telegrams from them two months ago on the general subject of the problems they were having with the rapeseed market, following which there was action on our part in conjunction with the rapeseed association and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to correct the situation.



FINANCE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of a recent survey which indicates that buying intentions for durable consumer goods have not improved since last fall, will the government consider an incentive in this area in next month's budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the survey of which my hon. friend speaks. I do know there are indications that consumer spending is increasing in Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Spadina on a supplementary, but we are running short of time. I bring this to the attention of hon. members.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, has the minister not been advised of a five-month study of 25 major durable categories which shows March intentions at the same level as November last?



AGRICULTURE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very depressed condition of agriculture in Prince Edward Island and the recent submission by the provincial Minister of Agriculture, is he prepared to indicate what forms of assistance will be forthcoming, particularly to the potato growers as they face the heavy expenses of buying fertilizer and seed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful meeting with the Ministers of

May 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Agriculture from both P.E.I. and New Brunswick about a week ago. While there are some difficulties with the proposal they made, I should like to advise the hon. member that at the present time the market price for potatoes from P.E.I. is at its highest level this year.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, since the time is running very short, could the minister indicate whether the federal government is prepared to give any assistance, as it has in the past, because of the very long-term low prices which have been suffered and the very few people who have any stocks of potatoes remaining that can be marketed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the discussions which were initiated with the meeting that started last week are continuing.



POLICY RESPECTING SUPPORT PRICE OF WOOL

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the price of wool.
Will the policy concerning the support price of wool for 1971-72 be announced shortly? If so, will the minister take into account the fact that the support price for wool is 72 cents in the United States, and will he recommend a significant increase in the support price so that wool producers may have a higher income?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I answered a few moments ago, the support price for the 1970 crop has been announced and cheques have been issued. In fact, the Wool Growers Association has asked to have discussions with me respecting this year's crop.



INCOME SECURITY


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the government has made a decision that family allowances will not be increased in September, and in view of the many objections by the National Council on Welfare to some of the proposals set out in the white paper on income security, is it the intention of the government to review the white paper in cabinet? If so, will he be able to advise on motions in the near future what the changes will be?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated previously and I do so again today, we have as a government various proposals under consideration in respect of changes in the family income security plan. When we have made a decision as to what those changes will be, I will make the

announcement in the House and all members will be aware of it.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr.   Gaeian-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Following a recent statement by the premier of Ontario to the effect that his government might provide certain bilingual services, but that he saw no need to establish bilingual districts, could the minister tell the House whether he has initiated discussions with the province of Ontario to get it to further co-operate in this respect?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Not for the
moment, Mr. Speaker.



POLICY RESPECTING NATIONAL FILM BOARD AND CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. Since almost a year has gone by, is the government getting any closer to a film policy for both the National Film Board and the Canadian Film Development Corporation that he spoke about when he last appeared before the committee?


Gérard Pelletier: Part of this policy has already been enforced through actions which are known to everybody. As far as the rest of the whole policy is concerned, we are getting "closer", to use the hon. member's words.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House will allow the hon. member a supplementary question, but may I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the question period has expired. I ask the hon. member, therefore, to
put his question briefly.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a short question, Mr. Speaker, which I will ask quickly. Does the minister contemplate any legislative changes and any further announcements of National Film Board policy along the lines of any content or quota regulations?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, legislative action will be forthcoming, but not during this session.
As far as the quota system and a whole variety of similar measures are concerned, these questions will be considered; measures are being studied but a final choice is yet to be made.
May 6, 1971



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he can indicate the business of the House for the rest of this week? In doing so, would he indicate whether one or two days will be set aside for opposition days next week to permit the hon. member for Trinity and his Quebec lieutenant, the hon. member for Duvernay, to amplify their views on the economic policies of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the advance payments legislation and the grain stabilization bill and the Wheat Board bill. Then, we will go on with the government organization bill, the Post Office Act, the Judges Act and the Pilotage Act. On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we will call opposition days to give many hon. members the opportunity to praise the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a good thing they are not under oath.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Next Thursday, we will probably call the resolution establishing the Committee on Public Order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: At six o'clock last evening I was discussing this bill with particular reference to the handling of rapeseed because, of course, this bill would bring rapeseed under the provisions of the advance payments legislation. I pointed out to the House, and to the minister, that the government intervention in respect of rapeseed is having a bad effect and that this is very important because of the success of the rapeseed crop in western Canada over the past few years.
I gave an example of government interference in this industry and said that, even though the Wheat Board presently has no jurisdiction over that crop, the government has expressed its intention to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include rapeseed under the act. In fact, at present people who, according to the government, have delivered too much rapeseed are suffering from interference with their permit books. I mentioned that I made a request of the Canadian Wheat Board for infor-
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act mation as to the basis on which they exercised their jurisdiction over permit books relating to rapeseed. I said that over the past month or so I have been unable to get a reply.
In general, I think that the proposal of the government to bring rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board through this legislation is ill advised because over the past few years, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) said, this has been a Cinderella crop. It has done very well on its own. I do not think that this type of legislation or any other should be brought in which might have an adverse effect on the industry, as I believe this bill will. So, in order to give the minister a chance to reconsider his position in this matter, I would like to move:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


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


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: In taking part in this debate, my memory goes back to the time some years ago when this very important measure was brought in by the Diefenbaker government, after the subject matter had been kicked around for many years prior to that. In view of the way in which the present government drafted the bill for the grain act, one wonders what this bill means and what is the intention of the government in tampering with the original act. People in western Canada do not trust this government, and they think that this legislation might lead to the scrapping of the original act altogether.
Last night I was reading some of the speeches that were made by members of the opposition when this Act was first introduced. At that time hon. members were saying that the bill was impossible. One of them went so far as to say that the Wheat Board would resign. Hon. members have remarked on how quickly this measure became law, and how much it has meant to western Canada. The legislation is of great importance to the farmers and the producers. When one goes back through the years, one realizes what it has really meant to businessmen and to people from all walks of life, to machine companies and to people in business in all parts of Canada, because it made it possible for the farmer to meet some of his obligations.
At the time the act was originally brought in, I was a municipal official. I saw what this legislation meant to the rural communities, municipal councils and school districts because it gave people a little money to pay a portion of their taxes, which would allow the municipalities and schools to keep functioning. This is one of the reasons that I think we should be very cautious. There might be room for improvement. The bill contains provisions with regard to the interest rate and that is why I think we should go into this cautiously. We must keep in mind what this act has really meant in the past years, and the money that it put into circulation. The small amount of money that is still outstanding today gives one some idea of the value of this bill. The original act was passed in 1957.

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
At that time the country was just about in the same mess as it is getting into today. Western Canada had almost an identical mess to that facing it today. But during the few years when we had a government that got out and did something about selling, the situation was resolved, and we can see that by the difference in the amounts used for loans on farm stored grains. That amount has increased since the present government took office, and in fact jumped sharply in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969. In fact it has almost tripled, indicating the great need of producers.
The original act was one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Conservative government. It was passed in November or December of that year, and at once became very useful to the farmers. We must consider the proposed amendments carefully because of the value of the legislation. I hope the government has given careful study to them, but I wonder when I see a clause in the bill dealing with interest rates.
True enough, Mr. Speaker, some people took advantage of the fact that interest-free money could be obtained under the terms of the legislation, but they made up only a small percentage of the farming population. Prior to the introduction of that legislation, people had to go to the banks to get loans on their farm-stored grain. They almost had to sign their lives away in order to get a bank loan. They had to pay interest on those loans, and they had to have a certain amount of assets before they could get loans no matter how much grain they had in storage. As a result, many people appreciated the introduction of the legislation. I remember seeing people coming out of banks after applying for loans, with documents that they had to have signed and with affidavits that they had to have attested. We would not like that situation to return. As I say, we must look at the proposed amendments and proceed cautiously, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. members who represent constituencies in western Canada know that farmers are really confused. Right now when they should have some idea of what they are going to seed they simply do not have a clue what to seed. The Lift program, instituted last year by the government, created too much confusion and did little, if any, good. This year people are still confused. Up in the northern part of Saskatchewan where I live there is a feed shortage this year. There is a shortage of barley and oats. It is a mixed farming country, and following encouragement by the government and the introduction of the Lift program, many acres were put into summer fallow that otherwise would have been seeded with barley and oats. If people had not turned those acres into summer fallow at least they would have their own feed, and right now there is a good market for barley but they have none to sell.
I would like to show you my file of complaints with respect to the Lift program, Mr. Speaker. People did not understand that program. I do not really think the government, and in particular the minister, understood it either. It has created terrible confusion in western Canada. I can show you complaints that I have received
from young people who would like to enter dairying but they cannot get a dairy quota. It used to be the case that if young people had an old cow and a cream can they could get a start in the industry, but they cannot do that any more. I believe the government's policies are directed to getting farmers off the land.
The other day I was at a meeting of farmers and heard one gentleman ask those present, "Do you realize every second one of you will soon be off the land?" People were looking around at their neighbours trying to decide which ones would be leaving next. That is the case in western Canada in the dairy industry. The present mess in the hog industry has never been equalled. Then there is also discontinuance of the PFAA to consider, and the thing that worries me so much is that it will be a long while before many farmers can get crop insurance. PFAA kept many small farmers on their land, but that will no longer be the case.
There is confusion in western Canada today in all sectors of agriculture, and the worst confusion I have seen has been caused by Bill C-176. I think both ministers who are sitting opposite should go out to western Canada and see the situation for themselves. I do not profess to be always right. I like to study the different bills proposed by the government because I think that is our job. But, Mr. Speaker, just the other day I attended a meeting of 350 farmers engaged in livestock and mixed farming, and I did not find one single person there who supported Bill C-176.


Mr. Paproski:: You won't either.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am following the hon. member's speech with much interest. It is obviously a sincere and well prepared speech, but I should advise the hon. member not to stray too far from the bill which is now before the House. I would hope that at this time we would not get involved in a discussion on Bill C-176. There will be other opportunities to consider that piece of legislation. At the moment, hon. members should relate their contributions to the bill which is before the House and not get involved in debate on Bill C-176.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that, but I would like to point out that it is a part of the government's program. It all fits in, just like a glove, but I will abide by your ruling. Surely this government knows the problems that their agricultural legislation create for western Canada. When you look at the whole plan it is just one problem after another.
I listened to a former cabinet minister speak over the radio only last Sunday. Although he did not refer to this bill, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) exposed this government's lack of organization. I should like also to mention a bulletin from the Canada Department of Agriculture which arrived in my office today.

May 6, 1971

The subject is "Farmers Borrow Less From FCC" and in part it reads:
The largest portion of the loan decline is reflected in the amount borrowed to purchase land. Reasons for this are seen as
(1)	the unwillingness of some farmers to expand their business during a period of uncertainty in the agricultural industry, and
(2)	lack of opportunity in the economy for low-income farmers to find satisfactory alternatives for earning a living and thus a reluctance to sell their properties.
This gives some idea of the position in western Canada. I think that there are other bills and legislation which would be far more important to western farmers than the amendment to this particular bill. The government should let the farmers know what they should be seeding in order to give them an opportunity to try and clear up the mess they got into with their barley and oats acreage. The government encouraged the farmers to diversity and now there is no sale for their crops. These matters should be looked into without further delay. This act was put through the House some years ago by a Conservative government and it won acclaim throughout the country. It has kept farmers on the land who could otherwise have been squeezed off by an earlier Liberal Government.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: In speaking on this legislation to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, I want to stress at the beginning that I agree with the principle of cash advances for farmers. We all know that this legislation was introduced by a Conservative government. However, there are several provisions that I do not agree with in this bill, and I should like to point them out to the minister.
Under the bill, the government can set the rates for cash advances at any time by order in council. We all know that under the old act the rates for cash advances were $1 per bushel for wheat, 40 cents per bushel for oats and 70 cents per bushel for barley. Under this bill, with the government setting the rates by order in council, the farmer cannot plan his finances at the start of each season. He is not sure of the marketing prospects nor of how much cash will be available to get the crops harvested. The way grain prices have been going down, the rate of the cash advance will soon be higher than the sale price of the grain and I think this is why the government has changed the rates.
I am also against changes in the interest rates proposed by this legislation. Under the old act, past due interest was set at 6 per cent but under this bill the interest will be set at the going rate. I am afraid the same thing will happen as happened under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Act when interest rates went from 5 per cent to over 8 per cent at one time. The government can, if it likes, set the interest from the date of the loan. I do not like this as it is going to be particularly detrimental to small farmers and farmers who have been forced to sell their grain to feed lots. This winter farmers in Manitoba were able to sell barley to feed lots for approximately 85 cents to 90 cents per bushel, but if they delivered to the elevator they only got 75 cents or 76 cents. They will not be able to take advantage of this
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act type of market in future because, if the government cares to do so, it can predate interest to the day the farmer makes the loan. This will certainly discourage him for selling grain to feed lots. What it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is turning the cash advances into a demand not through this legislation. In many ways it is another step by this government to destroy the family farm operation as we know it. Much of the legislation is directed toward this end.
Let us look at the record of the government pertaining to agriculture and the legislation they have brought forth in the past year which, in some respects, ties in with the legislation before us. Operation Lift is an example. Last week I was talking to a farmer who ably described this program when he said, "Another Lift and I will be off the farm." There were changes in the Crop Insurance Act and coming before Parliament shortly is the grain stabilization program which should be carefully scrutinized by all members. There was also the Canada Grain Act. We were told that the purpose of this measure was to increase markets by bringing in the new grading system for grain based on the protein content. When the bill came before the House and the Agriculture Committee, we found that the legislation was designed to try to phase out country elevators.
Then, there is the marketing bill, C-176. From the number of coupons and correspondence I have received, it is obvious that few farmers support this bill. Just last Wednesday I received a call from farmers in Gladstone, Manitoba, inviting me to speak at a meeting this past Monday in order to explain Bill C-176. There were 350 farmers at the meeting and after two hours of discussion and questions on the legislation, the chairman called for a vote from the floor to determine support for this legislation. Not one farmer rose in support of Bill C-176 but over 300 opposed it. This certainly illustrates the farmers' reaction to this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Or your explanation.


