1971-10-06

VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, of Philip Gerald Givens, Esquire, member for the electoral district of York West, by resignation.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. This matter concerns the administrative responsibility of the government to the Indians of northern Alberta. The Indian students have been withheld from school and parents have protested the school facilities provided for their children and have requested the minister responsible to meet with them to discuss improvement of the school facilities as well as living conditions.
Yesterday 200 Indians demonstrated outside the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources office at St. Paul. A further meeting has been called for Sunday. Government officials and the minister have been asked to attend. These grievances cannot be permitted to escalate. Therefore I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That this House instruct the minister to meet with the Indians of northern Alberta and the bands affected immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Did the United States order a suspension of payments on the balance due to the Canadian National West Indies Steamships Limited and, if so, is this order being maintained?
2.	What is the position of the Canadian government concerning this matter?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Payment of the balance due to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd. cannot be made unless a licence is obtained under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States has not authorized the issuance of such a licence.
2. The Canadian Government continues to attempt to collect the balance owing.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given to a federally sponsored program for calibrating equipment for the measurement of skid characteristics of highway pavement?
2.	Is consideration being given to improving safety requirements for motor-vehicle carrier fuel systems?


Gérard Duquet: 1. No. A technical committee of the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, which includes technical experts from each of the federal and provincial government departments having skid resistance measurement equipment, has made arrangements for cooperative tests in order to calibrate such devices so as to produce consistent and uniform measurement results.
2. Consideration is being given to extending the scope of the current Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 relating to fuel systems for passenger cars so as to include all trucks and buses as well as additional performance requirements.


HIGHWAY SAFETY-SEAT BELTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to encouraging, by education or legislation, the wearing of seat belts by drivers or relief drivers of interprovincially operated commercial vehicles?


Gérard Duquet: Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations man-

October 6, 1971
Questions
dating the installation of seat belts in all trucks and buses in 1972 will be proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I, very soon. The Department of Transport is also conducting studies of seat belt usage in Canada in an effort to identify techniques, which might be employed to encourage all drivers to wear them. A Committee of Federal and Provincial Transport Department officials is now studying the need for national operating safety regulations for interprovincial commercial motor vehicle carriers.


HIGHWAY SAFETY-REAR VISION DEVICES
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to acquiring, installing and testing of periscopes on government owned vehicles to enable indirect visibility for motor vehicles and permit drivers to monitor the motoring environment to the rear of the vehicle?


Gérard Duquet: The entire rear vision standard for motor vehicles is presently under review. Consideration is being given to requirements which could necessitate the use of devices similar to periscopes. For this reason, various proposed systems are being studied. Vehicles for experimental purposes are now being acquired by the Department of Transport and within the next few months various rear vision aids will be installed for evaluation.


AMHERST, N.S.-ENGINEERING SERVICES OFFICES
Mr. Coales: 1.	Has a final decision been reached by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the engineering services offices in Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so, what was the decision?
2.	Have any complaints been received by the Department with regard to any closure or reduction of services of this office and, if so, from whom were they received and in what form were the complaints submitted?
3.	What was the total staff, permanent and temporary, of this office during the last fiscal year, and what was the total payroll for the fiscal year 1970-71?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. A decision has been taken that the engineering services office at Amherst, N.S., should be phased out as a purely federal operation as of March 31, 1972. However, discussions are continuing with the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island regarding a possible role for the office after that date.
2.	Yes; letters have been received from Robert C. Coates, M.P., D. A. Casey, R. S. Bacon, M.L.A. and Kenneth J. Streatch.
3.	Strength, including continuing employees, casuals and others, was 66 at the beginning of the 1970-71 fiscal year and 59 at the close of the year, with a utilization of 70 man-years for the period. Total payroll for 1970-71 was $553,820 for all employees.


GEORGETOWN, P.E.I.-EXPANSION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PLANT
Mr. McQuaid: What are the details of the proposed expansion of the Prince Edward Island Industrial Corporation plant at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, and how many new jobs will this create?


Jean Marchand: As listed on page 25 of the Report on the Operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act for the period August 1 to August 31, 1971, which was tabled in the House of Commons on September 10, 1971: Location of Plant: Georgetown, P.E.I. Type of Industry: Ships and vessels. Type of project: Expansion. Expected Eligible Cost: $75,000. Expected Additional Employment: Nil. Rate of Offer: 15 per cent of the approved capital costs. Estimated Amount of Offer: $11,250.


NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED REGISTERED AT CANADA MANPOWER CENTRES
Mr. Badanai: How many unemployed registered at Manpower Centres in the following categories (a) age fourteen to eighteen (b) age eighteen to twenty-one (c) married women whose husbands are employed (d) married women over sixty years of age?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) and (b) The ages of registered clients without employment at Canada Manpower Centres are reported quarterly, by selected age groups. For the whole of Canada, the total number of registered clients at Canada Manpower Centres, who were without employment and were under 20 years of age, at the end of June 1971, was 249,758. Data are not available separately for the age groups 14 to 18 and 18 to 21. It should be noted that the data on registered clients without employment represent a count of the live files which is taken on the last working day of each month. The figures are very different in concept from the official unemployment estimates which are produced by Statistics Canada, (c) Not available, (d) Not available.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-OPERATIONAL DATA ON JOB ORDERS
Mr. Blackburn: Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration been collecting operational data on job orders and, if so (a) since what date (b) how often have these data been collected (c) what were the amounts of job orders in Canada and in the five regions for each of the available periods to date, in terms of totals and broad occupational classifications?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) Data on Employers' Orders have been collected by the Department of Manpower and Immigration since its inception, (b) The statistics are reported monthly, (c) Employers' Orders (including orders for casual workers) for the periods April to July 1970 and April to July 1971, and the fiscal years 1966-67 to 1970-71 are as follows:

October 6, 1971

Questions


CANADA MANPOWER CENTRES EMPLOYERS' ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
April-July	April-July					
	July	July					
Region	1971	1970	1970-1971	1969-1970	1968-1969	1967-1968	1966-1967Atlantic	
23,072	21,927	54,091	54,586	48,333	52,116	53,199Quebec	
58,810	51,477	134,222	151,574	150,151	171,819	201,879Ontario	
101,747	80,038	224,605	263,318	264,091	273,878	307,934Prairie	
45,897	40,845	102,773	119,049	120,751	156,066	182,082Pacific	.:	
36,703	29,526	79,910	105,992	88,073	106,642	104,834Canada	
266,229	223,813	595,601	694,519	671,399	760,521	849,928
Source: MAN 751, Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Note: An Employers' Order may be for one or more vacancies. Employers' Orders by broad occupational classifications are not available.

Mr. Marshall: How many clients were registered at the following Manpower centres at the end of August 1971, male and female (a) Corner Brook, Newfoundland (b) St. John's, Newfoundland (c) Halifax, Nova Scotia (d) Moncton, New Brunswick?


Otto Emil Lang: The number of clients registered at the Corner Brook, Nfld., St. John's Nfld., Halifax, N.S., and Moncton, N.B., Canada Manpower Centres at the end of August 1971 are shown in the following table:
DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION CANADA MANPOWER CENTRES August 1971
Corner
Brook	St. John's	Halifax	MonctonNfld.	Nfld.	N.S.	N.B.Registered Clients	Without Employment	Including students. ...	. M	7,678	5,299	5,656	3,608F	1,834	1,592	2,742	2,079Excluding students	M	7,344	3,655	4,792	2,630F	1,671	817	2,316	1,538Registered Clients	. M	160	352	475	196With Employment	. F	47	62	265	163Total (including	M	7,838	5,651	6,131	3,804students)	. F	1,881	1,654	3,007	2,242
Source: MAN 757, Department of Manpower and Immigration
The data on registered clients without employment represent a count of the live files which is taken on the last working day of each month. The figures are very different in concept from the official unemployment estimates which are produced by Statistics Canada.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION-RETIREMENT AGE OF PRESIDENT
Mr. Orlikow: Has the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission passed the normal age of retirement in the government service and (a) if so (i) when was he given an extension (ii) for what
reasons (iii) for what term (b) if not (i) when is he due to retire (ii) has a decision been made as to his replacement?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: There is no such position as Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. The President of the Canadian Transport Commission was appointed under sections 6 and 7 of the National Transportation Act which states, inter alia, that a Commissioner's term of appointment shall not exceed a period of ten years and he may continue to hold office upon attaining the age of 65 years but he ceases to hold office upon reaching the age of 70 years. The incumbent president was appointed effective September 19, 1967. His term will end on June 23, 1975, when he reaches age 70.


Mr. McCleave:: I wish to raise a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should have raised it immediately after the parliamentary secretary sat down, but I thought my hon. friend from Athabasca might have had a similar intention in mind.
My question of privilege arises out of starred question 1793 which I placed on the order paper on September 29. It is an honest probe for information, asking what public acts of Canada are not included in the revised statutes of this country. The Minister of Justice referred previously to about 150 acts. The purpose of my question was to ascertain whether there were in fact 150 public acts or whether acts such as the Canadian Pacific Railway Act and similar measures were being smuggled into his figure. In the past the starred question has been a method by which Members of Parliament could achieve within a reasonably short period of time answers to inquiries on matters of burning public moment. I suggest that my question falls exactly into that category and I think it is an act of incomparable rudeness that I am not answered today.
8478

October 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDIAN AFFAIRS ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN IN NORTHEASTERN ALBERTA
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 26 to ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the necessity to meet an emergency in relation to the non-attendance at school of a large number of Indian children, and the necessity for the government to take immediate action to provide adequate facilities to meet the requirements of Indian children in northern Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House to debate the matter just stated by him.
All members will agree, I am sure, that the matter raised by the hon. member is of great importance and one of widespread concern, but I wonder whether it meets the requirements of the rule which provides for immediate debate by the House. I suggest to him that there are other means by which he might, in a preliminary way, raise this problem. It may be that the matter may develop to the point where the business of the House must be set aside in order to deal with the question he has posed, but it seems to the Chair that it would be premature to put the motion to the House at this time.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the daily reports of lay-offs in our industries, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the measures he proposes to take with regard to stimulating employment, and which he indicated yesterday would be taken as soon as possible, will be in the form of a new budget?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Prime Minister's answer rule out any prospect of the economy being stimulated by some reduction in taxation other than the removal of the 3 per cent surtax in the June budget and the shifting of tax burdens contemplated by the tax reform bill before the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think it is possible for me to say, without making an announcement, what I am eliminating and what the government will retain among the various suggestions made by members on both sides of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is encouraging that possibly the Prime Minister is considering some such reduction. I should like to ask him whether, when this new package or program is presented to the House, it will be accompanied by a statement with regard to trends in the economy, projected rates of growth and projected rates of unemployment, because clearly those which were contained in the budget speech forecasts of the Minister of Finance last June are no longer applicable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not agree with the premises of the question. As to the form of the statement, the Leader of the Opposition will have to be patient and see how it is made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not for too long, I hope.



REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT-CREATING MUNICIPAL PROGRAMS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the request of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that the federal government announce its intention very soon to contribute to the funding of employment-creating programs advanced by the municipalities through grants and loans to those municipalities that are prepared to accelerate any plans they have in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have considered a great number of useful suggestions, as I have just told the Leader of the Opposition. As to which of them have been retained, I am afraid the hon. member will have to wait until we make the announcement.



UNITED STATES PRECONDITIONS FOR REMOVAL OF IMPORT SURTAX

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous effect that the United States 10 per cent surtax has on all facets of the Canadian economy, would the Prime Minister advise the House when the government intends to find out from the United States government what conditions must prevail before that government would be willing to remove the 10 per cent surtax on imports from Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we can only find out when the United States itself decides that there is going to be a series of conditions put to us to
October 6, 1971

do certain things. I have assured the House that there has been no such statement of position by the United States. As far as Canada is concerned, the House will appreciate that we have been approaching this problem as much as possible on a multilateral basis because we feel that trading patterns throughout the whole world are important to Canada.


George Harris Hees: Since Secretary of the Treasury Connally has clearly indicated that certain conditions must be met, when does the Prime Minister intend to get up sufficient courage to go to the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -and ask the specific question as to what we must do in order that the surcharge may be removed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.



STABILIZATION BILL-REQUEST BY SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL AND NATIONAL FARMERS UNION FOR EARLY MEETING

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the communication from the president of the National Farmers Union to the minister urging either the minister or the Prime Minister to meet members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the National Farmers Union at an early date, would the minister tell the House what the nature of his reply was?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the president of the National Farmers Union did talk to me yesterday about a meeting on Thursday or Friday but I have rather significant commitments on both those days. I did offer Sunday and Monday to him but he said that that was the weekend and not very convenient for them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the request that has been made for the minister to meet a large number of grain growers in the west under the invitation of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the National Farmers Union, is the minister preparing to arrange some such meeting with the farm organizations to discuss Bill C-244?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the leaders of other farm organizations about an early meeting to deal with a number of questions not necessarily related to Bill C-244. I stand ready and willing to meet farmers and farm organizations at any time.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Given the importance of this question at the present time, and in view of the very strong position taken by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and National Farmers Union in statements made by them on September 30 and October 4, would the Prime Minister himself be prepared to meet with these
Inquiries of the Ministry
organizations in order to bring about some satisfactory conclusion to this very important question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I might be prepared to consider that suggestion, but am I to understand that the New Democratic Party is prepared to have us hold up the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act a little while longer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that to the extent we are able we should not inject into the question period the debate which has been raging in the House for some days and will continue later today. Perhaps we might reserve a half hour of the time of the House for matters other than that particular bill. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina East for one supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.



STABILIZATION BILL-DELAY OF CONSIDERATION FOR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH PRAIRIE FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the expressions of dissatisfaction with Bill C-244 by various farm organizations and the prairie governments, and in view of the very specific alternatives for a better sort of plan put forward by those organizations and governments, is the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board now willing to delay further consideration of Bill C-244 until additional discussions can be held with these prairie farm organizations and governments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to urge the House to come to a vote on Bill C-244 and pass it. I should like the hon. member to know that my mail from farmers is running about five to one in favour of passing Bill C-244.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I didn't know he had five friends.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Regina East is rising on a question of privilege.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should know that the only correspondence I have which is running five to one in favour of the plan is from his constituency executive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: October 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Just a few days ago, the Minister of Public Works stated that he was sure that the U.S. 10 per cent surtax would be removed long before the Christmas season. Is the Prime Minister aware of the indications on which the minister based that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the only indication I could mention would be the minister's natural optimism. I do not know of any others.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF PROPOSED UNITED STATES JOB DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he inform the House whether, during multilateral or direct talks with the United States involving the DISC program and the surcharge, any attempt is being made to persuade the United States not to enact the job development tax credit-JDTC-which is to be retroactive to August 18 and represents a hidden surcharge that might be more disastrous in the way of unemployment than even the surcharge itself?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Prime Minister indicated his government is now relying principally on multilateral efforts in connection with the United States 10 per cent surtax on imports. Does this mean the Prime Minister has pretty well abandoned any expectation of an exemption for Canada from this surtax by the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been our approach, nor is it at this time. The approach was that Canada was not asking for any special favours. Canada's position is that the United States approach to the multilateral situation had to be applied in the case of particular countries to decide whether the approach was valid. We said that in the case of Canada we had already met in advance those conditions the United States was trying to extract from the rest of the world for the eventual lifting of the surtax.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that was serious.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-PUBLICATION OF REPORT TO CABINET-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON BROAD ECONOMIC GOALS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question-I think it is but we will see-for the Prime Minister. The government has not said whether the Gray report will be released in a watered down form, presumably so as not to discourage foreign investment. Will the right hon. gentleman tell us whether

that study, which I understand took some 20 months, will be published in an unedited form, or can we expect it to be published in the form in which it was presented to the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member should refer to something he says I said which is contrary to what I have always said, namely, that the report would not be published in one form or another. This is a report to cabinet and it is in the form of a cabinet document now. There is no intention on the part of the government to publish it at any time.