Mr. Siewari (Marquelie):: There was not a Liberal member from the west who would go out there and explain it to them. Changes are also proposed to the Wheat Board Act regarding rye, flax and rapeseed. You will notice, however, that none of these programs, including the bill before us today, gets down to the real problem facing agriculture and that is, aggressive marketing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Craig Stewart: When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked in Winnipeg, "Why should I sell grain?", it indicated the attitude of the present government toward the western farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Craig Stewart: Instead of the government coming out with negative programs, it is time they got some positive selling program for agriculture in western Canada. I say we should have aggressive selling and, as

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act an example, let us look at what happened last year. A little over one year ago, the world supply of wheat was approximately 3 billion bushels. Our supply of wheat in Canada, if we added what we had on farms, at the terminals and in elevators, was approximately 1.5 billion bushels, half the world's supply. Why did the government introduce a program to cut back on wheat production? We had half the world's available supply of wheat, yet we produce only in the neighbourhood 15 per cent of the world's production. Something is definitely wrong with our selling program.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hear, hear!


Donald Craig Stewart: Look at the feed market, Mr. Speaker. A little over one year ago our share of the market was down to around 2 per cent of the total world market. We saw barley prices drop approximately between 20 and 23 cents in one day. The price of barley dropped so low that, to get back into the market, the government started selling our grain at fire sale prices. To fulfil our export commitments this spring, the government had to raise the price by ten cents a bushel because farmers could not afford to deliver barley to elevators. They were farther ahead selling it to feed mills for 85 cents a bushel, which was far more than they would have received at the elevator, even if they included their final payments.
While we are talking about marketing may I ask, what do we do, for example, with regard to the beef market in Japan? I understand that beef in Japan sold for as much as $5 or $6 a pound retail. Is there no way that we can enter this market and sell for $2.00 a pound to develop this market? No mention has been made of this.
I became alarmed last October, on reading the monthly economic report of the Department of Agriculture, to learn the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) had announced that Canada had become a net importer of agricultural products. We are supposed to be an agricultural producing nation, and the minister made a statement like that. At the same time, the government has told many farmers in western Canada not to grow grain and to try to diversify. Instead of bringing forward legislation like this, which is to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the government ought to be telling farmers well in advance of seeding what crops they ought to grow and what their market expectations are. More effort should be put into market research and giving the farmers some guidance. They should know in what direction they are heading. This government has not told our farmers the direction in which we are headed at present.
Another thing that has bothered me has been the Canadian Wheat Board. We all approve of the principle of the Canadian Wheat Board, yet how effective have they been in the last few years so far as marketing is concerned?


An hon. Member:: There has been government interference in that area.


Donald Craig Stewart: Yes. I sent a questionnaire to every farmer in my riding. One of the questions was, "Are you pleased with the performance in the past year of the Canadian Wheat Board?" I was surprised that the majority said they were not. At one time every farmer in western Canada was well satisfied with the Canadian Wheat Board. At present, because of government interference and government policies, the hands of the Wheat Board have been almost tied, which has made it next to impossible for it to pursue aggressive selling programs. My main point is this: instead of bringing forward legislation like this dealing with cash advances-and we all realize that farmers must have operating capital, although in the past money and credit have been too easily available for farmers-the government should tackle the root of the problem and pursue aggressive marketing policies. The sooner the government realizes this, the sooner will the situation in western Canada be corrected.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, one particular aspect of this legislation has not been dealt with and I should like to cover it briefly. In this bill, as in other bills, we can see that the entire program of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is aimed at reducing the amount of grain in commercial storage. How do those remarks apply to Bill C-239? If we are to reduce the grain in commercial storage to between 200 and 250 million bushels, as projected, that means automatically that more grain will be stored on farms. You cannot have it any other way. Farmers harvest grain only once a year, normally in the fall. In Alberta, rye is handled sometimes in July; yet, basically, grain is harvested in the fall, although some is harvested in the spring. Since all grain cannot be sold in the month in which it is harvested, some of it must be kept in storage. If the government is introducing a program to reduce the amount in commercial storage, it follows as night follows day that more must be stored on farms. If more grain is stored on farms, we must ascertain how this can best be done to the advantage of farmers. In other words, how will the farmers benefit most financially?
The minister said the old cash advances legislation was designed to encourage wheat production because it allowed a cash advance of $1 a bushel, interest free, on grain supposedly stored on the farm. The minister said that this was wrong, and the government thereafter allowed only 70 cents per bushel for barley and 40 cents a bushel on some other grains. He said, as reported at page 5491 of Hansard, that the prices are related, (a) to the initial price paid to the grain and, (b) to the amount of deliveries or expected deliveries of any particular commodity. Although the minister has said this, we are asked to pass legislation which says little except, "leave it to the governor in council". Under clause 7, the governor in council can determine what cash advances will be made for the various crops. They will determine when that amount is to be made available. In other words, in one month you might get a cash advance of $1, and in the next month you might get only 50 cents. In the month

May 6, 1971

after that, if the government does not want any grain, it may reduce the advance to as little as 25 cents, I suppose.
In my opinion, Bill C-239 ignores certain things, because there seems to be no relationship whatsoever between the amount you can draw as a cash advance, under the bill, and the real worth of the product. Under the old act, when it was originally introduced, you were given 50 cents a bushel on wheat, and you had to repay 50 per cent of that when the crop was sold. The final payment on the wheat was, on average, slightly better than $1 a bushel, depending on the variety of the grain, and that made sense. Even the worst grades, or the lowest grades, Nos. 5 and 6 of wheat, were covered at around 95 cents a bushel. Of course, for those who are not familiar with the way we grade our crops, the lowest grades usually involve grain which has been badly frozen or badly infected in some way or badly shrivelled through drought. Nevertheless, there was some logical way in which the farmer could repay his advance.
On June 2, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his speech in Winnipeg, it was obvious what would happen. The government wanted to entice the small farmers into debt through its cash advances legislation.


An hon. Member:: Which year was that?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In 1968, before the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was ever considered as the minister who would be in charge of cash advances legislation. When the minister came into the House on May 4 and explained with that right tone of voice why the cash advances legislation had been adjusted in the fall of 1968, he ought to have been honest and frank and told us the truth. He ought to have told us why the Prime Minister made that announcement on June 2, 1968, and why the government would amend the cash advance legislation by providing for lower repayment terms. There was no basis for this. There was no sound business practice followed in that legislation unless it was to drive the small farmer into debt.
I forgive every member for not being suspicious of the government when that legislation was debated on October 29 and 30, 1968. At that time we did not know that the object of the government was to drive the small farmer off the farm. That is the purpose and intent of every piece of legislation that has been submitted to this House. There has been a whole series of measures of that type.
Other hon. members have referred to Bill C-176, the marketing bill. I am not going to refer to it in detail. That bill establishes in perpetuity the large producers of commodities and prohibits small or new producers from getting into the business. The same applies with regard to this legislation.
In 1968, the government enticed the small farmer into borrowing more money than he could possibly repay. At that time, some of us warned the minister that it was mathematically impossible for the farmer to repay within a given crop year what the government was prepared to
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act lend him. The minister realized the folly of his legislation and stated after one or two days debate that if the farmer could not repay his indebtedness at the end of the crop year, he would be allowed to carry that amount over to the next year.
What does Bill C-239 do? It bangs the door shut on those poor farmers who have been sucked into debt. The interest rate is going to be increased. Under the old bill, the interest rate for cash advances was 6 per cent. The standard rate for all farm legislation is now 7J per cent. The going rate of interest will now apply to cash advances for farmers. Cash advance legislation was always interest free until the wheat board called upon a farmer to deliver the grain. If he could not deliver, interest would apply from that day forward. This legislation goes further than that. Under clause 6 of the bill, the Governor in Council has the power to backdate the interest to the date the loan was originally taken out, if it is so decided.
I wish to reduce this to practical terms so that all hon. members will clearly understand what I am saying. For example, if I were a farmer who produced a lot of barley and could not sell it because I had no way of getting it to the elevator, either because of the roads being blocked or for some other reason, I would take a cash advance. If a feed dealer or feed lot operator came along, I could sell him my barley. He would pay more than the elevator would pay. Later on, the wheat board would call on me to deliver this barley. If I had recieved the cash advance and could not deliver, the wheat board would ask me to pay up. No only would I have to repay the loan, but I could be charged interest from the time I took out the loan, even though at the time I took out the loan my intention was to sell the barley to the wheat board. "
The minister in charge of the wheat board, much to his amazement and the amazement of the Wheat Board, knew that the initial price of barley was too low this fall. The Wheat Board were not getting any barley. It was moving to the feed lots and feed mills. It was being sold in any way it could be sold at a higher price than the Wheat Board was prepared to pay, particularly the initial price. What did the minister do? He turned aside barley sales. We in Canada, with our ability to produce, actually turned aside barley sales. I notice that the minister is paying close attention to what I am saying. He is not disputing the fact that we have actually turned aside barley sales. He is nodding his head in the affirmative. We turned aside barley sales because the price was too low.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: It is actually a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The implication of the hon. member is that I am either agreeing or not agreeing. For future guidance I say to him that when he says anything right, I will say so. In that way, I will not have to speak very often.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I guess that was just a smart remark, Mr. Speaker. I did not get that point of order or question of

May 6, 1971
Prairie Crain Advance Payments Act privilege. The minister is going to inform me when I am right. When I am not right, I guess he will not inform me.


Otto Emil Lang: You can assume that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not catch that last remark. It probably is not a point of order either.


Mr. Boulanger:: Keep going; you are doing well.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have the advice of the assistant government whip that I can speak. I am glad that he is making the decisions for Your Honour.


Prosper Boulanger: Keep going.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: More advice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With these interruptions, one does not really know whether to keep going or not. I want to point out that the government realized the price of barley was too low. In order to get barley delivered to the elevators, they had to increase the price by 10 cents a bushel.
Bill C-239 does not disclose what will be paid to the farmers on delivery. At the end of the crop year, July 31, the government will disclose how much is available under cash advances. In my opinion, that does not lend too much assistance to the farmers. I want to point out what the minister said about this bill, as recorded at page 5491 of Hansard. I quote:
The bill before the House to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is a further step in attempting to rationalize and improve the situation of the grains industry of this country.
The minister admitted that this is a further step to rationalize and improve the grain industry in this country. It is another program. The question we must ask ourselves is whether it is helping. Does it help the farmer or the government? In my opinion, it does not help the farmer. That must be made abundantly clear in this debate. Up until this time, the farmer knew on May 1 what to plant and there was some guidance available. He knew that if he had a surplus, he could get a cash advance of $1 a bushel for wheat, 70 cents a bushel for barley or 40 cents a bushel for oats. What does he know now? He knows absolutely nothing under this legislation. Is that helping the farmer to rationalize grain production on his farm? It is not. It is helping the government, because it is bailing the government out of a commitment it made some time ago. When we analyze this bill, we find that it guarantees the farmer no advances. However, the interest rate on any advance they take, may go up.


An hon. Member:: Will go up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My hon. friend says it will go up. I hate to say it, but he is right. It is a sure bet that under this government interest rates will go up. The Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was formerly a member of the Social Credit party. In those days he used to go across the country saying that an interest rate of 2 per cent was high enough, that the banks did not need any more than that; this was what it cost to distribute money. Now, he is part and parcel of an establishment which increases interest rates. He could not remain in the Social Credit party and advocate increased interest rates. Indeed, I do not know whether he will be able to remain for very much longer in the Liberal party, either, taking into account his negative ideas on marketing. He believes that if he controls the supply sufficiently there will be a market for a product, rather than going out and searching for markets. As one of my hon. friends suggests, he will probably go down in history as the coupon king. His legislation outdid Benson and the white paper, and that is a fair strike-a couple of months ago I would have thought it was impossible.
Let us get back to Bill C-239 and what it really means to the farmers. As I said when I began, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has based his whole approach on an attempt to rationalize and improve the grain industry-I quote his words again. In his attempts to do so he has published papers and articles to the effect that we must eventually reduce the amount of grain in commercial storage. He hopes to get it down to 200 million bushels by 1972. What does this mean? It means there will be increased storage on farms, and less cash in the hands of farmers. We have made great sales this year. I am proud of Canada as a producer for making such great sales.


An hon. Member:: You just said something right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The beaver over there is flapping its tail. We have made great sales as a country and I am proud of that. But it has not registered with the farmers. Try telling farmers in western Canada: Wheat is moving well; we have exported millions of bushels this last month. The farmer scratches his head and says: I have not seen it move off my farm. Why is it still there? It is there because the grain has been moving out of commercial storage and the storage space has not been filled again. There is room for at least 100 million bushels in elevators at the terminal. At the height of the difficulties in Vancouver last month, the elevators were less than half full and boats were waiting.
Why has the government deliberately kept elevators half empty? Is it in line with the program of attempting to rationalize and improve the situation in the grain industry? The minister in charge of the Wheat Board would quickly say yes to that. Even the Minister of Agriculture would say yes. But we should ask ourselves this question: For whose sake are they attempting to rationalize the grain situation?


Otto Emil Lang: For the farmer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For the farmer. Get it on the record.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I got it that time. For the farmer. So they say. But does the farmer want increased interest rates

May 6, 1971

under this legislation? Did he ask that the interest rates in connection with cash advances should go up? Did he ask that the government be allowed to back date interest to the time the loan was taken out?


Otto Emil Lang: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he appreciate that the bulk of farmers who take cash advances will continue to pay no interest at all? No interest is charged on almost the total range of cash advances.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I accept those words. But the minister has referred to the great bulk of farmers concerned. In effect, he admitted that what I have been saying is right. For the great bulk of farmers the loans will continue to be interest-free and interest rates will not affect them. But there are some farmers who will be obliged to pay higher interest rates. Who are they? Are they the big, prosperous farmers with lots of grain? No, it is the small farmer who has been sucked in by this legislation and driven into debt by the government. It is he who will be called upon to pay high interest rates, which is the point I was making before I was interrupted.
We are told the government intends to improve the situation in the grain industry. Improve it for whom? Not for the small farmer who is in difficulty, but for the government. This is one more piece of legislation which will bail them out and save them some money at the expense of getting rid of a few farmers. After all, they say, what do a few farmers matter? Send them into the city, put them on unemployment insurance, put them on welfare, re-educate them. Is this the quality of life we are seeking in our society? I do not think so. No one enjoys a better quality of life than the small, satisfied farmer. This bill is one more step toward driving the small farmer into oblivion. For the farmers this government is trying to eradicate, interest rates will go up. This is one piece of legislation along with three others which will assist the government in removing small farmers from the land. This is the issue. I have no hesitation about speaking on this piece of legislation because it is our duty to point out vividly that this government is basically a selfish government when it comes to agriculture. They are out to save money and to heck with the industry. They are out to restrict markets rather than enlarge them.
We know that Canada has enjoyed three or four great years in the last ten years when it comes to wheat sales. It was possible to take advantage of these orders because the grain was on hand. We made particularly big sales to Russia when that country suffered a crop failure. We made large sales because the government knew we had grain in commercial storage and made efforts to sell and deliver it. We did deliver 500 million bushels as a result of a Russian wheat sale some years ago. Under this program, we are going to encourage and go along with a rationalization program to reduce the amount of grain in commercial storage and the amount stored by farmers. As I pointed out the other night, we are down on barley sales because we do not know whether we can deliver it. We do not have it in commercial storage.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Today, I would rather the minister left than fall asleep as he did yesterday. In any event, it does not matter because I am talking to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. He has the predominant influence upon the western economy. That minister has deliberately cut $150 from the amount farmers will receive as a result of his rationalization of the grain program. He has deliberately reduced the amount of grain in commercial storage. How will this bill affect that situation?
The farmers who have already received $90 million in advances are not given any guidance in this bill as to how they can pay back that money or how the provisions can be utilized. When this legislation was first introduced in 1957, the Liberal party opposed it. This measure has proved to be very satisfactory and workable. A former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was told when he introduced this measure that it would be unworkable. It worked successfully up until October 29, 1968, at which time the party now in power deliberately set out to ruin the small farmer and drive him into the cities.
A year ago $228 million was obtained from cash advance funds by prairie farmers. A great number of bushels of wheat has been sold since then, but the government has latched on the most of the money. The government latched on to $133 million. Most prairie points have a delivery quota of about five bushels per acre. I do not know the actual quota figures, but they used to be about 80 million bushels of wheat per one-bushel quota on the prairies. That was the rule-of-thumb in respect of elevator clearances. About $130 million, as a result of this ratio, was absorbed by the government between the crop year 1970-71.
Let us analyse this. The rule-of-thumb is 80 million bushels for a one-bushel quota. Surely, that does not justify the government absorbing $130 million. Farmers have been able to deliver up to a five-bushel quota. According to the old rule-of-thumb this would amount to a little over one-fifth of the farm income from wheat sales taken by the government. Surely that is not fair ball as far as the farmers are concerned. At the moment there is about $95 million owed by farmers as a result of cash advances. How will this bill affect that situation? A great proportion of this amount of money is outstanding. This bill suggests that the government can charge interest on this outstanding amount. I suggest it would only be a hard-hearted man who would suggest that the government charge interest on the total amount.
Perhaps the minister is right in suggesting that the bulk of farmers will not be charged interest, but the ones who will be charged are those who are most in need of help. What does this government suggest? Obviously, this government intends to take steps to force small farm operators to move into the city. That is apparently the aim of this government, and that is what this legislation will accomplish. The provisions of this bill represent one more step, in the words of the minister, in the attempt to rationalize and improve the situation of the grain indus-

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act try, to save the government money and, if necessary, to make grain farming more expensive. This is a wrong step to be taking at this time.
This piece of legislation does one other thing. It puts flax, rapeseed and rye under the provisions of the cash advance program. As a result of this bill the farmers producing rapeseed, flax and rye will be in a position to receive cash advances. In 1968 I argued for this principle. I suggested that rye should fall within the cash advance system. I suggested that cash advances should apply in respect of all crops developed under the diversification program. At that time the minister said this grain could not be taken under the provisions of the cash advance legislation because flax, rye and rapeseed did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I did not accept that logic or rationalization at that time and I do not accept it now.
The concept that flax, rye and rapeseed should be under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board is wrong. I hasten to state that those people responsible for the marketing of rapeseed have done a tremendous job. Rapeseed is used by the vegetable oil producing industry. This Canadian crop is in competititon with other vegetable oil producing groups. Any commodity in Canada which faces such severe competition is deserving of assistance. Producers of rapeseed should be in a position to receive registered demands for this crop. Many farmers in my constituency have for years had a very dim view of the Grain Exchange. Rapeseed should be registered on the exchange in order that farmers in this country can know whether this is a good crop and the conditions under which it should be harvested. At this moment, they do not know the demand for this grain. They do not know when or at what price they should sell their crop.
Let me remind the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board that Canadian barley was being sold last fall by the Wheat Board at 20 cents per bushel less than it should have been sold. Advance sales on the world market last fall were 20 cents higher per bushel than Canadian farmers were receiving. This was a result of a lack of instant registration of the demand for barley on world markets. Because of an increase in feed grain supplies throughout the world there is often an immediate problem in the United States, but so far as these grains are concerned this demand or lack of demand is not immediately registered. As I suggested, this deficiency resulted in Canadian barley being sold at 20 cents less per bushel last fall than the market price.
There is a fear in my mind. I have no axe to grind with the Grain Exchange or the Canadian Wheat Board, but I believe I have an axe to grind for the farmers. As legislators in this House, we must set up a mechanism so that the farmers will get as much as possible on the world market for the products they produce and are able to sell. I have the fear that in respect of a crop such as rapeseed, which is in such a competitive position with the other oilseed or other vegetable oil producing crops,
the demand for the product will not register as vividly as it has. I have a fear that if it comes under the Canadian Wheat Board, this is what will happen. We may sell less rapeseed for less money than ever before. It is correct that we might be able to pool the sale price so that all farmers would receive an equal amount. However, the inclusion of rye, flax and rapeseed in Bill C-239 does not encourage the growing of these crops.
A rapeseed producer does not know how much a bushel he will receive for the rapeseed stored on his farm. He does not know how much he will receive as a cash advance. That is not mentioned in the bill. This rate is set by the Governor in Council who can change it from month to month. The same is true in respect of rye and flaxseed. Flaxseed is being used extensively. I believe flax has amazed the market by its ability to sell. Originally, is was used as a base for paint. Now, actually it is not used as much for that purpose but is used to a growing extent as an additive to feed.


Otto Emil Lang: That is the second thing you have said which is correct.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Bully for me. Put a mark on the wall. I have said two correct things according to the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Only two things in 40 minutes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) wishes to make a contribution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said you have contributed two things in 40 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the debate would proceed more orderly if hon. members who wish to speak would rise in their places. Otherwise, the hon. member for Crowfoot has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is nice that the Minister of Agriculture would say I have said two things correctly in 40 minutes because the people in Canada, particularly in western Canada, do not believe a thing he says anymore. It does not matter, therefore, what he says. They do not think he could say one correct thing.


Prosper Boulanger: That is your opinion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it is not my opinion. It is the opinion of his constituents and every farmer in western Canada.


Prosper Boulanger: That is not what they said during the election. They elected him to Parliament.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The assistant government whip who is interrupting should know there is no by-election in Assiniboia. I wonder why? They are afraid to call an election in Assiniboia.


An hon. Member:: They cannot get a candidate.
(Mr. Horner.]
May 6, 1971


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some member from Saskatchewan who should know better than you or I, Mr. Speaker, suggests they cannot even find a candidate in Assiniboia.


Prosper Boulanger: That is the old one you pulled yesterday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not speak yesterday. The point I am attempting to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no advantage in including rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under this cash advance legislation unless the government is prepared to commit itself and say it will give half the value of the crop as a cash advance. This, of course, was what happened in 1957 when the cash advance legislation was first introduced. At that time it was stated absolutely that half the value would be advanced to a farmer interest free. If that principle were incorporated in this bill, without naming the amount of dollars available, then the bill might be piloted through this House with greater ease. The minister, however, has drafted a bill which will bail out the government and only bring harm to those farmers who are having a difficult time now. I regret very much that the two ministers in charge of the agriculture industry can sit in this House and be so hard and callous as to say the interest rate will go up in respect of a portion of the agricultural industry which they know needs help. I regret very much that anyone in charge of the agricultural industry could do such a thing to the farmers of Canada today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Boulanger@: Filibuster again.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) and seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) to the effect that this bill be not read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence. I am very pleased to support this amendment because of the very words spoken by the hon. member for Crowfoot. We on this side of the House challenge the government, and the two ministers in question today, to go to the Prime Minister and ask him to call an election within a period of six months. Then, they will find out what the farmers think about their agricultural policy.


Prosper Boulanger: That is why you are talking; you are going to an election.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We challenge the government to call an election because every day we wait we gain more votes from the farmers.


Prosper Boulanger: You are a politician and a small-time one, too. I thought you were a legislator but you are a small-time politician.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is having a little difficulty in following the hon. member who has the floor because of the interjections by the hon. member for Mercier. If the hon. member for Mercier wishes to contribute to the debate, he knows he should rise in his place. He is an experienced member.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to contribute but when I hear members having fun in this manner I am so ashamed I do not think I will bother talking.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Is that a promise?


Prosper Boulanger: Yes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat like you. I have difficulty trying to make my speech with interjections such as the hon. member has made. I certainly did not catch what the hon. member's point of order was. I missed something. Would he repeat what he said?


Prosper Boulanger: Later.


John (Jack) McIntosh: So long as you keep your promise; do not be like the Minister of Agriculture and break it. That is all I am worried about. I believe the Minister of Agriculture made a comment. I did not hear what he had to say. The last time he said that he did not listen to me. Would the minister repeat what he said?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am listening.


John (Jack) McIntosh: At least I have an audience of one. The hon. member for Crowfoot issued a challenge to the government to go to the country on its agricultural policy to see what would happen. We can tell you beforehand what would happen. There are two ministers, sitting in this House who are supposed to be representing agriculture. The point has been made about the by-election in Assiniboia. I am sure many people across this country are wondering why it was not called at the time the other two by-elections were called. I am sure we guess correctly when we say the Prime Minister, because of the intervention of these two ministers, thinks it would be more desirable to call an election after they have an opportunity to give back the $100 million they think they will give back out of the $140 million they have taken from the farmers. The people of western Canada are not that gullible. They know what the government is doing and they know what it intends to do. We challenge the government to call that by-election in Assiniboia, and let them see what will happen to them.


Prosper Boulanger: I wish to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member who has been speaking would want me to give him an answer about that by-election. I am ready to give it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, I agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members might well be interested in the answer which the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wishes to give, but I have some doubt that the question of the by-election in Assiniboia is relevant to the bill. It may be related, but I doubt that it is within the confines of the bill. Having said that, I may point out that I am not critical of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh). He has developed his contribution to the debate or the bill with reference to the by-election, but I do not think we should debate the point of the by-election at this time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I could go on for quite some time trying to put your mind at ease as to the reason this by-election in Assiniboia was not called, but I disagree with your view the by-election has no bearing on what is being said at present. I would be quite prepared to let the assistant whip of the Liberal party rise at this time, and I would forgo my time in the House if he would announce the date of the by-election in Assiniboia. I am sure that farmers in western Canada are waiting for the opportunity to show-


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, my point of order is that we are at present debating Bill C-239, which means that the hon. member is not in order. The second point is that the hon. member should know we should try to show some respect for the family of the hon. member who died a few weeks ago. We should wait some time before calling a by-election to give time to the family of the deceased to think of something else than an election.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But it is three months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I again ask hon. members not to enter into a debate about the by-election, about whether it may or may not be held or when it will be held. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has the floor. His reference to the by-election is relevant in the sense that he wanted to develop reasons why the government may or may not have called it, but let him do so only in relation to the bill before the House.


John (Jack) McIntosh: My only concern is that my constituency borders on the constituency of Assiniboia. Because constituents there do not have a member representing their riding, they have written me dozens of letters about the problems they are having with the present government, asking me if I could do something. I do not mind doing it, but when the assistant whip of the Liberal party pleads for more time, as he did, because of the death of the member representing that area, I wonder why he did not apply the same reasoning with regard to one of my colleagues on this side of the House, the former hon. member for Lisgar. They only waited six weeks at that time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And the former hon. member for
Trois-Rivieres.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would forgo my time, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would get up and announce the date of the by-election in Assiniboia, otherwise I will continue.
The reason we are opposed to this bill is not that there are not some good parts in it, as I said yesterday. Most of my colleagues have spoken in favour of the bill to a certain degree. But my concern is that this bill, along with other agricultural legislation that this government is putting before the House, directly affects the small farmers of western Canada. I said yesterday that the basic premise behind this bill is to change the whole financial situation of small farmers in Canada. It will change it so that the loans small farmers have at present, which were promised interest free and which would be repaid in full if the government would only sell the product which they said they would sell, namely grain, would force farmers into bankruptcy. I say that based on what I understand has been the information given to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Of the 430,000 farmers in Canada, there are 200,000 who will have to leave their farms. I could say a lot about what will happen to those 200,000 farmers whom this government is forcing off farms. They will go to the cities; they will be placed on relief rolls, and they will take welfare. No consideration is given to these people. So far as this government is concerned, the faster they get off the farms the better. This bill is one method by which they are going to force farmers off smaller farms. They are trying to force 200,000 of them into bankruptcy. Under this legislation the money which the farmer owes the government will be recallable on demand. Any time the operator of a small farm can get a few dollars for operating expenses he will not be allowed to keep them. The government will demand that the loan be repaid immediately. As I said yesterday, anyone who has been in business knows that you cannot operate unless you have operating capital. The government will take the operating capital away from the farmer with a small farm. This is the whole intention behind Bill C-239.