Mr. Fairweather:: Now that we have cleared that up, since the Gray Report has in effect been scuttled and having in mind also the damage of the surcharge and the fears about the DISC program alluded to a minute ago, as a minimum response will the government make a statement on broad economic goals for the country and, if so, can we expect a public statement soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member has got all the premises of his question wrong. He has not cleared up anything, in the sense that there was never any statement by anybody on this side that we would publish the so-called Gray Report. Therefore the government's position on that matter has not been changed. In so far as action is concerned we have always said we would make a policy statement on the basis of the studies made by the minister. This is still our intention. As to the timing, I told the House a few days ago it would be as soon as possible.



CAPITAL SPENDING BY U.S. SUBSIDIARIES ON MANUFACTURING AND EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES- GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary of the Prime Minister arising out of the semi-annual report of the United States Department of Commerce which indicates that United States subsidiaries in Canada are planning to increase their capital spending in this country in 1971 and 1972 by some 13 per cent and 11 per cent respectively but that this capital spending is to be less in the manufacturing field-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that he should try to ask the question as briefly as possible. The question period is only 40 minutes and many members are seeking to ask questions. Questions should be asked briefly and at the same time answers should also be as brief as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I point out that the estimate is that their capital spending for manufacturing in Canada will be substantially reduced and capital spending for extraction industries will be increased correspondingly. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this is consistent with the Canadian government's policy having in mind the Prime Minister's reference to the fact that he does not want Canada to become merely a supplier of raw materials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I would have to study the statistics
October 6, 1971

put forward by the hon. member to see what implications to draw from them.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Perth might allow the hon. member a supplementary, which I hope will be brief.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if the group that was assembled by the Minister of National Revenue to prepare the report on foreign ownership which has now been submitted to cabinet is still in existence and, if so, what role it is now fulfilling?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the so-called group was essentially composed of people on the minister's staff and I believe some outside people. I see the minister is indicating that the group is still in existence.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister in charge of manpower. I refer to the recent closing of the Werlich Industries Limited plant at Stratford causing the lay-off of some 150 employees. Has the minister looked into this matter and, can he say what might be done for these people who have been laid off?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the name of the company.


An hon. Member:: They make toboggans.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is Werlich Industries Limited.


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure I have a report at hand in respect of that particular company. I shall be glad to check and report to the hon. member.



DOMTAR STRIKE-ADEQUATE REMUNERATION OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour.
Since approximately 200 workers in the manufacturing of insulating board in Donnacona are presently on strike to claim equal working conditions and wages with their colleagues of the same community who are working in the newsprint area, and that the chairman of Domtar, Mr. T. M. Beaupre, has recommended salary increases for many categories of Canadians working for the federal government, can the hon. minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should make his question as short as possible. I do not think that it is in order to have a question preceded by a series of pream-
Inquiries of the Ministry
bles. The hon. member should put his question as quickly as possible.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister say whether he intends to suggest to Mr. Beaupre to apply his own recommendations to his employees now on strike?



SHIPPING


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Two weeks ago I asked the minister a question concerning the congested traffic situation in the Vancouver harbour and the difficulties being faced by Canadian importers. He gave me privately an interim report. I am wondering now whether he is in a position to give us a more factual estimate of what is happening in light of the continuing complaints, particularly as to the involved management and the difficulties for Canadians in getting their goods?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I will answer as briefly as possible, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday I met with representatives of the Canadian Importers Association. There were people from Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto in the group of about ten. We went over various alternatives. I told them I knew of no way under the law, or indeed any other way, by which a full embargo on the port of Vancouver would be possible. I do not believe that can be done. I did, however, undertake to make a public appeal which I then did to the wharf operators and others in Vancouver to give preference to Canadian cargoes. I followed this up by asking the acting chairman of the National Harbours Board to go to Vancouver where he is today convening a face to face meeting between the wharf operators and the importers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the minister taken into account the pressing demand for increased facilities in the harbour and the criticisms and difficulties with regard to the port management structure which has been put on a new basis much against the wish of the people concerned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not believe that that is a related question. However, we have taken into account all of the matters to which the hon. member has referred and I think he will discover that the majority of those in the port of Vancouver agreed with the actions that have been taken in this particular case.



CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF FACILITIES TO TRAIN DOCTORS- GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

October 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the Canadian Medical Association's urgent request for expanded medical training in Canada to combat the shortage of doctors and in view of CMA's call for fewer foreign and more Canadian doctors, is the minister prepared to act on this recommendation and hold meetings with the medical profession and the provinces with a view to providing more funds for medical schools for Canadian students?
Hon. )ohn C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare): I have already had several meetings with the principal organization, the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges. I was with them the last two days. I have also discussed this situation with representatives of the CMA. It is not entirely clear that the solution the hon. member is suggesting is the right one.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Can the minister then state to the House whether he believes that there is a shortage of medical doctors in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that a few days ago the minister revealed that the government is in a surplus position with respect to the first five months of the current fiscal year, can the minister say when the government intends to use that surplus to stimulate the economy as he and other ministers have promised the government would do?


Edgar John Benson: Monthly figures which are published on a cash basis are very misleading because expenditures which are committed early in the year pile up toward the end of the year, and I can well foresee that the deficit I forecast will be there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his honesty about his misleading figures.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the protest by the Letter Carriers Union of Canada that the reduction in postal service along with the increased rates in recent years is contributing to the current drastic slowdown in the Canadian economy, will the minister review and reverse the policy, as he did with the closure of rural post offices?


Hon. lean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: I do not
agree with the premise of the question because there was no reduction in the services.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Inasmuch as the postal service is vital to the Canadian business economy and also because of the decline in postal business as represented by figures from the minister's own department, will he not take emergency action to reverse this trend?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of recent news reports that a formal application has been made by CP Air either to the minister or his department for authority to continue trans-Canada flights to Halifax, can the minister tell us whether there is any possibility of CP Air being given authority to serve this area in the near future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker. Such an answer would have to come from the Canadian Transport Commission.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REPRESENTATION FOR MUNICIPALITIES AT FORTHCOMING MEETING

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the delegates to the convention of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities showed a marked interest in additional credits being earmarked for municipal projects, would he tell us whether he is willing to allow the matter to be discussed at the coming federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the hon. member knows what the difficulties are. We, of the federal government, are always willing to discuss these things with the municipalities, but the provincial governments, and in particular that of Quebec, are often opposed to it. I must add that last year, in Winnipeg, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs did get the representatives of the provincial governments, including that of the Quebec minister of municipal affairs, to agree to tripartite conferences which we hope will lead to happy results.

October 6, 1971



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Will the minister get in touch with the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and insist that strict impartiality be exercised in the news broadcasts and public affairs programs concerning coverage of the current Ontario provincial election? I refer specifically to news broadcasts in the last several days in which an obvious attempt was being made to promote favourably the leader of the Ontario Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He needs help.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. In light of recent statements by the Minister of Justice of Quebec and yesterday by the Minister of National Defence to the effect that the War Measures Act was too blunt an instrument and too dangerous a tool to put in the hands of police officers, is the government considering now bringing in a new law or new measures with reference to the security problem?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: There is an order before the House that has not been fully debated. There have been two days of debate on a resolution to put this matter before a committee of the House of Commons, and that still stands.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister now consider, in light of the facts now coming from the Minister of Justice of Quebec and the Minister of National Defence, approving an amendment to that motion whereby a full investigation of the facts could be placed before Parliament and the people of Canada so that we can be apprised of what kind of law should be implemented when it is implemented?