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: What the hon. member knows about agriculture would fill a lot of books.


Colin David Gibson: I am not trying to be smart and I do not say I know much about the subject, but yesterday I had the benefit of hearing a farmer's group before the Committee on External Affairs. That group expressed great interest in the substance of this bill as a means of helping to marshall and plan marketing facilities for these farmers on small farms about whom the hon. member was speaking. Would he agree that there is some hope in that?


Mr. Ricard:: To which bill is the hon. member
referring?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We will be on that one next month.

May 6, 1971


John (Jack) McIntosh: I did not get the import of the hon. member's question. I accept his explanation that he is not trying to be facetious. Some hon. members over here asked to what group he was referring. Are they farmers, are they Canadians? He mentioned the External Affairs Committee? Are they a group of agricultural people from some other country?


Mr. Bell:: Yes, Rumania.


Colin David Gibson: It was a farmers group.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Are they from eastern or from western Canada?


Colin David Gibson: All of Canada.


Prosper Boulanger: We call them Canadians over here.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Oh, no. The bill before us applies only to western Canada. Let the hon. member read the bill. It does not apply to Quebec, to Ontario or to any other place. That is why I asked the hon. member whether those farmers were from western Canada. I know that farmers in eastern Canada, particularly those hon. members from eastern Canada who are engaged in agriculture, do not understand the situation that exists in western Canada.
I will give hon. members an example of one of the complaints that we raise. I think the hon. member who put the question a moment ago will agree with me that these farmers have a genuine reason for protesting. If a group of farmers in Alberta ship a hundredweight of carrots to eastern Canada, they pay three times more for that shipment than if the same amount were shipped from Ontario to Alberta. I think hon. members would agree with me that that is not fair. These are some of the points that we are talking about. It is very difficult to get these points over to hon. members representing eastern agriculture because eastern and western agriculture are almost as different as day and night. It is difficult to get our point across. However, with two more members after the next election, it will be much easier for us.


Prosper Boulanger: I remember when you numbered 208. What did you do then?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I said that the government is trying to get 200,000 farmers off the farms. I do not know what they are going to do. This government says, "Come hell or high water those 200,000 farmers are going." I wish to say to the Liberal whip, and to the minister who is present, that if I read my mail correctly, particularly that which I received during the last ten years, I think I can truthfully say that those 200,000 farmers are saying, "Maybe we must go so far as the government is concerned, but there are too many Liberal politicians in Ottawa. There are at least two too many Liberals representing agriculture, and one as Prime Minister who is not interested in agriculture."


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All these distortions will come back to haunt you.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: In order to impress the acting whip for the Liberal party, I would like to quote a front page editorial which appeared in the Maple Creek News of April 28, which is not very long ago. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) knows this area very well.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I also read the editorial.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You also read the editorial, but there are a lot of members here who did not. As an interesting aside, I want to tell the House that I understand the writer of the editorial has a Liberal background.


An hon. Member:: It serves him right.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, I think he realizes now that it serves him right. The heading on the editorial is, "Politicians Take Note." It reads:
Even if at times citizens of the country may doubt whether or not a democratic system of government still does exist in Canada (when learning of passage of certain pieces of legislation) there can be little doubt that it does still exist in western Canada.
On Saturday night of last week, when a meeting was held by the cattlemen of the district, it was obvious that this was a non-political meeting. The ranchers gathered because they had a common problem-Bill C-176.
I think the minister has read that bill too.
The ranchers have been given assurance by Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan that as long as he was the provincial premier there would be no marketing bill to affect the cattlemen unless they specifically asked for such a bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: I continue:
And while this was a noble gesture on the part of the provincial premier, it gives little consolation to the ranchers. For example, even without the marketing bill in Saskatchewan, if the province of Quebec, or any other province does have such a bill and restricts thP movement of cattle into that province (unless allowed at a price set by that government) Saskatchewan cattle will not find a market in that province.
However, democracy was apparent at the conclusion of the meeting, when without coercion, or compulsion of any kind, the majority of those in attendance at the meeting lined up at a table in the corner of the hall, to make a cash contribution to fight the bill in any way possible.
It was noted by this writer that many of the people lined up at the table have been staunch supporters of the Liberal party for many years. Yet they contributed substantial amounts of money to fight legislation proposed by the very party for which they had voted. It showed to us that these people were prepared to pay for legislation they do (or do not) want.
It made us wonder if these people that were making the contribution were trying to tell the federal Liberal party something-
It's impossible.
-trying to tell them something that livestock men clear across Canada have been telling them. That they dislike legislation that is imposed against their wishes. Legislation that may destroy the agricultural industry in Canada, and will give state control to the marketing of all agricultural products.
That is exactly what we over here have been saying for months. The minister said that there was no sus-

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
tained opposition except from this side of the House, and that we have been misleading the agricultural industry. Will he now stand up and say there is no sustained opposition except from this side of the House? If he could see the coupons, letters and everything else that I have been getting, from a constituency next to his-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I know that the hon. member is going to lead into discussion of the bill before the House, but I respectfully draw his attention to the fact that the editorial which he quoted and his remarks have been related more to other legislation than the bill before the House at the present time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let us have a few relevant remarks.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You want me to stop when it hurts, but I will have lots of opportunity to get back at you, Mr. Minister, at the right time and with the right tactics, too. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you have been very lenient but my remarks were necessary because of the interjections that were made.
I understand that a recent cabinet minister, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), left his position because he was not satisfied with the advice that economists and other high priced help were giving the cabinet and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I cannot understand why the two ministers representing Alberta and Saskatchewan do not do the same thing. The hon. member for Duvernay said that the cabinet advisers were second rate. I am quite sure that people engaged in agriculture in western Canada are convinced these two ministers from the west are not just second rate but fourth or fifth rate, so far as the advice they have been getting and so far as the advice that they have been giving the Prime Minister on agriculture is concerned.
I said that I think both these ministers are just puppets pulled by a string. I do not think for one moment that the Minister of Agriculture, coming from cattle country, believes what he is trying to put across to the people of Canada. I do not believe that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board actually believes what he is trying to tell the House. But these two ministers are compelled to do these things because a decision has been made by the Liberal party to introduce state control, call it whatever you wish, over agriculture in the rural areas of Canada.


An hon. Member:: That's it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, and I can understand why some of the members of the NDP sitting to my left are going to support some of this legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It was one of your own members who said that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I could refer back to the situation a year ago with respect to Bill C-197. The only fear NDP members who come from western Canada have is that the government is going to out-socialize the NDP. This is regrettable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment calling for a six months hoist because I believe that for the most part the cash advances system has worked very well in its present form. I see the primary purpose of this bill is to make collections by the government easier in the future. That is the whole gist of it. It will not really enhance the position of the producer so far as his ability to get cash advances is concerned. It is a government housekeeping measure, to make it easier for the government to collect and to squeeze the farmer a little tighter. For these reasons, I would like to see the bill delayed for six months so that we may get an indication from the producers whether or not they want to be squeezed in this manner.
Under the present system, cash advances cover wheat, oats and barley, and now it is proposed to include rape-seed, flaxseed and rye. This simply means that when a farmer takes various grains to the market place there will be a deduction made in respect of all of them. Prior to that he had an opportunity to deliver his wheat in repayment for his loan, but he could still sell his rape-seed or other grain for cash. Now, when he sells anything he will have to repay his loan immediately, which means that the credit being extended will be for a shorter period of time.
When I spoke on this bill yesterday I tried to impress on the minister the concern that everybody feels about the tight manner in which credit is strung across the farming belt. The farmers owe money to the banks and to the Farm Credit Corporation. Only this morning in committee the head of the Farm Credit Corporation told us that in the province of Alberta 26 per cent of the total loans are in arrears. This is a serious situation, Mr. Speaker.
An article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of April 7 encouraged me to believe that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was concerned about the plight of the farmers. In case some members are not aware of his genuine concern, I should like to read some excerpts from the article regarding the two price system for wheat which is to be introduced to help the western grain farmer. The article reads:
Otto Lang, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, made the recommendation himself to cabinet about two months ago when the government was discussing the final details of his new grains stabilization policy though he declines to acknowledge this.
Mr. Lang, it was learned here, told his cabinet colleagues he was convinced the grain farmer needed his basic income supplemented and the best way to do this was through a two-price system that would increase and subsidize the domestic price of wheat.
There was considerable opposition inside cabinet because of what a two-price system would do to the prices of such basic staples as bread and flour. Consumer Affairs Minister Ron Bas-ford is reported to have been in the forefront of the opposition.
Still referring to the minister, the article continues:
He told Southam News Services he had become convinced the farmer was getting a raw deal compared with other sectors of the economy.

May 6, 1971

It is evident from this article that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is aware of the plight of the western farmer but he does not seem to be able to influence his colleagues in the cabinet. I say that in his position, if he is to remain honest, he should have the intestinal fortitude to do as two other members of the cabinet have done and disassociate himself from a group so callously indifferent to the needs of agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Cliff Downey: Both the ministers who are concerned with agriculture are presently in the House. At hearings of the Committee on Agriculture, it has been evident that their concern is for larger and more efficient agricultural units. We all know what it is like when farms get larger; one large four-wheel drive tractor replaces six old units. Fences have to be torn up and everything bulldozed down to make large fields. It seems we are going in this direction all the time. It raises problems of ecology. The fence lines are the habitat of birds and wildlife, the pheasant and the prairie chicken. I do not understand why fish and game associations are not more concerned about this. Surely, we need to look at the total picture in regard to ecology. The hunters who come in the fall and the tourists contribute to the small towns. This policy of consolidating farms into large units will do away with the things that attract them to the country regions. The tourist industry is one of our few remaining natural assets. The area I come from is well known for the goose, the prairie chicken and the pheasant and with the consolidation of farm units I see their natural habitat being destroyed.
If anything I say today, Mr. Speaker, fastens the attention of fish and game associations or hunting groups in Canada on this problem I shall be very happy. I feel they should be as concerned as the farmers with protecting these resources. We want our children to be able to hunt and enjoy this wonderful outdoor sport.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Canadian Pacific Railway-request by high school class for explanation of federal grant in light of net income; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Supply and Services-letting of contracts without competitive tendering.

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 (papers).
Indian Land and Treaty Claims



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between Dr. Lloyd Barber and the native Indian peoples organizations across Canada regarding the matter of Indian land and treaty claims and aboriginal rights.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This motion refers to Dr. Barber by name but there is no reference to any official capacity that he may have. I think it might be of benefit to the House if the motion could be amended so that we know what his position in the matter is. There is nothing to indicate that he is not acting as an ordinary citizen. What capacity does he have in relation to the House at this time? I say this in all sincerity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I am sure this is a matter for debate, and I am sure the information will be given to those who listen to the debate which is about to proceed. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon).


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was reluctant to rise to debate the question because of the lack of concern exhibited by the cabinet and the government about the proprieties of things involved here. The motion deals with correspondence relating to aboriginal treaty rights and claims of native Indian peoples. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), within whose jurisdiction this matter falls, has not the courtesy even to attend the House. His parliamentary secretary is not here to deal with a matter of this fundamental importance. That ought to be noted in the record. This item ought not to be proceeded with until those hon. gentlemen who have the primary responsibility and governmental authority with respect to Indian affairs have the courtesy to come to this House and explain why, when this matter initially arose on October 4 of last year, the people responsible for Indian affairs refused to allow native Indian peoples to see the correspondence in question. Sir, we ought not to be asked to proceed in the light of this discourtesy on the part of the minister and the parliamentary secretary.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order-

May 6, 1971
Indian Land and Treaty Claims


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that he was given the floor not on a point of order but to permit him to present his case.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, these remarks will probably also deal with the point of order that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) tried to raise. May I point out that this notice of motion for the production of papers refers to Dr. Lloyd Barber, Chairman of the Indians Claims Commission, who was appointed by order in council PC 169-2405 and who reports directly to the Prime Minister. This matter is not in the hands of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the office of the Prime Minister, whose repeated statements have indicated concern for our native peoples. I am advised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) will be in the House because of his interest and concern in this matter. I, therefore, believe that the hon. member's point of order is incorrectly based.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The Chair is somewhat embarrassed, because there was no point of order in the first place. I thought that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was rising to explain why he had not risen initially to speak in the debate. Under the circumstances, I should like to see this debate proceed properly. Will the hon. member for Skeena indicate if he intends to speak on another point of order or if he intends to speak to the motion?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I realize that Your Honour has to make sure that debate in the House takes place in an orderly fashion, in accordance with the rules. That, I hope, will be the case. I raised my point of order because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his parliamentary secretary were not present in the House when this matter was called this afternoon. If you are insisting in our proceeding with the debate then, in the absence of those hon. gentlemen who seem to show no interest in the subject, I have no choice except to make a few comments.


Prosper Boulanger: Withdraw the motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't be ridiculous.


Mr. Roberts:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; if I recollect correctly, and I was sitting near you, you had recognized the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) when the hon. member who has just spoken raised a point of order. I do not really see how, having given the floor to the hon. member for High Park, you can now give it to another speaker. I myself, would be happy to hear what the hon. member for High Park has to say on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is not difficult to answer the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I am sure hon. members of the House realize that they can bet even
money on the hon. member for High Park speaking after the hon. member for Skeena has spoken, or vice versa. So, we are just playing games. However, since the hon. member for High Park indicates that he will cede the floor to the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to accept such graciousness from hon. gentlemen in the Liberal party who do not want to see this matter come to a vote and intend to talk it out in any event.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: On two occasions, first on March 11, 1970 and then-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. Is the hon. member speaking to the motion now?


Prosper Boulanger: The hon. member wants to kill his own motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am in error, but I thought you had recognized me for that purpose.