John Napier Turner: I already answered that argument in the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can understand the Minister of Justice answering in that way. He is the lawbreaker of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport who has not yet broken the law. I
Inquiries of the Ministry
should like to know whether the minister is aware of an application or a notice of application by Bell Canada for a substantial increase in rates by that very wealthy company and whether the minister is giving the matter any consideration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe this question might more properly be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Communications because, although the Canadian Transport Commission deals with such applications, where they relate to communications they also relate to that particular department.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Communications take the ball that the Minister of Transport has just thrown to him?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to throw the ball to the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission which has jurisdiction in this field. The minister does not have that jurisdiction, but I will be glad to make inquiries of the chairman of the commission.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister of Communications whether he is aware of this application, or of the intention to apply, and whether he will recommend to cabinet that this time the government should enter the picture to see to it that additional increases in rates for Bell Canada, which seem to me to be unconscionable, will not be allowed by the commission?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The law provides that the jurisdiction in this respect rests with the Canadian Transport Commission, Mr. Speaker.



PROGRESS IN INCLUDING DENTAL CARE IN MEDICAL INSURANCE PLANS

Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread concern throughout the country that dental care should be more equally available to all Canadians, could the minister report on what progress is being made to include dental care in medical insurance schemes?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there have been considerable discussions with the provinces, at the official level, and to a degree also at the ministerial level, on new cost-sharing arrangements under both medicare and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. During those discussions the question of increased coverage for services other than those now covered has come up and the provinces are considering it. I expect that the provinces will make further representations concerning this matter over the course of the next few months.

October 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate by what date he anticipates that some provinces might be willing to enter into such a scheme?


John Carr Munro: I cannot clearly indicate that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there are many provinces which have yet decided that this is their next priority area. Some feel drugs are more important, and so on.



HARBOURS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Canada Shipping Act requires that only Canadian ships be used between Canadian ports, is the minister contemplating the designation of offshore oil rigs as Canadian ports, as I believe was recommended in chapter 15 of the Darling report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting proposition but, as the hon. member knows, the whole of the report is now being examined and I would not want at this time to indicate what our intentions are with respect to one specific part of it except to say that we hope to make our intentions known in the near future.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries in charge of the environment. Can the minister indicate whether the government has a contingency anti-pollution plan for the offshore oil effort at the present moment and whether he would be prepared to table such plan in the House of Commons?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: The
answer is yes in both cases, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises out of the statement made by his special assistant, Mr. Moses, to the effect that Ottawa has been fed inaccurate information by Indian Affairs departmental officials with respect to living conditions on the reserves in northeastern Alberta. Is there any corrective action being taken in order that the minister may be adequately and accurately informed of the conditions as they are on the reserves, particularly since he refuses to visit them?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken forthwith to correct certain problems which called for

an urgent solution. I must say that the prevailing situation there is somewhat difficult. It must be pointed out to the House that between 1968 and 1970 we have more than doubled the budget in that respect, and we intend to devote ourselves particularly to improve that situation.
The hon. member would be well advised to urge parents not to use Indian children for blackmailing purposes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This seems to me to be debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying that he was unaware of the conditions in northeastern Alberta, particularly the living conditions, until his special assistant had visited the area and reported to him?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker. I knew that conditions were difficult and that is why, in the last two years the government has more than doubled the funds available to this area. It is obvious that more money would be needed, but we cannot achieve everything in one year and we hope to improve the situation in the next few years. The people of this area can be assured of my co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow one supplementary on this subject, but if hon. members look around the House they will see there are still quite a few members seeking the opportunity to ask questions, and of course many of them will not have that opportunity this afternoon.



WITHDRAWAL OF CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL AS PROTEST AGAINST LIVING CONDITIONS-SUGGESTED MEETING WITH UNION OF ONTARIO INDIANS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the statement by Fred Plain, president of the Union of Ontario Indians, that a campaign is under way to keep Indian children out of school as a protest against living conditions and in the hope that this will force the government to take cognizance of them and take some corrective action, has the minister any plans to meet with the Union of Ontario Indians, or the chiefs, to work out a plan to assist in the areas involved?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to meet with them if they want to come and meet with me here. I met the president of the National Indian Brotherhood on this problem a week ago. We are doing our best to ameliorate the conditions, but to use the kids as blackmail I think is absolutely unacceptable.


Frank Howard: On a point of order-


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


Frank Howard: The point of order is a simple one, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister was not indicating that I was using children as blackmail in this effort-
October 6, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated to hon. members that I hope we may be able to move along. We have had a number of supplementaries on this subject.


Frank Howard: -but if blackmail is what is needed, then they better use it.


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


Frank Howard: What I would like to ask the minister-


Mr. Blackburn:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Brant. Unless the hon. member for Skeena is rising on a point of order or question of privilege, I have to give the floor to the hon. member for Brant.


Frank Howard: Yes. The point of order is that the minister said he would be glad to meet with them at any time; yet I understand he has declined to attend a meeting with them in Cornwall on October 9 and 10, without any valid reason.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister rises on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have accepted an invitation to be in Manitoba tomorrow to meet with the Indians of Manitoba and on the weekend, which is supposed to be free, I will visit ten different communities in the Northwest Territories because I want to be aware of the problems, but I cannot be everywhere all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STUDY OF HILL REPORT ON FUTURE OF MOHAWK INSTITUTE-POLICY STATEMENT

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could the minister inform the House if his department has studied the Hill report on the future of the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario, and, if so, when can we expect a policy statement on the future of that institution?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice and I shall be glad to give the answer to the hon. member soon.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. In
Inquiries of the Ministry
view of the controversy over the high cost of the last conference held in the Laurentians by officials of Information Canada, why did the minister authorize another such conference and what was the cost of this meeting to the Canadian taxpayers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that question should be placed on the order paper or raised at the time of adjournment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why this conference was not held in Ottawa in order to save this cost to the taxpayers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there is urgency about the question it can be raised at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to travel in Newfoundland some time during the next three weeks to return the favour to his friend, Premier Smallwood, which the premier extended to him during the 1968 election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AIR TRANSPORT


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he will be presenting for the approval of the House the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, assented to by Canada and by the majority of the countries that attended the meeting in Montreal in September of the International Civil Aviation Organization?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will understand when I say I think the answer is yes but I am not sure what the formal disposal of such documents is.



TAXATION


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance regarding a statement made on television last night by the finance minister of the Quebec Liberal government that his government was planning to tax capital gains. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he intends to talk to

October 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
his Quebec counterpart in order to avoid double taxation in that field?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have had several discussions over the past several years about the tax measures which are presently before the House. I presume that what the Minister of Finance of Quebec was indicating was that they would enact a provincial law similar to the federal law to make sure that the two coincide, as they now do.


Georges-J. Valade: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
If the provincial government intends to levy this type of tax, I wish the minister would tell us in the House that the federal government will not impose a double taxation.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question is hypothetical.



POLLUTION


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Because of the confusion being caused in Canada by the publication of United States conclusions that antiphosphate laws and policies concerning detergents should be reconsidered, can the minister say whether Canadian target dates for the restriction and elimination of phosphates in detergents will be met?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion here. Our dates still hold. Those targets will be met.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Can the minister say whether research will be stepped up to determine the value or harm of phosphate substitutes now being used in detergents?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a research program along those lines has been going on for some months and will be continued, especially in respect of NTA as a substitute for phosphates.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning lay-offs which now seem to be affecting Crown corporations. Is the government going to take any action to avert a further lay-off of some 250 employees of the government's own Crown corporation, Polymer Limited?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention by the hon; member for Sarnia. I told him I would look into it and discuss with the Minister of Supply and Services what might be done.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of Finance are becoming extremely concerned about the possible effects of the DISC program, is the Prime Minister to make a statement about the effects of this program and what action the government intends to take in order to relieve the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the DISC program not having passed through Congress yet, the question becomes hypothetical. I can merely say that the government is looking at it and watching its progress with great interest.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to adopt as its own policy the recommendation made by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission with respect to the amendment of Section 12(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that recommendation has not been made to me at this point.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the concern expressed in the telecommunications report and the Science Council report that vital information on Canadian resources, industry and commerce is being stored nearly exclusively in data banks in the United States, can the minister say whether the government is planning any steps to transfer the storage of this information to Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that there is a task force on computer communications now at work. I am looking forward to getting recommendations from the task force within the next few months.