Mr. Deakon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member for Skeena many times and always held him in high esteem. Before he makes remarks about other hon. members, I wish he would listen to what they have to say. He has not heard my speech. I would ask him to listen to any remarks I might make before making such comments.


Frank Howard: I did not think I was making comments about the anticipated speech of the hon. member for High Park. I was talking about the attitude of the Liberal party in general which has denied to certain people access to the documents in question. Members of that party have talked out, I think, eight other notices of motions for the production of papers on Thursdays and thus prevented those matters from coming to a vote. I made my remarks in that context. If the hon. member for High Park feels that he is part of that group called the Liberal party which denies certain people certain freedoms and rights, he will have to wear that hat and be content with it.
This particular hour for debating notices of motions for the production of papers was set aside, under our rules, in order that those notices of motions for production of papers which were objected to on Wednesdays, when no debate may be permitted, could be transferred to another part of the order paper, under "notices of motions (papers)", and debated and voted on. When the rules were changed, hon. members harboured a companion thought. It was thought that this hour would provide an opportunity for the exchange of views on such papers. We might learn why they cannot be produced and argue why they should be produced, and a vote might be taken. The government on many occasions has resorted to the subterfuge of using this mechanism within the rules to deny us the opportunity, in many instances, of talking about these matters, and to prevent a vote.

May 6, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They changed the rules.


Frank Howard: I believe that on the order paper there are 69 notices of motion for the production of papers. E'ght of these motions have been talked out up to now. As I say, we are looking at 69 such motions. The time available during the rest of this session for the discussion of these matters indicates that there will be little opportunity to discuss or debate these matters, let alone vote on them. Parliament will not be given an opportunity to express its opinion, through a vote, on whether certain documents should or should not be produced. That is tantamount to an abuse and misuse of the rules of procedure, and a denial of the spirit in which the rules were revised. That is why a debate of this kind is almost a futile exercise. Certainly, by its past activity the Liberal party has shown that it is not interested in debating these matters and certainly not interested in seeing them come to a vote in order that the opinion of the House may be tested. That applies particularly to the matter now before the House. All this indicates that the government treats with supersecrecy legitimate documents relating to information that is of extreme importance and value to the native Indian people.
If we look back at the reasons that were given for not acceding to the request in the first instance, we see that it is simply a matter of hiding information from the very people who will be greatly affected by this information and who will be helped if they have access to it. On March 11, 1970, I put forward a similar motion. If I am not mistaken, it was the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who said that the government could not agree to the tabling of the documents sought in the motion because, in the opinion of Mr. Barber, the Commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act to look into these matters, it would not be in the best interests of the commission or the native Indian people for such documents or informat-'on to be disclosed to the Indian people. I suppose Dr. Barber, inasmuch as he is the commissioner, has the right to say that it is not in the best interest of the commission to have these documents disclosed, but it is very arrogant and overbearing for him to say that it is not in the interest of the native people to have the correspondence and documents made public.
I do not wish to get into a discussion about what I think of Dr. Barber as an individual. He distinguished himself by his absolute lack of concern for the rights of the native Indian people when on the Northwest Territories territorial council, at which time he gave no heed to the aboriginal rights of the natives of the Northwest Territories. It was presumptious on his part to say what was and what was not in the interest of the Indian people. That was the reason given by the parliamentary secretary on March 11 last, and reiterated on November 4 when this motion was transferred for debate at the request of the government.
Dr. Barber was appointed a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act on December 19, 1969. I presume that he is a royal commissioner, not an Indian land claims
Indian Land and Treaty Claims commissioner. That title is not even used in the order in council. Royal commissions are appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act to examine certain things. Dr. Barber was appointed to inquire into and consult with authorized representatives of the Indian people and to inquire into a couple of other matters. First, he was to inquire into the performance of the terms of treaties and agreements formally entered into by representatives of the Indians and the Crown, and second, the administration of moneys and lands pursuant to schemes established by legislation for the benefit of Indians. This is followed by authority to make a report and recommendations as to what should happen with respect to these two items which I enumerated.
In substance, Dr. Barber's terms of reference are twofold. They are to inquire into whether treaties have been lived up to and to inquire into the administration of moneys and lands established by law for the benefit of Indians. Excluded from his terms of reference are native Indian people who, by virtue of history, are not covered by any formal treaties or agreements. The aboriginal land claims and hereditary right claims of the native Indians of the province of Quebec are excluded from Dr. Barber's terms of reference. The commission has no authority to examine the native Indian people of the Northwest Territories and Eskimo people who have an underlying, undeniable hereditary claim to the land and resources, something which has never been extinguished. The bulk of the native Indian people in British Columbia are not covered by treaties. Their aboriginal and hereditary rights are excluded from Dr. Barber's examination.
It is worthwhile looking at the origin of the order in council that appointed Dr. Barber as a royal commissioner. It arose in part from the white paper on Indian affairs which was introduced in this House on June 25, 1969, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). There were a number of matters proposed, including the Indian claims commission. At that time there was a commitment to the native Indian people that none of the provisions in that white paper would be introduced or put into effect unless it was agreed to by the Indian people. This has been reiterated time and again.
One of the proposals related to the establishment of an Indian claims commission. The government has stated that this commission, of which Dr. Barber is the sole commissioner, is the Indian claims commission. If that is so, this is an abrogation of the commitment made to the Indian people that this would never happen unless the Indian people agreed. It is an imposition by the government on the native Indian people without any agreement or consultation. It is contrary to the stated declarations of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on many occasions and the stated declaration of no less a personage than the esteemed right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Colin David Gibson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: I will be pleased to answer a question, but I wonder if the hon. member will wait until I have concluded my remarks.

May 6, 1971
Indian Land and Treaty Claims


Mr. Burton:: By then he will have forgotten what he wanted to ask.


Frank Howard: This motion seeks the exchange of correspondence between the native Indian people who have communicated with the royal commission about their hereditary and aboriginal rights, their treaty claims and the like. I am simply paraphrasing the motion. The reason for introducing the motion is not solely out of interest and concern on the part of members of our party. It is as a result of discussion with native Indian people. Naturally, we were not able to speak with every native person in Canada, but we did speak with a goodly number of leaders and chieftains. They would like to know the extent of correspondence with regard to their treaty rights and claims and aboriginal rights and claims.
Indians in one part of the country would like to know the trend of conversation and correspondence with regard to Indian people in another part. They would like to know what responses these people have received from Dr. Barber and the royal commission. They would like to see what, if anything, is happening to the claims which Indians in another part of the nation are proposing. There is the same general interest in treaty and aboriginal rights from one end of this land to the other, regardless of tribal affiliation. This is partly for information purposes. Hon. members know that bands or tribes of Indian people may not be thoroughly familiar or cognizant of the procedures to be followed. In many instances, they may not even recognize what may be classified as an aboriginal claim, even though they may have one. They may not recognize what it is or how to phrase it. They would receive guidance and assistance from seeing the correspondence which other Indian tribes, associations and other organizations have entered into with the royal commission. This is the reason for the introduction of the motion, to make this information public and available to the Indian people whose rights are being dealt with and considered. After all, it is they who will be affected by whatever recommendations the royal commission may make, and to the extent that they engage in these discussions they wish to do so in a full and complete manner.
The government itself is financing out of public funds what I believe is called a national committee on historic rights, or treaty rights, something of that sort. In any event, this is a committee of Indian people assisted by funds from the office of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) or the Privy Council, and research work into treaty rights, aboriginal rights and so forth is being undertaken by that committee in order that Indians will be in a better position to present arguments to governments with force and clarity. On the one hand, the government takes the view that it is helpful and valuable for us to use public moneys to make a grant to a committee of Indian people to do research work on historic rights and treaty rights, while on the other hand, in connection with a royal commission appointed to look into the self same thing, it denies Indians access to corre-

spondence and information which might well be of value to them.
The opinion of Dr. Barber that it would not be in the interests of the Indian people to disclose this information is, to say the least, a presumption on his part. I do not think he should have the right to make such a finding or express such a determination, and even if he does, it seems to me the government should not accept such a position. Rather, it should take the view that the people who are in the best position to decide and determine where their best interest lies are the Indian people themselves.
We know that the Indian people per se, with the exception of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who is not at present in the chamber, are not able to attend the House and move such a motion as I have put forward. This can only be done by those who happen to get elected to this place. This is what we are trying to do to the best of our ability, to give expression to a request on the part of the Indian people that they be allowed access to these documents by moving an appropriate motion in the hope that it will be accepted by the government and that not even a hint of doubt will be expressed as to the right of Indians to obtain information about their own affairs. In other words, so that this will not be looked upon, as it is in some quarters and as I myself look upon it at the moment, as a deliberate attempt at secrecy, a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rights of Indians and deny to them rightful access to information which is of such importance to their wellbeing, particularly as far as treaty rights and aboriginal rights are concerned. Now, if the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) wishes to ask his question I shall attempt to answer it.


Colin David Gibson: I should like to ask the hon. member whether any process has been embarked upon, for example, by way of writ of certiorari to obtain the results he is seeking? It appears to me that the matter is now sub judice before the inquiry and that the hon. member is inviting what would amount to a further parliamentary inquiry at the same time as the commission is attempting to deal with this matter. Would the hon. member not agree that if, at the time the commissioner is trying to carry out his work, he is ordered by Parliament to do certain things it would become most difficult to deal with the question in a cohesive way? Would it not amount to unwarranted interference with the inquiry?


Frank Howard: In the first place, whether one might proceed by way of a writ of certiorari is beyond my knowledge. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), who is learned in the law, will know that better than I. I am not able to say whether this procedure is available, indeed, I would not care to comment on this suggestion. I do know, however, that this royal commission is being financed by the taxpayers of Canada. The Indian people with whom I have spoken -and, naturally, I have not been able to speak with them all-feel they would like to have information with respect to the terms of reference, indeed, with respect to two matters which are of fundamental importance to
May 6, 1971

them, and I have proceeded on the basis of fundamental respect for the desire of people to know what is happening in connection with their affairs.


Walter Cyril Deakon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is well aware that all members of this House are just as concerned as he is about the welfare of the Indian and other native peoples. I will restrict my contribution to consideration of the claims of the aboriginal peoples for legal rights to land whether by treaty or by hereditary claim.
There are in Canada today approximately 450,000 people who are descendants of the aboriginal peoples who occupied this land before its discovery by Europeans. The law divides these groups into status Indians and non-status Indians and Eskimos. The status Indians, in turn, are divided into treaty Indians and non-treaty Indians and both of these groups are in turn divided into reserve Indians and non-reserve Indians. Historically, these people were divided into 11 linguistic groups and spoke at least 50 different languages. The settlements, reserves and bands are located in areas over the vast expanse of Canada. This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to get a true perspective of the place of Indians in Canada.
To consider the present objectively we must understand the past. The history of Indian relationships with the white man has not altered appreciably during the years, even with the emergence of new Indian leadership. The descendants of the aboriginal peoples are at least as concerned with the issues of treaty and aboriginal rights as were their predecessors.
Initially the Indians were friends and helpers of the white explorers who were small in number and unfamiliar with the land. As the land was colonized the Indians became restive because of the growing encroachments on their preserves. The Indians also assisted the white settlers in the fur and agricultural trades, but as settlements further advanced the more valuable lands held by the Indians were coveted and acquired by the whites. The Indians were therefore left with pockets of land frequently far distant from the rapidly settled and industrialized society.
Before the discovery of Canada, land was held communally; family ownership of certain resource areas existed within certain tribes, but land was not sold outside the tribal unit. The only method of obtaining land from others was by conquest. The concept of the sale of tribal lands by treaty or any other formal means to people outside the band or tribe was not within the native legal concept. This is a concept of European law, not a recognition of native law.
Undisputed possession and native concepts of land ownership were sufficiently developed in Canada that we must consider the legal aspect of aboriginal title. The native peoples did have clear possession and, therefore, at least a moral right; but legal right existed only in lands in settled occupation. The history of laws relating
Indian Land and Treaty Claims
to Indians in North America, and their interpretation, shows the gradual extension of the new legal system and the parallel diminution of native rights based upon aboriginal occupation.
It has been submitted that aboriginal rights are part of international law, recognizing that territorial title is based on long and undisputed possession. This concept of aboriginal title and the adoption of it as a legal doctrine by the Privy Council leaves no question or doubt that it is part of Canadian law, although it may be that this concept does not apply to all parts of Canada, with all respect to the submission of the hon. member for Skeena. This leads us to examine the historical pattern of dealings with natives in this country. If aboriginal title has been extinguished where it existed, then we are in the right; but if it has not been extinguished we must, I submit, consider what legal claims, if any, can now be made by the native peoples.
I am sure hon. members on all sides of the House will agree that a solution to this problem must be reached soon and has long been overdue. For our treatment of the Indian population in Canada I do not believe we have any cause to be proud. Our native peoples are set aside from other citizens. The government for at least half a century has been encouraging Indians to leave their reserves. This movement has weakened the social and economic potential of reserve lands and now, because of this policy, the government is embarrassed by the backward nature and character of some of these peoples. The government finds itself in a paternalistic role. The Indians may be citizens of any particular province in which they may have settled, but they are also wards of the federal government; they are financially, economically and socially dependent upon the federal government.
The government found this role distasteful and realized that paternalism has not resolved the problem but has resulted only in heavy criticism of the government. The government would appreciate a change. On the other hand, Indian leaders are equivocal about change and have not a clear mandate from their people for such change. To them a change is frustrating and even threatening. The indians are striving to ascertain just who they actually are, and are looking for their true identity to the
study in 1967 made the following
A government comment:
tJ!+WaS t^ conclusjon of the field workers that the question of treaty rights pervades the field of Indian/non-Indian relationships to such an extent that resolution of these differences is a precondition to acceptance by the Indian people of most programs for their benefit and advancement.
The evidence from this survey, from that of the Hawthorne group and others, suggests that treaty rights are increasing in importance as more Indian people become better organized and develop a more vocal approach to government.
A brief to the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on Indian Affairs in 1960, by the Indi-an-Eskimo Association, stated in part as follows:
We know also that those Indians who, on one ground or another, mistrust the white man, tend to focus their bitterness on some treaty right, the alleged violation of which becomes a

May 6, 1971
Indian Land and Treaty Claims
rallying point for anti-white sentiment and agitation. For these Indians, therefore, a treaty becomes at once a sacred document of inviolable rights and a potent symbol of current wrongs.
During the consultations and discussions with Indian groups across the country by the Indian Affairs branch of the federal government in 1968-69 for purposes of discussing the Indian Act, it was significant that the Indian Act as such received little, if any, discussion, whereas on the other hand the Indian leaders in attendance constantly expressed their concern with treaty and aboriginal rights. The concern with treaty and aboriginal rights was eloquently put in sharp focus by Chief Dan George to a meeting of teachers on the west coast:
Let no one forget it, we are a people with special rights guaranteed us by promises and treaties. We do not beg for these rights, nor do we thank you. We do not thank you for them because we paid for them, and God help us, the price we paid was exorbitant. We paid for them with our culture, our dignity, our pride and self-respect. We paid, we paid and we paid until we became a beaten race, poverty-stricken and conquered.
The treaty and aboriginal rights issue is not just a legal matter but has an important emotional and symbolic value for the aboriginal peoples. In order to deal with Indian and Eskimo claims justly, we must keep this in mind. A very interesting and informative research documentation was made possible by a grant from the Harvie foundation, published under the title "Native rights in Canada". Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the chapter headed "The basis of native rights":
There are perhaps three general conceptualizations of the historical relations between Indians and whites in this country.
1)	The Indian nations had full sovereignty over their territories. The land was unjustly taken from them by conquest, occupation and, in some cases, by blatantly unfair treaties. In its most colourful form, this general view produces assertions of continuing sovereign independence, and the Six Nations reserve in Ontario continues to try to have a case heard before the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
2)	The Indians had legal claims to the land, though not full sovereignty or full ownership, which have ended except for reserve lands. The treaties extinguished these legal claims in a proper manner. Indian claims in the non-treaty areas were dealt with before confederation by the colonial governments. In British Columbia, the major non-treaty area where colonial policy was not fully settled at union, compensatory payments have been made in lieu of treaty payments.
This view begins with an assertion of legal rights in the Indians and attempts to fit that assertion to the historical facts in Canada.
3)	The Indians had no political or property rights recognized by law. Treaties were made on occasion to avoid conflict and facilitate settlement. They serve that purpose and have no current significance.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his 1969 Indian policy statement stated that the federal government would recognize treaty rights since he considered treaties as contracts, but would not recognize aboriginal rights. It was the Prime Minister's contention that it was inconceivable that there should be a treaty between subgroups in a given society. It is contended that treaties that do exist should be terminated, presumably by negotiation, so that the Indian people can become equal members of our Canadian society. The Prime Minister feels that aboriginal rights as described in the policy are too general and
[Mr. Deakon.l
undefined to be considered specific claims and are something that the Prime Minister and his government are reluctant to guarantee. This is the main reason why the Commissioner of Claims is having great difficulty in justly dealing with and resolving the claims submitted to him for adjudication.
I should also like to draw attention to an article which appeared in the Montreal Star of Tuesday, April 27, 1971 under the heading "Indian rights 'incontestable'", with the sub-heading "Native land claims set Ottawa rethinking". This article verifies the situation at hand. It is my respectful submission that the issue of aboriginal rights has as great a significance, if not greater, to the Indians as does the French language to the French. This fact must be realized before any headway can be made. If the legal concept underlying the treaties is a recognition of aboriginal title, then there is a contradiction inherent in the government's position.
Under the circumstances, and because of the delicate nature of this matter, I respectfully submit that the motion presented should be defeated.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the motion presented to the House by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). In his motion the hon. member requests that the House issue copies of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between Dr. Lloyd Barber and the native Indian peoples organizations across Canada. The hon. member outlined quite clearly the reason these documents should be made available to the native people. He also explained that the native people of Canada are widely spread geographically across this country and therefore are not always in a position to know from one group to another just what the thinking may be among themselves.
In recent months this difficulty has been eliminated to some extent by the formation of provincial Indian brotherhoods, and more recently by the formation of the National Indian Brotherhood with its head office in Ottawa. I believe we should support this motion very strongly because it is very necessary that all Indian groups should have access to the correspondence which has been directed to the Commissioner of Indian Claims and the replies these groups have received from the commissioner.
Spokesmen for the government have tried to indicate the interest of the government in the native people. The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) emphasized the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated that he recognizes treaty rights. We hear this time and time again. This only makes us wonder, if the Prime Minister and the government are so emphatic about recognizing treaty rights, why some of the problems the Indian people have presented to the government over the years have not been brought to successful conclusion. I need mention only the hunting rights of the Indian people. Here we have the case of numerous Indian people who believed they had the opportunity to hunt at certain times and on certain lands and found that legislation or
May 6, 1971

treaties drawn up between the government of Canada and other nations precluded these rights which they had emphatically been lead to believe were theirs throughout the years.
In my contituency the native people have been brought before the courts on charges of hunting illegally. One such case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. In this particular case, unfortunately the Supreme Court of Canada, on a split decision, ruled that the Migratory Birds Convention Act superseded Indian treaties. The government might feel that for the time being this gets it off the hook. However, time and time again the Indian people and many members of this House, including myself, have requested that the government renegotiate the Mugratory Birds Convention Act with the government of the United States.
If the Supreme Court of Canada in its wisdom feels the Migratory Birds Convention Act supersedes these treaties which the Prime Minister of our country says he recognizes, then I believe there is only one solution. The treaty made with the United States, which it is claimed supersedes Indian treaties, should be renegotiated. Four years have gone by and the government still indicates its intention to renegotiate this treaty.
Of course, there are many cases of land disputes in so far as the Indian people are concerned. The government claims it set up the commission headed by Dr. Lloyd Barber to look into the claims which Indian people feel they have. The Indian people have given considerable study to the government's white paper. They found they did not like it and asked the government not to implement it at that particular time. However, as the hon. member for Skeena has mentioned, the setting up of this claims commission has already abrogated the government's assurance that nothing would be done in relation to the white paper until the Indian people agreed to it.
Government members from time to time tell us of the extreme interest of the government in the problems of the Indian people. As I mentioned before, in recent years Indian groups have formed brotherhoods in the provinces. They reached agreement with the government in respect of financial grants in respect of the administrative costs of these organizations. I know that in Manitoba particularly, the Indian brotherhood and its staff are doing a tremendous job of liaison between the Indian people of the province and the federal government. But I am told grants pertaining to the past fiscal year should have been turned over to these organizations many months ago.
Last Thursday the Indian brotherhood offices in the province of Manitoba reached the stage where they would have been forced to suspend operations if the moneys promised several months ago were not forthcoming. The question was raised in the House and it is my understanding that the government has made provision for these moneys to go forward to Indian brotherhood offices, particularly those in Manitoba. I understand other provincial bodies have had the same difficulty.
In debating and possibly voting on the motion of the hon. member for Skeena we should ask why, with all the
24107-3k
Indian Land and Treaty Claims
members in this House continually talking about their interest in the native people, we have to reach a showdown whereby we have a deadline in respect of keeping an office open because of the lack of money which should have been forthcoming from the government. The answer of the government at that time was that sufficient information was not presented to it in order to allow it to pay these grants. This was not the case in respect of the province of Manitoba. I understand that the Manitoba grant and others were held up, even though the information was available, because one or two organizations in other parts of Canada probably had not presented all the information the government required. Therefore, the Indian brotherhood offices which had presented all the pertinent information the government required for these grants were discriminated against.
The hon. member for High Park quoted the stirring words of Chief Dan George in relation to treaty rights. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Indian people do have treaty rights which are not being recognized. Therefore, I support the motion of the hon. member for Skeena and hope that this House will unanimously support it.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make in this chamber today the charge that the purpose of the appointment of the Barber Commission was to do a snow-job on the Indian people. In the absence of the production of the documents requested in the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I challenge anyone in this House to disprove my statement.


Mr. Mahoney:: Sit down and listen.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This commission was appointed through a minute of the meeting of the committee of the Privy Council in December of 1969. Neither the members of this House nor any of the Indian people in Canada really know what, if anything, Dr. Barber has been doing since he was appointed commissioner under the Inquiries Act. The hon. member for Skeena interjected that very likely he does not even know himself. I can support that statement without any particular discredit to Dr. Barber, because if one considers the circumstances of his appointment it is obvious that it was impossible for him to do a worth-while job even if he had wanted to.
Why do I suggest that the purpose of this royal commission was to do a snow-job or to pull the wool over the eyes of the Indian people across the country? I do so for one very fundamental reason if for none other, namely, that this House has never recognized that the Indian people have any rights in this country. It has never admitted that the original inhabitants of this country have any rights which stem from the fact that they were here before our ancestors arrived here. This was confirmed not long ago in the House by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) when he declared-and he stated it more than once-that all the lands in the Northwest Territories are held by the Crown, which means that the Eskimo people do not even

May 6, 1971
Indian Land and Treaty Claims
have squatters rights on the lands where their forefathers dwelt for hundreds of years.
On looking through some of the records of this House one finds that far from having given any recognition to the fact that the Indian people have basic rights, the reverse is true because the last recorded opinion of this chamber was in 1927 when the House rejected the proposition that the Indian people had any real rights. That decision has not yet been reversed, even though there have been debates in the House and attempts have been made to have Parliament make a declaration that such rights do exist.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who has read the document entitled "Native rights in Canada," to which the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) referred in his speech, could say that what I am saying is not the basic truth. To appoint a commissioner with responsibility not to the Indian people but to the Governor in Council is by its very nature a rejection of the real rights of the Indian people.


Colin David Gibson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to my hon. friend and I submit that his remarks are irrelevant for two reasons: one, that he is not speaking to the substantive motion before the House and, two, that he is slandering a public official who is conducting an inquiry, I submit that on both grounds his remarks are irrelevant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: If I were to consider seriously the point of order put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) I would be inviting him to make a long speech. However, I do not consider the point of order to be well taken. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has the floor.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was going to suggest that if the hon. member would do a little listening with his ears, and a little reading with his eyes, instead of using his mouth so much-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member has only a few minutes left. I am sure he would like to use the time to discuss the motion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: *-he might understand the relationship of what I am saying to the motion. Members of the House and the Canadian people should know exactly what, if anything, the commissioner has been doing since his appointment. I am sure that hon. members who have followed the developments leading up to the tabling of the white paper are fully aware that this is not the kind of action for which the Indian people have asked. They asked to be enabled to establish their rights and to have assistance to do so. Never at any time have they requested that a commissioner charged with reporting to the Governor in Council in secret be set up to deal with matters concerning them. I think this fact makes valid the request of the hon. member for Skeena for the immediate production of these documents, if any, for the information of the Indian people and members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Hon. members will forgive me if my remarks are of a serious nature this evening, but in view of the tragic death of so many Canadians in the horrible tragedy at St. Jean Vianney yesterday I will confine my remarks to an expression, on behalf of hon. members and myself, of deep sympathy and condolence to the people concerned. May those who have died rest in peace and may their faith be rewarded in safer land.
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-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, before private members' hour I was outlining some of the side-problems that we are running into with a depressed agricultural industry. Again I say to the minister that we all agree on the provision of cash advances, but there are many other problems that we should be solving rather than dealing with stop-gap measures such as cash advances.
I wish to quote some of the remarks made by the former head of the Board of Grain Commissioners, Mr. Hamilton. I will read some of his suggestions which I submit should be looked upon as alternatives to stop-gap measures such as cash advances. An article in the Edmonton Journal of April 5, 1971, quotes Mr. Hamilton as saying:
Ottawa must sell grain more imaginatively. "If industry can negotiate 15-year contracts surely the same can be done for grain." Ottawa should also be willing to ship grain in 1,000-ton lots as requested by developing countries, control ocean freight, place grain in position where it is needed, and lease storage space in vicinity of markets or help customers build it.
I emphasize that we should put grain where it is needed, in position to ship it. This was brought home to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board during the recent rail strike when the storage facilities at the coast were not full and as a result we lost about a week's supply of shipping. We need to keep this in mind as an insurance measure. Mr. Hamilton continued:
The Ottawa bureacracy is more interested in efficiency than effectiveness. "The question is not how well we are doing things but are we doing the right things." The bureaucrats are out of touch with reality.