October 6, 1971

Prairie Grain Stabilization Act



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister be consulting with Mr. Robert Nixon on possible dates for federal-provincial conferences to be held after October 21-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: That will be the day.


An hon. Member:: What a hope.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -in view of the obvious win of Mr. Nixon in the television debate last Monday night?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: The answer is no.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his parliamentary secretary, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will ask the minister to investigate a statement that there is discontent and unrest among the 4,000 employees of Statistics Canada because they have been asked to be photographed and fingerprinted for security purposes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the question to the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the government to see that people employed in the Public Service, Crown corporations, or wherever else they may be employed are fingerprinted and photographed for security reasons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any general policy along those lines but it is entirely conceivable that in certain departments and under certain circumstances that policy is being tried. I will inquire.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 6th day of October, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 5, consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to add to the remarks which I began last night. The debate on this bill ended last night with a question by a colleague to my left. In order that the House may understand the relevance of my remarks, I should like to read the question the hon. member asked. The question was by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) and is reported at page 8470:
It may seem strange to some people that a medical doctor is so concerned about this bill. Would the hon. member indicate his real concern and the type of constituency he represents in which the concern is so evident?
I am glad the hon. member indicated that the concern of our constituents is so evident. I simply say that it does not matter to a constituent what profession the man who represents him pursues. In my case, I represent mainly farmers. It does not take a member of my profession long to realize that the agricultural industry is in an extremely difficult position. My concern in this case is the same as it would be if I were looking after a patient, except in this case the patient is the agricultural industry itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: In addition, I am concerned about my constituents, mostly farmers, who are being forced off the land through the policies of an insensitive government. It has been devising policies which have meant an ever decreasing net income for farmers. The result has been that, in the area in which I live, during the past five or six years half the farmers have abandoned their land, have moved and are still continuing to move to the towns.

October 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Actually, about 10 per cent per year leave, so that in ten years nobody may be left on the land. What will happen to the communities and towns which depend on farmers for their survival? As things now are, you can drive anywhere through the Prairies and you will find every 15 or 20 miles towns which at one time were fairly prosperous but which are now ghost towns. I do not want to see the rest of the communities in my constituency turn into ghost towns. I do not want to see what was once a prosperous farming constituency turn into an area of barren land.
In order to cut the cost of production and help resolve the ever increasing problem of reducing farm income, we must have legislation which is more substantial than this grain stabilization bill. We need legislation which will have the effect of lowering the cost of producing and decreasing the cost of farm machinery and other machinery that is used. At the same time, we must have legislation which guarantees some stability to the price paid to farmers and guarantees a reasonable return to the farmer for his efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate because of what I consider to be the impression created by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who is piloting this bill through the House. The minister has tried to create the impression that at the meeting last Friday with the prairie ministers of agriculture he agreed he was willing to reconsider the basic principles of this legislation, but he wanted a week to think about it; that he would recommend that the House not be asked to proceed with discussion of the bill during this week and in return the three prairie ministers of agriculture would discuss with Members of Parliament, members of the opposition in particular, the proposal that they not ask questions or make statements which would exacerbate the heated debate now taking place.
The ministers of agriculture of the three prairie provinces assumed they had an agreement with the minister because the minister had agreed, not that he would recommend changes in the bill, but would give consideration to changes. The three prairie ministers of agriculture asked their Members of Parliament, particularly those from western Canada who are in the opposition, not to cool the debate, but to cool the heat for the next week or so. Lo and behold, the minister found it necessary or expedient to break that agreement. He appeared in a television interview over the weekend. On Sunday evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appeared on television on the program "The Nation's Business". He again defended this bill and attacked the opposition.
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, members of the opposition asked the minister for an explanation as to why he went back on his agreement. We were told in a round about way that there was no agreement. I have known and worked closely with the Manitoba minister of agriculture for 10 years. If there is one quality he has, it is honesty. I do not believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will not mind if I bring to his attention, as I have tried on other occasions since the debate on this amendment
began, that the remarks of members should refer to some extent at least to the amendment. Hon. members will appreciate if we have general speeches, general contributions which do not relate to the motion, let alone the amendment, but relating generally to the bill before the House, it will be difficult to have any logical and Parliamentary debate in this institution. If there is a vote on the amendment, I can foresee another long series of speeches which will, in essence, be the same speeches we are now hearing because members will not be called upon to relate their speeches to what is before the House.
I think hon. members, who have the right to speak as often as they wish in reference to a specific question, should try to relate their contributions to what is before the House. When this amendment is disposed of, we will go back to the motion and eventually to other motions. Hon. members should show good will by keeping this debate within the rules of the House. It is really the only way we can operate. I do not see how we can function properly if no effort is made by hon. members to confine their speeches to matters before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: I have listened to Your Honour's suggestions carefully. The bulk of my remarks today will consist of putting on the record the proposals which the government of Manitoba and the minister of agriculture of Manitoba made in reference to this whole question. I suggest that the amendment which we are now discussing clearly spells out the kind of thinking which the government of Manitoba and the minister of that province proposed in their statements with regard to this bill.
Before going into the details, I want to record my disappointment, and that is putting it mildly, with the minister in charge of this legislation. In my opinion, he has broken an agreement which he made only a few days ago with the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba and the other prairie Ministers of Agriculture. We cannot have a logical discussion on this other amendment or on the whole question if we are not going to have some honesty.
Ever since this debate began, we have been told that the opposition to proposals in the bill is purely political and partisan. We have been told that the farmers want, need and will benefit by this legislation. I have never seen a proposal on any subject and by any government which has met with such unanimous opposition from the organizations representing the people who will be affected by the bill. The three prairie provinces, the wheat pools of the three prairie provinces, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union oppose this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. I have to interrupt him. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth seeks the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Gibson:: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, following on Your Honour's ruling, the hon. member who has the floor has simply continued with a long and rather dull prolix, irrelevant debate. I submit he is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

October 6, 1971


David Orlikow: When it comes to dull remarks, there is nobody who has a better and more consistent record than the hon, member who just interrupted with a point which is not in order or anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: The farm organizations which I have listed oppose this bill because one of the basic principles of it is that in calculating the payments which will be made to farmers, the amounts paid will be based on calculations related to the gross income of farmers. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) is not listening. If he were listening, he could not understand anyway. I will therefore ignore him. I challenge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to name a single legitimate farm organization which supports this measure, not the kind of Liberal party subsidized, fake organization which put those full-page advertisements in the western papers.


Mr. Barrett:: We have heard all that before 20 times.


David Orlikow: I invite the yappers on the back benches over there to get up when I have finished and make a speech. They are good at interrupting me. I do not mind. I am quite willing that they should interrupt. But I would be happy to see them get up and make a speech. In all the years I have been here I do not recall that the hon. member has ever made a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we might now return to consideration of the amendment.


An hon. Member:: It would be for the first time.