May 6, 1971

i
There is too much governmental control and interference except in the case of the most successful crop, rapeseed. Now Ottawa is jumping on the bandwagon "to become associated with the rapeseed success story of western Canada."
These statements were made by one of the most respected and knowledgeable men in the grain trade. He has since been replaced as head of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and this concerns all of us interested in the trade. The man who has taken his place, Mr. Delmar Pound, is probably a capable man but I am sure no more so than the former commissioner, since some of Mr. Pound's experience was gained as campaign manager to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
The bill before us will undoubtedly be of help to the farmer. It is interesting to note that an amendment was moved in the Agricultural Committee not too long ago that would guarantee the farmers yearly income boosts comparable to those received by other organized sectors of the economy. I believe a 5 of per cent or 6 per cent income boost was proposed. Why does this government not consider a built-in price increase on agricultural commodities? They grant wage boosts to industry and even to members right here in this House, so why are farmers left out? The government is supposedly trying to improve the situation and would like the farmers out west to think so, but they turned down this proposal.
These things are a mystery to me, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the ministers responsible will explain why they continue with stop-gap measures instead of getting to the root of the problem. I know that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board realizes the importance of doing something in the farming belt if the agricultural sector is to continue at all. As a representative of the farmers in this House I feel that the minister must make his position or his thoughts known to the cabinet, or do as any man of intestinal fortitude would do-get with it or get out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have sat through much of this quite lengthy debate. It may give some hon. members comfort to know that this particular phase of the farming debate is coming to an end.
With regard to cash advances I want to say briefly that in 1957, when the Conservative party took office, the situation on the farms of western Canada was almost identical to the situation today. Grain had been piled up on the farms. There was a surplus of about 700 million bushels of grain and a shortage of cash flow and cash return for farm produce. Today we find ourselves in similar circumstances.
There has been a myth spread over the land these last two years regarding the surplus of grain. I want to talk about world surplus. I would be the last to say that there was not a surplus in various exporting countries, but the fact is that Canada has moved from being first among the wheat exporting country of the world to fifth or sixth. If we had retained our export position, this cash advance bill would not have been so important. Shortly after we implemented legislation in this regard, the Diefenbaker government managed to sell and export grain and got it off the farm.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
In 1957, 1958 and 1959 very few cash advances were taken up by the farmers because grain was moving. When produce is moving to market, cash advances are not necessary. A similar situation exists in the corn belt of the United States, where the government goes in, buys the product outright and puts a seal on the bin. The commodity then belongs to the government and not the farmer, although it is stored on his farm. Under the Canadian system the farmer got only approximately half the value of the commodity, and when it is delivered to the country elevator the department takes its share on the cash advance and that money is returned, so really it is a part payment for grain.
As every speaker has said-and this matter affects the whole western economy-there is a shortage of cash in agriculture and a depression today in western Canada. There are three or four bills on farming matters now before the House. If the government had come clean with Parliament and with the country regarding the constitutional matter which is before the Canadian people and the Supreme Court of Canada, this debate would have been shorter and the problems on the farm would have quickly disappeared.
One of the problems of marketing is that some of the ten provinces are now setting stringent regulations at provincial borders, preventing the free flow of produce from one province to another. That is what I meant today in the question period when I said that we were moving toward the balkanization of Canada.
I want to deal briefly with the questions that were raised yesterday. Surely this government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could say, "We are going to test the Manitoba case in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Manitoba Court of Appeal has declared it ultra vires. We will brief the top counsel of Canada and adopt a national approach to marketing, not the narrow, parochial approach that might affect only the Maritimes or the west."
I now understand the Liberal party for the first time. They believe in a ten-nation program.


Colin David Gibson: Where did the hon. member read that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want the hon. member to read this speech and think about it. If he would listen more and be as polite to me as I am to him, and keep his mind as open as his mouth, he would make a great contribution to Parliament.


Colin David Gibson: My mind is open.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Section 121 of the British North America Act provides:
All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, he admitted free into each of the other provinces.
I maintain that regulations enacted by various provincial governments seek to prevent the free flow of farm products among provinces. Any such legislation-I am

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act referring particularly to the province of Quebec and to the action being taken by the province of Manitoba-is ultra vires and beyond the power of a province. It is beyond the power of a province to enact such legislation, and even if the federal government were to attempt to enact it, it would still be ultra vires. You cannot prevent the free flow of products among provinces.
I say, to illustrate my point, that this legislation would be unnecessary or cash advances would not have been needed to the same extent if the government had assumed its responsibilities. Today I asked the Minister of Justice whether counsel had been appointed to plead the case I have referred to before the Supreme Court of Canada and to represent the national interest. I asked what instructions had been given to counsel.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is the relevancy of those remarks?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am always delighted to listen to my hon. friend, and I would be glad if later he would give us his thoughts outside in the corridor or in the hallway. However, tonight we are considering Bill C-239 and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would stay somewhere close to that subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to argue with the distinguished and illustrious minister from Saskatchewan who was dean of my law school. I am prepared to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have spoken on this matter. I submit that my remarks were relevant in that the kind of cash advances being considered in this bill would not be necessary if the government had assumed its responsibilities. In that sense I submit that my remarks were relevant to this debate. If the minister would bear with me and listen, perhaps the debate on this bill and on others could be shortened. It is up to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say that it is a question for the Chair, rather than the minister, to decide whether matters are relevant. I realize that to some extent the hon. member in his argument took a roundabout way. When the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) this afternoon referred to the other bill which is to be the subject matter of debate, I suggested to him that perhaps he should try as much as possible to limit his remarks to the bill being considered.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said that he intended to speak for just a few moments on this point and I was willing to take that into consideration. If it were the essence of his presentation I think it could be said that the speech ought to be made when the other bill is before the House, rather than on this bill. I am prepared to take into account the hon. member's suggestion that this is not the whole essence and substance of the speech he wishes to make tonight.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. May I also point out that the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), that the bill be not now read the second time but that it be
hoisted for six months, is to enable us to obtain answers to our questions.


Colin David Gibson: Which bill is the hon. member speaking to now?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I finish what I was saying? I asked the Minister of Justice the name of counsel and what instructions he had been given. I asked whether the instructions of counsel, who was not named, were such as to take into account the national interest. Today the Minister of Justice said, "I do not know who he may be. I left that appointment to the deputy minister and do not know what the instructions were." In addition to fooling around with such a knotty constitutional question, this government wants to play politics with the livelihood of farmers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government has tried to cover up this problem by saying that it is changing the terms and conditions of the old act.


Otto Emil Lang: Which old act?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The cash advances legislation. The dean, as I always call him, is always very polite in this House. He has been noted for his arrogance if not for his intelligence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Colin David Gibson: That was a great contribution to the debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I now refer to the case of Murphy v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It illustrates the case in point. The facts were these: produce was produced in Manitoba by one Murphy who wished to ship it to British Columbia to his poultry farm. He went to the CPR. The grain was already bagged but the CPR refused to take the shipment of grain, and litigation began. The court dealt with the point we have sought to raise on an entirely different premise. Chief Justice Cartwright said, after argument on the point that I am raising now, that if a provincial legislature had enacted such restrictive legislation, it would have been declared ultra vires. In other words, legislation that controls interprovincial trade would have been ultra vires. I am confident that when the Supreme Court of Canada decides the Manitoba case, it will say that such restrictive legislation is ultra vires.
I therefore say that this legislation ought to be held up until that decision has been handed down. In addition, counsel for Crown ought to take the national approach; he ought to argue the national case as set out in the British North America Act and obtain a decision which would enble the free flow of trade between provinces.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is my submission. I cannot put it more clearly than it was put by the Manitoba Court of Appeal when dealing with this subject. They referred to

May 6, 1971

the case of Rex v. Nat Bell Liquors, Limited. Lord Sumner in that case said this:
In their Lordships' opinion the real question is whether the legislature has actually interefered with interprovincial or with foreign trade.
That is the real question to be determined.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That was the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If this question were cleared up farmers would not need cash advances to the extent that they are now needed, because the cash problem on the farm would be partly, if not completely, remedied. The Court of Appeal then dealt with the Murphy case, which I will deal with in greater detail in a moment. In that case Mr. Justice Rand said:
What is forbidden is a trade regulation that in its essence and purpose is related to a provincial boundary.
I say to the government, why does it not instruct counsel appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada to adopt the national approach?


Jean-Luc Pepin: He will.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not only are these regulations affecting materially the free movement of trade but they are undermining the very foundations of confederation. There must be free trade between the provinces.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In Murphy v. CPR Mr. Justice Cartwright said:
I am in general agreement with the reasons of my brother Rand and those of my brother Locke and would dispose of the appeal as they propose. I wish, however, to add a few words as to one of the submissions made by Mr. Finkelstein in the course of his full and able argument.
It was argued that section 32 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act forbids-
That is the section dealing with powers and regulations affecting the transporting of grain between provinces, thereby controlling interprovincial trade. The question was whether a man in Manitoba could ship his wheat from Manitoba to British Columbia.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He can.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That point, although not directly argued in the Murphy case, was decided by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. That decision is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. I continue reading from the judgment:
It was urged that section 32 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act forbids a person who produces grain in one province to transport the grain so produced into another province to be there used by himself for his own purposes, that this prohibition is invalid, that it cannot be severed from the other provisions of the section and that consequently the whole section falls. The facts in the case at bar do not fall within the supposed case on which Mr. Finkelstein bases this argument but this circumstance does not affect the relevance of his submission to the issue of constitutional validity.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
He now comes to the crux:
It seems clear that the enactment of such a prohibition would be beyond the powers of any provincial legislature and so would appear prima facie to fall within the powers of Parliament under the opening words of section 91 of the British North America Act and to be valid, unless it contravenes section 121 of that Act.
I already referred to this; it is basically free trade between the provinces.
It may be that if, on its true construction, section 32 would have the effecmt of prohibiting the supposed transportation it would be in conflict with section 121 as being a prohibition which, to borrow the words of my brother Rand, "in its essence and purpose is related to a provincial boundary" and not being a regulation of trade or commerce (since there are difficulties in regarding a person as engaged in trade or commerce with himself) or a necessary incident of such regulation. If this be so it would furnish a strong reason for construing section 32 as excluding from its operation the transportation in the case supposed, but I do not find it necessary to reach a final conclusion on the point-
That point has never been directly before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is now directly before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Manitoba case. The reason the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who is in charge of the wheat board, and the Minister of Agriculture will not take a position on this subject and want to see me ruled out of order is because they do not want me to mention it. Why? They know that what I am talking about is the very essence of every one of these bills and the debate that applies thereto.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member is presently dealing with a sub judice matter since an appeal is underway. I therefore submit that the hon. member's speech amounts to a breach of our Standing Orders and that he should not interfere with a trial court decision which is now under appeal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) are both learned in the law. They realize that we should be very careful in discussing matters which are before a court, perhaps even more so the Supreme Court of Canada than the lowest of our courts, although precedents do not establish a distinction between the highest and lower courts. I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary North is keeping this in mind.
It has been in the back of my mind that we must be careful in dealing with a matter that is before a court. Whether a case can be argued in the House of Commons which is at the same time being argued before a court of the country is an interesting point. I am sure the hon. member is keeping this in mind.
In any event, my understanding was when the hon. member began referring to this particular matter that he would not be very long and it was only part of his presentation. I must say that it has been longer than I

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
expected. I expected he would eventually relate what he was saying to the bill now before the House. I will take both aspects of the matter under consideration.


Otto Emil Lang: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to deal with the wanderings of the hon. member, but he indicated that he thought I understood what he was talking about. I would like it to be known that neither I nor anyone else understood what he was talking about.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to join in that kind of argument with the minister. I am going to treat it with the kind of contempt it deserves. With reference to the remarks made by Your Honour, I will abide by them. As far as the case is concerned, I was careful to stay on the line in that regard. I was not dealing with what judgment may come down from the Supreme Court of Canada. I was asking who will represent the federal government, what province counsel will be from and what his instructions will be in representing the national interest.
I repeat so that I will make myself clear to everyone, including the minister, that if this problem were settled he would not have to take the taxpayers' money to subsidize the farmers. There would be a cash flow on the farm if there were a market for goods and free trade among the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If that is not relevant, nothing is relevant in this whole debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Are you opposed to this bill?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not opposed to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, because it was our party that brought in cash advances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When our party brought in the cash advances, C. D. Howe said they would never work. The whole Liberal party voted against cash advances when they came before the House. I ask the minister to check that statement.
I would like to deal with the problems of the Minister of Agriculture. He will not come to grips with the real problems of the farmers. The same is true, as I said the other night, about the Minister of Agriculture who has climbed up the political ladder wrong by wrong by wrong. He has climbed from Social Credit to socialism by slickness and slyness. He will not accept the responsibility of seeing that there is a free flow of goods and produce from province to province.
I understand that in Alberta leaflets are being distributed in the minister's constituency. I would be surprised if this man who has climbed the political ladder wrong by wrong by wrong, from Social Credit to socialism by slickness and slyness, could even return to his own constituency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Went worth is rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hoot, hoot!


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, these personal attacks on the minister are unparliamentary. I submit that they are completely out of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is one thing about my good
friends. They always manage to say that the argument is not relevant. For an irrelevant argument, I have never seen an argument get under their skins so quickly. They know that everything I say is true. As far as this bill is concerned, they are trying to cover up the destitution and poverty that exists on the farms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: To make it even worse, the Minister of Justice has joined the Minister of Agriculture: the Minister of Justice has climbed the political ladder from Cambridge to constitutional inaccuracies, to anti-confederation. This is the true position of these men. I do not need to say any more; I have made my point. But I want to repeat-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Go ahead, repeat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the distinguished gentleman please bear with me? He is a man not gifted with words; he does not use them often.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let's have a repeat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the government wants to get this farm legislation through it will have to come to grips with the problem that I have mentioned and stop sweeping it under the carpet. Then this debate on agriculture would soon come to an end. It is no answer to say in this debate or the debates that will take place on the other two bills that Bill C-176 will be the answer. That bill is also unconstitutional. If the government does not think so, why does it not make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that I do not think we should refer this bill back. I say this because of the situation which exists in the Prairie region. I agree with the previous speaker-


An hon. Member:: No.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Why not?


An hon. Member:: Because he is wrong.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: What he said was correct in some respects. When he told us Mr. C. D. Howe had said this type of legislation was impossible, he was correct. I know that, because I was around at the time. When the succeeding government put the legislation into effect, changes in the act made it less effective than it should have been. As a matter of fact, it worked hardship because farmers sold their crops in advance and were charged in the following year in respect of the advances they had received. Nevertheless, I do not think this bill should be referred back. We ought to correct what is wrong with the present

May 6, 1971

legislation. My mentor in the front seat says this is a motion for a six months' hoist.


An hon. Member:: Water under the bridge!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I think the bill should proceed. There are some features we should try to correct in clause 6. I believe the bill should go to committee and changes ought to be made if possible. I wished to make this statement, Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, as from Tuesday, May 4, consideration of the point of order on the motion of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When Bill C-244 was before the House on Tuesday of this week the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) raised a point of order which was taken into consideration by the Chair.


An hon. Member:: We cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker; the sound system is turned off.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I indicate to hon. members that I should like to dispose of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar when Bill C-244 was called for second reading.