David Orlikow: If we could put an end to the kind of interventions we have been getting that might be possible. What did the government of Manitoba say with reference to this bill? What proposals did they have to make? I am not talking about blind opposition to the bill; I am talking about proposals for improving the bill so that it would meet the needs of prairie farmers. I have here a report of the submission made by the minister of agriculture of the government of Manitoba to the parliamentary committee which dealt with this question. He summarizes his idea of what a real income stabilization plan for prairie grain producers should be. The report reads:
1.	The plan should provide for a net income guarantee to grain producers on a basic quantity of production or on a basic acreage.
I want members opposite to listen. He is talking about a net income guarantee, not a gross income guarantee. Farmers are not responsible if the cost of gasoline goes up, for example. They are not responsible if the cost of farm implements goes up. The government is responsible. After all, a few years ago the government appointed a royal commission headed by Professor Barber of the University of Manitoba to look into the high cost of farm implements. It was a very expensive royal commission. It reported more than a year ago but none of its recommendations have been carried out. They have been completely ignored. I wonder whether government inaction in connection with this report has anything to do with the size of the contributions the implement-making companies make to the Liberal party at election time.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
The minister of agriculture of Manitoba further said:
2.	The plan should not be detrimental to efficient practices or destructive of initiative.
3.	The plan must be conducive to sound land use practices by providing for crop flexibility.
4.	The plan must be such that it is in the direct financial interest of the Government of Canada to take effective measures to reduce the cost of inputs to prairie farmers.
The question is: does the legislation before us in any way meet the criteria set out by the Manitoba minister of agriculture? The minister says the basis upon which prairie grain receipts will be stabilized in the first five years of the plan will be about 65 per cent of the average of the late 'sixties; about 70 per cent of 90 per cent of total receipts in that period. I come from an industrial riding. I know what Liberal members who represent urban constituencies would say if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) brought in an amendment to the Labour Code increasing the minimum wage for all workers under federal jurisdiction, and if he were to announce that the minimum wage would be at the rate of 90 per cent of the wage of the last five years. He would be laughed out of office. Nevertheless, the minister has enough gall to make that kind of proposal for farmers. I say the farmers of Canada are entitled to the same consideration as are urban workers. Second, the agriculture minister of Manitoba points out that the net cost to the federal treasury in the first five years of the plan proposed by the federal government will be less than $30 million. He further contends that the stabilization account could show a surplus of at least $100 million and, possibly, $225 million by 1976. That money would be in the fund, not in the pockets of the farmers as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so dishonestly suggested the other night on television.


Colin David Gibson: Nonsense.


David Orlikow: The stupid member for Hamilton-Wentworth interjects "Nonsense". I wish he would get up and explain why the statement I have just made is incorrect.


Mr. Mahoney:: Because you made it.


David Orlikow: It is way beyond the understanding of that hon. member. The Manitoba minister stated, further, that between now and 1976 the stabilization account could be operated as proposed in Bill C-244 on the strength of the 4 per cent contribution by the federal government alone in the absence of any contributions from farmers. Last, the minister pointed out that except for a possible payment of $100 million at the end of the 1971-72 crop year, there is virtual certainty that no more payments will be called for during the remainder of the 'seventies.
Just one last reference to the submission made by the minister of agriculture in the province of Manitoba. Last Friday, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) promised that this submission would be considered carefully. But it has been ignored. It would be interesting to know whether the minister really did intend to give further consideration to the bill in the light of these representations or whether he received a directive from the Prime Minister on the lines: this is our legislation and it has to go ahead on Monday. Or, perhaps, the instruction came from somebody in the Prime Minister's office who has the power to make decisions and who told the minis-

October 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
ter he must ignore the promise he had made and continue with the bill as it stood. The Manitoba minister said that because the proposed stabilization plan would operate on the basis of a five-year moving average, which is presently low and still declining, and which by its very nature will move upward slowly only after a period of recovery, it can be safely predicted that the plan will be of no direct benefit to the prairie farmer during the 'seventies.
Certain hon. members may not realize that the last five years have been some of the worst years farmers have experienced during the last 25 years. The minister of agriculture for Manitoba did not agree with the concept of the stabilization plan because, he said, it was based on gross receipts. In the face of ever-rising costs, even the best guarantee of stabilizing gross receipts becomes less meaningful with the passage of time. The guarantee proposed in Bill C-244 will cover only one half of the actual costs presently incurred in the producing of grain.
The minister and the government may say that after all, the minister of agriculture in the Province of Manitoba is an NDPer and he is putting forward these views for purely partisan reasons. For the information of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, who temporarily occupies an Alberta seat until the next election, I will read a short extract from the views of the Alberta Wheat Pool, which is not an organization noted for being particularly radical.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It has already been put on the record twice.


David Orlikow: In a statement sent to all Members of Parliament on September 23, the Alberta Wheat Pool, speaking about this bill, said, among other things:
Attractive as a principle stability may be, the first concern shown by our members at the current time is that of income itself. They have expressed coolness bordering on disinterest in any plan of stability which does not have as its first objective, stability at a remunerative level. Within this context-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Calgary South on a point of order.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Is the hon. member aware that this very document has already been read into the record twice by his colleagues in this debate to date?


David Orlikow: I know it has, but obviously the disinterest of the hon. member from Calgary, as well as the minister, indicates that it needs to be repeated not three times but perhaps 30 times, and then perhaps it will sink in.


Mr. Paproski:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member, whose time is nearly up, but the hon. member for Edmonton Centre rises on a point of order. I think the hon. member should be given an opportunity of finishing his speech, but at the same time the hon. member for Edmonton Centre is entitled to be recognized if he seeks the floor on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have been sitting here diligently listening to the filibuster that is

going on between the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party. We would appreciate it if they would get along with the motion so that we can get along with the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired but I think in fairness he might be allowed a minute's additional time in view of the points of order we have had.


David Orlikow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To continue: Within this context, our association has some serious reservations about the proposals of Bill C-244.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, again not a very partisan organization-if anything, I would say it has been very careful not to offend governments, and the Liberal government has not been exempt from that fairly reasonable treatment-said in a statement issued on May 7, to quote one paragraph:
It would be highly improper for us to temper our criticism of the long term grains policy in this bill-and we do have criticisms and very serious ones-out of a feeling of fear and urgency respecting a possible delay of these essential "transitional" payments.
So, hon. members can see that the wheat pools, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union are opposing this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member since his time expired a few minutes ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cah carry on with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some faint cries of "no" which indicate that the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with two aspects of the amendments now before the House. Before Your Honour gives me the instruction that my remarks are not relevant, I should say that I think the last few moments will prove that they are. I have been prompted to make these points by questions that were asked outside this House, particularly by backbenchers from parts of the nation other than the Prairies. Members of the press gallery have also asked similar questions and members of this House have received numerous letters from people across Canada, though particularly from the Prairies, to the effect that they find this bill very confusing. Most people do not understand it. Neither do they understand the amendments now before the House at the present time. I shall have more to say about those later, but at this point may I say there is no doubt that the bill is confusing.
I am sure all members of the House, as well as everyone on the Prairies, agree that there is need for a stabilization of the economy on the Prairies and would welcome a bill with reasonable provisions that made this possible. I say that because various members of the House have put on the record DBS figures indicating that five years ago the
October 6, 1971

average income of the farmer on the western prairies was in the neighbourhood of $5,000, whereas last year it had dropped to about $1,000, quite a drastic drop in the income of farmers in that region, as hon. members have pointed out.
Many words have been uttered in this House on the unemployment situation in eastern Canada, particularly in industrial areas. I think part of the reason for this vast unemployment presently in the land is the lack of purchasing power on the part of the farmers, and this lack is felt all across Canada.
The second question that was asked by the group to which I referred related to the accusations of filibuster and obstruction which are hurled across the floor of the House from one party to another. This they do not understand and are beginning to wonder who is responsible for this obstruction and filibustering.


Mr. Hogarth:: You admit it is there, then.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I hope I shall be able to reveal to the House just who is responsible for the filibustering, but to do so one must understand this question and see it in its right light. The reason so much interest is stirred in this House when farming or agricultural legislation is presented to us is that we from the western prairies have to live with a one industry economy, namely agriculture. Of necessity, every member of the House from the Prairies, regardless of party, is very interested in any topic that relates to this industry upon which we in Western Canada depend so much.
In my own area the industry is broken down into two parts. While 50 per cent of the farmers' income comes from wheat sales, in the main, the other 50 per cent comes from livestock sales. If I were permitted to do so, I should like to say something about the government's intervention in this particular field, but I do not think this would come within the scope of the amendments. I therefore notice your glance, Mr. Speaker, and heed your warning. So the reason every member of the House from the Prairies makes the subject of agriculture his prime concern is that, as I said before, we have a one industry economy on the Prairies.
Another question that is asked is: Who actually is blocking this legislation, rather than, who appears to be blocking it? I think this point was made by my colleague from across the way. Why the necessity for a long debate on each agricultural issue to come before the House? I wish to prove that it is not the members of the opposition but the Liberal government that is responsible for the obstruction and the filibustering that appears to be taking place.
To prove my point I should like to refer to a Canadian Press release which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on October 5. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), who is one of the Liberal backbenchers who spoke on this amendment said, as reported in that newspaper, that the bill had flaws in it. I think other members than that hon. member have made the same statement. I think the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, if he has
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
not made that statement, has implied there are flaws in the bill. This is one of the causes of the filibustering.
Members in this House, and certainly the people of this country, wonder why the government does not bring in amendments to correct these admitted flaws in the bill. Common sense dictates that if such action were taken much of the debate in this House of Commons would be eliminated, because we would not have to point out time and time again that these flaws are there and should be changed before the bill becomes an act. The minister, as almost everyone in this House knows, is so adamant and arrogant in his position that he will not acknowledge the weak points outlined by members even of his own party. I see the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) in the House. He spoke on this bill yesterday and I should like to make a few references to what he said. He said that the bill lacked many necessary and beneficial features desired by farmers. After saying that, he shrugged it off by saying the government would look after these omissions at a later date.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In fairness I feel I should correct that impression of what I said yesterday. I think Hansard will show that I did not suggest the stabilization bill lacked other policies. I said that the farm interests and groups had expressed a desire to have other policies and just because they were not contained in the stabilization bill was no reason for preventing it from moving forward. These policies can be obtained in other ways. The stabilization bill will not cut off these desirable policies. That is the clarification I wanted to make.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, if I had the wrong impression of what the minister said I apologize. I sat here and listened to what he said, and I was under the impression he admitted there was something lacking in the stabilization bill. In addition, he was asking the opposition to bear with the government and it would bring in these other policies later on. During previous Parliaments, the opposition has accepted similar statements made by ministers of the cabinet, but attached little significance to commitments made by backbenchers. Prior to this government taking office such a statement by a minister was accepted as government policy. That is not the case at the present time. The just society boys destroyed that king of co-operation by bringing in what is now called the "supergroup". The cabinet ministers appear to us on this side of the House to be only figureheads who take their instructions from that supergroup in the Prime Minister's office. The word of a cabinet minister is not held in such high regard today as it was in the days of previous governments.
The western members and the farmers they represent no longer trust this government, and certainly have no faith in the promises it makes. This distrust is founded on past experience of broken promises by members of this cabinet. I could list many of them. Just a few minutes ago reference was made to a broken agreement between the three prairie agriculture ministers and the federal government. There has been some explanation by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to the effect that he did not make any agreement with the three prairie ministers, but there was an apparent misunderstanding on the part of all who took part in those discussions. We heard a moment

October 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
ago from a representative of the NDP from Manitoba that his interpretation of the agreement was there would be a cease-fire for a week. Certainly, that has not been the case. I do not think any explanation by the government could convince the farmers that an agreement was not broken. This is something that has happened on past occasions, but not nearly as often. It is quite common for this government not to keep promises.
Not very long ago the minister who represents the livestock sector of the agricultural economy of western Canada broke a promise to the producers. It is for this reason I suggest the ministers of this cabinet have no power whatsoever. All the power is focused in the Prime Minister's office with that supergroup. The ministers take their instructions from that group which is telling them how to run the country. That supergroup is not even an elective group.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is shameful the way they forget about western Canada.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I doubt if they could get elected. Perhaps a worse feature than this broken promise is the breaking of the law in respect of payments owing to grain producers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I will not say more about that, but let me point out that in recent weeks I have stated on three different occasions that this government, as a result of a decision by the supergroup, cabinet ministers or the government as a whole, has broken faith with the country. No wonder there are accusations of filibustering and obstruction.
Many uninformed members of this House and members of the Press Gallery do not understand what we are talking about because this bill is very confusing to many, including myself. We do not know its implications, but we are afraid of certain of its features. The farmers I represent had an annual income of about $5,000 some five years ago. That annual income has now dropped to about $1,000. This government wishes to stabilize this income at $1,000 a year. That is how I read this bill. There is little need to point out that this type of action on the part of the government invites obstruction. We all know such action delays the passage of any legislation, beneficial or otherwise.
Before this government came into power, governments of the day, regardless of which party was involved, would accept suggestions by opposition members and others which would improve legislation. Other governments accepted amendments to improve bills. That type of cooperation eliminated much of the type of debate that has taken place in this House during the last three years.
This dictatorial administration demands that we pass legislation as it is presented by the government or it will withdraw the legislation. This government is not going to threaten most members on this side, regardless of party affiliation. It is no wonder people in Canada are asking what is happening to the Parliament of Canada. Even we who sit here are wondering what is happening.
In yesterday's Ottawa Journal the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is reported as having said that he would withdraw the bill. The report reads:

Mr. Lang said last week he would withdraw the bill if the opposition continued a series of procedural attacks stalling its passage.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have news for the minister. He had better withdraw the bill forthwith and scrap it at least until such time as he comes to his senses, gets down from his high and mighty pedestal, listens to reason and accepts some of the suggestions of the farmers. I suggest to the Prime Minister that there should be a change in the cabinet, particularly in respect of the portfolio relating to the Wheat Board, because if the minister's attitude does not change and if his rigid and inflexible position continues, I believe that he must acknowledge what everyone else in this country knows, namely, that he is not capable of piloting this bill through the House of Commons. If there is no flexibility in the minister's present position, I forewarn that there are some members in this House who are determined to stall the bill in its present form.
If the minister has decided that the bill is to remain as presented, then any debate from now on is useless in the face of that adamant stand. He would perhaps be doing the Parliament of Canada a service by immediately taking the action he has threatened to implement as reported in the newspaper article because we have now reached a deadlock. Members on this side are determined to stall this legislation until the minister accepts some amendments. By his actions and by his words, he indicates that he does not intend to accept any amendments. The members to whom I referred a moment ago intend to use, regardless of what the minister says, every legal means available to them, be it procedural or otherwise to prevent the income of their constituents being stabilized, as I said before, at a poverty level. In this same press release in the Ottawa Journal, the minister is also reported as saying that the amendment is unworkable and so on. I recall a former minister of a Liberal government making a similar statement in respect of cash advances for farm stored grain. He said it was unworkable and could not be made to work. The people of Canada thought otherwise. They changed the government and proved it could be done.
Cash advances on farm stored grain became a very important piece of legislation. So, do not let the minister try to fool us that this is not workable. We would be quite satisfied if the income level were up where it should be. Stabilization should not be at a poverty level. Perhaps there are some people on the back benches and in the press gallery who believe the government has all the answers, and that nobody should listen to the opposition members. I know there are some who believe this. Those of us who do not agree with such a conclusion have a suggestion to make. Let the government listen to the Canadian citizens who will be directly affected by these amendments, as well as by the bill itself. Let us imagine for a moment a situation which, if it took place, would result in the elimination of all opposition members in this House. Who would or should the government consult? As I have said before, they should consult those people who would be affected by the legislation.
I have in my hand a telegram from the delegates of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, District Four which is in my area. I should like to put this on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon, member but the time allotted to him
October 6, 1971