An hon. Member:: We still can't hear you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When Bill C-244 was called for second reading the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar raised a procedural point and urged the Chair to separate the bill on the grounds that the bill, in the words of the hon. member, "carries within it two separate proposals". The hon. member argued that clause 32 provides for a special transitional payment to producers out of the consolidated revenue fund. This payment, he said, would recognize a situation in existence, whereas the rest of the bill deals with a long-term proposal for prairie grain farmers.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and other hon. members made the point that the House should not be required to accept the whole bill respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds in order to obtain the immediate transitional payment for farmers as provided by clause 32. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) contended that not only clause 32 was involved but that clauses 33 and 34 should also be required, as he put it, "to stand on their own feet".
5586

May 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
On the other side of the question, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board stated that the provisions of clause 32-that is what he called the transitional feature-are tied into and are part of the bill because they are based upon the stabilization provisions contained in the body of the bill as well as the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which, he noted, was likewise provided for in the bill.
Hon. members will recall that a ruling was made on a similar point of order in respect of Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada. Mr. Speaker's ruling on that occasion is to be found at page 283 of Votes and Proceedings for January 26, 1971. This ruling reviewed the precedents and indicated that in all the circumstances Mr. Speaker felt that he should not take the "drastic and extreme" position of saying that the bill could not be accepted. His Honour then stated, however, as pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre during the discussion on the point of order, that there must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is unacceptable from a procedural viewpoint.
I would like to thank all hon. members who assisted the Chair on the point of order now before it for determination. It seems to the Chair that while the matter is not free from doubt, there is a relationship between clause 32, between clauses 33 and 34 referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the remainder of the bill.
The Chair suggests that there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill. It follows, of course, that there should be a theme of relevancy among the contents of a bill and they must be relevant and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
It is, of course, a matter of judgment in each case as to when a bill offends to the point that it should be ruled as unacceptable because it contains disparate matters. In my opinion this bill cannot be said to go that far. Therefore, I cannot agree that Bill C-244 should be divided by the Chair and I think that the motion for second reading should be put to the House.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 now before the House is a further portion of the total approach which this government is taking to the problems facing the grain industry. I would like to review for hon. members the way in which these problems have existed for many years without any totally effective action in relation to them, and to put the point to hon. members that in this group of bills, as with our total program for the grain farmer, we are attempting in rather short order to tackle many problems which have lain dormant for a long time.
I could mention the fact that the quota system which was brought into being a long time ago was very severely criticized as long ago as 1958 by a commissioner appointed by the then Conservative government to study the question. The Bracken commission described the quota system as something which, if it was in effect for a long time, would create inequities which would prove to be intolerable. Of course, nothing was done about that quota system. The same quota system stayed in effect throughout the time of that and successive governments.
During this period of time we have been examining all the problems facing the grain industry, trying to put the situation right. The quota system had been defective because it favoured one grain over the others. It had been defective by encouraging farmers to produce one particular grain, wheat, even if they lived and farmed in areas where other grains were better from an agricultural point of view. The quota system of their delivery privilege in terms of the money they could get from this grain simply dictated that they do this notwithstanding the agricultural conditions which they faced.
For many years farmers had been growing grains on the basis of far too limited information. When deciding what to plant, a farmer faces a real challenge. He always will, because he has to look at all the circumstances of the market and at his own ability and his farm before deciding what he should do. It seemed to us that he at least deserved as much information as was available and that he should receive it prior to seeding time.
This is what led us this year, for the first time, to indicate to farmers what their initial prices would be on March 1, so that they would have a final opportunity to look at those prices in determining their seeding intentions. This led us to introduce the cash advances legislation which provided greater equity as between grains and reflected to the farmer what his income would be on a particular grain so that he could determine what he should grow.
It is, of course, axiomatic that we have been concerned with the most important issue facing farmers, that of marketing. It was vital that we improve in every way possible the facilities available to the Canadian Wheat Board to market grain in the world. This led us to introduce credit programs which have brought us into markets to which we either did not have access for many years or we had not entered before. We got into these markets in a very big and important way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister permit a question before ten o'clock? Will he clear up the doubts in the minds of hon. members and all Canadians in connection with his position in this regard? I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is seeking an appointment to the Senate. Is this minister also seeking an appointment to the Senate?


Otto Emil Lang: We have heard a good deal from the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) during the past couple of days. I must say that that remark is as relevant and as accurate as anything else he has said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 6, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: To be perfectly accurate, Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be noted that this afternoon, as recorded in Hansard, twice in 25 minutes the hon. member said something which was correct. I acknowledged it each time he was correct. The rest was simply nonsense.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on April 23 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) a question which was put to me by someone in my constituency. The letter read:
The writer is a senior student of Killarney secondary school. Recently we were analyzing the 1970 annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. On page 14 we noted that the net income for the year amounted to $55,772,000. On page 12 we learned that the company received $33.1 million as a normal payment from the federal government.
I would respectfully ask if you would explain the reason for this grant to a company with such a favourable earning statement.
As the federal government pays this annual subsidy to the CPR, I naturally thought the Minister of Transport would be the best person to give me an answer. However, Mr. Speaker ruled that my question was not in order at that time and I am therefore asking it now. Why was it necessary for the federal government to take $33 million of the taxpayers' money and give it to a company whose net income for 1970 was $55,772,000? Why has it been doing this sort of thing for years?
It is very difficult for some organizations to get much smaller subsidies. There are the organizations which help people without any profit to themselves. This year's estimates, for example, list the grants given to the Canadian Foundation on Alcoholism, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Canadian Tuberculosis Association, the Health League of Canada, the St. John Ambulance Association, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation and the Victorian Order of Nurses.
Taken together, all these organizations received a grand total of $172,000-an infinitesimal fraction of the $33.1 million handed over to Canadian Pacific Railway whose net profit last year was $55,772,000. Why the difference in treatment? The recent statement on income security issued by the National Council of Welfare refers to the inconsistency of our programs with our professed values. It compares welfare payments to various types of
24107-4i
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion recipients-mothers on welfare, foster parents and others. Then it comments as follows:
But if welfare payments to foster mothers are more than three times what welfare payments to assistance recipients are, they are still modest compared to payments to the real beneficiaries of government welfare programs, the corporate rich. Only these aren't called welfare programs. They are called things like "economic growth incentives". These payments-mining subsidies, tariff supports, tax incentives-represent regressive income transfer programs, money taxed from the poor and near-poor and given to the rich.
It seems to me that Canadian Pacific Railway has been a very fortunate social assistance recipient for years. The National Council of Welfare thinks it is time we extended this kind of welfare state to include the poor. But no, not this government! The National Council of Welfare goes on to say:
Rather than provide money to people, we give it to companies on condition they will use it to create jobs (along with profits). Under the Regional Development Incentives Act-through which IBM for example, received a grant of $6 million and all told more than $125 million has already been given away to corporations-we provide subsidies averaging more than $6,150 per job and running as high as $30,000 per job. And we continue to pour money into industrial support schemes, notwithstanding the spectacular record of failures and wastages of taxpayer money chalked up by government-assisted industries.
Of course, what the National Council of Welfare wants to see is a guaranteed income adequate to enable full participation in the Canadian society by every member of that society. We can afford it, but only if we stop subsidizing the corporate rich who don't need it, by the various devices which are used to give social assistance to the wealthy CPR and others.
Now I should like to hear the parliamentary secretary's answer to the question raised by the senior students of Killarney secondary school in Vancouver: Why was it necessary for the federal government to take $33.1 million of the taxpayers' money and give it to Canadian Pacific Railway, whose net income for 1970 was $55,772,000?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, since this matter was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) a number of weeks ago I have had an opportunity to take a look at the annual report from which figures were quoted.
The hon. member will recall that substantial changes were made to the National Transportation Act in 1967 which attempted to further rationalize financial assistance provided by the federal government to our national rail lines, in the public interest. The $33.1 million which was mentioned represents what is known as the normal payment by the federal government to Canadian Pacific Railway for 1969, not 1970. In 1970 the sum was reduced to $27.4 million, and it will be reduced again this year and again in each succeeding year to 1974 when the authority for such payments will expire under the act.
If the hon. member would like a detailed account of the approach adopted by Parliament to this matter I

May 6, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would refer her to section 469 of the act. When the act was passed "normal payment" was defined as follows:
-the payment that would have heen made to a railway company for a year If the sum specified in subsection (2) for that year was available to be divided among the eligible companies as a parliamentary appropriation to reimburse eligible companies for maintaining the level of rates for freight traffic at a level that would satisfy Order No. 101055 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada dated April 27, 1960.
Mr. Speaker, without attempting to explain the order referred to I would draw the hon. member's attention again to the fact that total normal payments are declining by the amount of $12 million per year to 1974, at which point they will end. These matters are technical and are somewhat difficult to explain without going into a great deal of detail. However, I hope my explanation has been of some assistance to the hon. member, and for more detail I am sending her a copy of section 469 of the act to which I have referred.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-LETTING OF CONTRACTS WITHOUT COMPETITIVE TENDERING

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on April 30 I asked the following question of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson):
Since $1.8 million was paid to one consultant firm for federal contracts in the last two years without competitive tendering, can the minister indicate what guarantees there may be against abuses in awarding contracts on the basis of non-competitive tendering?
Mr. Speaker suggested at that time the question was somewhat wide in scope, hence the reason for debating it tonight. In answer to question No. 675, which was an inquiry of the minister, I received certain figures. Perhaps I should put the question on the record. It was:
1. How many federal contracts have been let to the consulting firm of Kates, Peat and Marwick, in 1968 and 1969 (a) what was the total cost of the contracts in 1968 (b) what was the total cost of the contracts in 1969?
2 How many of these contracts for consulting services were awarded by competitive tender?
3. Were there any contracts let to the firm of Kates, Peat and Marwick concerning the survey of coal reserve estimates in any part of Canada and, if so, in what areas?
In response to that inquiry it was indicated that the Department of Agriculture had $20,350 with no tenders; CMHC, $2,000 with no tenders; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, $3,525 with no tenders; Energy, Mines and Resources, $5,000 with no tenders; Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, $10,000 with no tenders; Industry, Trade and Commerce, $13,000, two on competitive tenders; again, Industry Trade and Commerce, $65,200 with two contracts, one of which was on the basis of a tender; Manpower and Immigration, $40,020, no competitive tenders; the department of the minister responsible for housing, $5,000, no tenders; National Defence, $30,000 were tendered; Treasury Board, $320 with no tenders; National Health and Welfare, $23,108 with no tenders; National Revenue, $9,500 with one competitive tender.
The next one I cannot make out, but it amounted to $294,475, involving three contracts, one on a competitive tender basis. Then, the Privy Council, $4,000 with no tenders; the Public Staff Relations Board, $8,700 with no tenders. Then we have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, with two contracts amounting to $17,500, one on a competitive tender; the Department of the Secretary of State, $9,145 with no tenders; and the Department of Transport, with $1,523,173 with no competitive tenders. Canadian Transport Commission, $46,795, no competitive tender; the National Harbours Board, $11,800, one competitive tender; Treasury Board, $113,700, no competitive tender.
This amounted to $2,256,311. These figures amount to close to $2 million in respect of which there was no competitive tendering. Mr. Speaker, the main reason behind this question is to find out whether or not there have been any abuses in respect of tendering, when so few competitive bids are called for. I am not questioning the firm involved at this time or the ones granted the $2,256,311 in contracts, but it does make one wonder why that one firm with no competitive tendering is allowed to obtain so much of the taxpayer's money. There would appear to be a sharp increase in non-competitive tendering and the people of Canada are entitled to know the reason for granting contracts without competitive tendering.
We ask whether contracts should not be granted based on merit, and should they not be granted based on equality and fairness to all consulting firms. How can Canadian-managed and owned consulting firms establish themselves if they are not given an opportunity to bid on contracts? Who has the right to determine ability, in so far as consulting companies are concerned, to bid on these contracts? I suggest departments should not have the right to determine who should have an opportunity to obtain this type of contract.
I suggest Canadians are entitled to protection from being scalloped, and the only way this can be done-I agree there may be a few exceptions-is to put contracts up for competitive tendering. I am sure no one in this country would like to think that pork-barrel politics are involved in this type of non-competitive tendering. Therefore, I would ask the parliamentary secretary, who is kind enough to be here this evening, why so many contracts have been let on a non-competitive tendering Basis and why there appears to be an increase in this type of non-competitive tendering in so many departments of government.


Mr. Alasiair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply to the hardworking member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You are a man
of perspicuity.


Alastair William Gillespie: He has shown an impressive interest in management consulting, although whether or not he feels

May 6, 1971

the government should benefit from the services of management consultants was not altogether clear to me. On receiving notice of his question I did my own research and a little management consulting. I hope I shall be able to answer his question this evening.


John Leroy Skoberg: Did you hire somebody?


Alastair William Gillespie: There was no competitive tendering on this one. The basic principle, of course, is that on all contracts tenders must be called unless there are good reasons for not calling them. There are a number of safeguards to the system of awarding contracts throughout the government service. They are prescribed in government contract regulations issued under authority of the Financ.al Administration Act.
Tenders must be called except in specified circumstances such as-there are three examples I can cite- when the need is urgent, when there is only one source of supply, or when the value of the contract is small and the cost to both the taxpayer or the unsuccessful contractor is out of all proportion to the value of the contract itself. I believe hon. members would agree that these
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion combine both the principles of control on the one hand and concern for the public purse and the necessary flexibility in managing a giant ente-orise.
In the case of awards of contracts to management consultants, price competition alone is only one of the selection criteria. There is a directive on this subject issued ''v the Treasury Board. It instructs all department;. obtain proposals where possible. These are iudge on the basis of eight factors included in the directive. I should like to say, also, that this policy has the endorsement of the Canadian Association of Management Consultants. A registry of qualified firms is maintained by the board. I think it is also important to add that the firms themselves evaluate their own capabilities for entry in this registry.
The hon. member read into the record this evening the summary of the return tabled the other day in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the parliamentary secretary has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20
p.m.

Friday, May 7, 1971