has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent he will not be able to pursue his remarks. Does the House wish to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I shall try to be very brief. I wish to put the telegram on the record because, as I have mentioned, these are the people to whom members of the government should listen if they do not wish to listen to members of the opposition. I think the people of Canada would like to know what the farmers of western Canada want. The telegram reads as follows:
The delegates of district four Saskatchewan Pool met in Swift Current on September 29 and 30, and are gravely concerned about the pressure being put forth in the House of Commons to have Bill C-244 passed. The following resolution was passed unanimously. The delegates endorse the principal of a stabilization program, . ..
I interject here to say I believe everybody in the House endorses this principle.
. . . but will continue to oppose Bill C-244 until it contains the following amendments: 1. An inflationary factor to take account of the rising production costs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: This is quite reasonable. We can accept this.
2.	An adequate two price system for wheat.
This has been talked about time and time again. The people of western Canada for years and years have believed there is a double standard in Canada. There was a bill which passed through this House very quickly during this session of Parliament. I refer to the bill granting $80 million to industries in the event that some employees of certain industries were laid off. The farmers have no objection to this type of action. They say, however, that no jobs have been lost yet and the government has voted $80 million to help people who may be laid off. In God's name why can they not give us the money that is owing to us?
I could go on and mention the price of bread and so on. We have heard time and time again that an increase of 60 cents in the price of wheat would represent an increase of only one cent on a loaf of bread. We have heard some opinions expressed that labour people would not stand for this. I am not sure what the price of bread is today. It has increased by one cent, by one cent and by one cent. We have heard no complaints about this except from individual housewives. We have heard no organized complaint about this. It has been said that perhaps labour is entitled to this amount of money because of inflation and so on. Why cannot similar consideration be given to the people who produce the wheat? We have no hesitation in adopting item No. 2.
The next proposal reads as follows:
3.	Recognition of a storage policy for each kind of grain paid for jointly by government and producers.
It I had more time I should like to inform the House about the storage policy in the United States. The farmers there have no difficulty disposing of their grain whenever they want to do so. The government stores it. The system works wonderfully. I have records to show that the United
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
States has sold proportionately almost twice as much grain as we have in the past 20 years. Australia has beaten our efforts. Why? Because our system must be antiquated and should be altered. Why should we not follow the system adopted by one of these successful countries. I have no hesitation in accepting the third proposal.
Then, we have their next proposal, which reads:
4.	An annual separate pool for each kind of grain guaranteed.
We can accept all these recommendations. This is why I say I have no hesitation in adopting the resolution passed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, District Four. Much has been said about who in the Prairies supports the government view. I think the same newspaper was referred to time and time again. It lists three organizations dealing with grains that do support the minister's story, and the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is one of the three but there are doubts about the first one. However, this advertisement is erroneous because the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix dated October 4 contains an article in which the president of this organization refutes the contention of the one Liberal in the city of Regina who says that the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool endorses the stabilization bill C-244 which the minister has presented to the House. In the president's own press release he says:
We have not endorsed, and will not endorse the proposed income stabilization plan because in our view it is inadequate. We think the stabilization of income from grains is a good idea. However, endorsation of the principle of the stabilizing of income does not mean support of the existing plan.
He also said:
.. . there is no justification for holding up money promised to farmers.
In addition, he said:
We do not support the stabilization plan as it is, nor do we want to retain the TWRA as it is.
He said nothing more than the members of the opposition have said. We want a stabilization plan. Possibly we will vote for the minister's plan if, as I said before, he will come to his senses, listen to reason, and accept some of the amendments, not amendments that we want but those that farmers themselves want. Is that asking too much?


Gerald William Baldwin: I will not delay the House more than five or six minutes, unless I am requested to do so, of course. I will wait for that request to be manifested in an obvious way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a few comments to make and also a suggestion. First, I want to say that I support the motion as clarified and improved by the amendment. However, we cannot look at the amendment without putting it in context with the general situation because this amendment, like some of the others, goes to the heart of the issue. I, like other hon. members, have been west. I have looked upon the face of western agriculture in the last few months and I have found it a sad and disheartening experience in view of what used to be the situation. There is no doubt that the people who have brought this about are the people who sit opposite, and they are unfit to govern this country because of what has happened. There

October 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
will be another time and another opportunity to enlarge on that aspect.
It has been suggested by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and by others that there are stalling tactics, there is delay and there is fillibustering. These dainty dilettantes in democracy do not understand the purpose of the democratic structure in this House. It is based upon the adversary system. When an issue is thrown on the floor of the House to be contested-it is an issue in this case moved by the government- the only way in which it can be examined effectively and dealt with is through the adversary system. Therefore, we on this side of the House, and hopefully some day members on the other side when they find the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the things they believe in, will contest the validity of the proposals brought forward by the government, just as hon. members to my left are doing with this amendment and just as we are doing with many other useful-I could almost say more useful-amendments that we are offering. It is in that sense that this debate has been conducted.
I am shocked and amazed to hear it suggested that the form which this debate has taken constitutes a delay of the proceedings in this House. My hon. friends opposite are guilty of deception I think when they say "let the bill come to a vote". Unless there has been some change, we know what that means, that the obedient group on the other side will vote as they are told. I think we should bear in mind that they do not represent the majority of the voters in the 1968 election, and I think that is something which should be considered.
However, be that as it may, in pursuit of our democratic duty we have, through the means of this amendment which has been supported by members in our party, indicated the grievous faults in the case made by the government. It would be one thing if it was the government against the opposition on the basis of the adversary system of which I speak. But on the scales of truth and justice upon which we and the people of this country must balance which side is the right side there has been placed against the government the statements and the evidence of impartial and objective people who are not involved in the day to day arguments in the House of Commons.
My good friend, the hon, member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) gave witness to that a short time ago when he read the resolution which had come to him from his province. But over and above that, what do we find? I discount the statement of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I also received letters from Saskatchewan, mainly from Saskatoon, which promoted the rapid passage of this bill. Upon examining the envelope in which these letters came I find they are mainly from the city of Saskatoon, from urban farmers in that city who have been cultivating the 40 feet in their back lane.


Otto Emil Lang: You should see my letters; they are from rural areas.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not know about the minister's staff, but I certainly know that I examined those that came to me. There were so few that I had a chance to examine them carefully and in detail. Anybody who is motivated by correspondence of this kind does not deserve to sit in the House of Commons. In addition to the farmers, there are the farm organizations. All the responsible and major

farm organizations have said that they support, amongst others, an amendment of this kind; that they are not in favour of the bill in its present form and that there should be major changes before the stabilization program is made effective. These are farm organizations and the pools. In addition to that, there are the provincial ministers of agriculture, two of them comparatively new in their jobs; men who have just been through the rigours of a campaign. I was involved on the fringes of the campaign in Alberta, and let us not suggest that to some extent federal issues were extraneous to those campaigns. I do not know about Saskatchewan, but certainly in Alberta some of the federal legislation was very germane to some of the campaign fights in rural constituencies. I heard mentioned on many occasions Bill C-176 and Bill C-244, and the sad and pitiful showing of the Liberal party at that time. The success of our party indicates beyond any doubt that the farm organizations, the farmers, the prairie premiers and the prairie ministers of agriculture are opposed to this bill in its present form.
Under those conditions, it would be manifestly absurd for the government to suggest that we should not make it quite plain that we propose to support the amendment put forward for the purpose of improving the legislation. The facts are simple, Mr. Speaker. The bill is not adequate and must be changed. But the government, like most governments, is unwilling to make changes because the changes are proposed from this side of the House. Probably the minister would like a long delay with the opportunity to propose changes himself. But we cannot trust the government. We cannot trust these ministers. We have seen what happened with respect to a simple understanding that consideration of the bill would be postponed under certain conditions. Those conditions were not met.
Be that as it may, and in the belief that what the government is seeking is a face-saving device, I wish to make a suggestion before the vote is called. I make it on my own behalf. I am not authorized to make it on behalf of my party, but I think it has merit. If the government is really interested in providing a stabilization measure which will be effective and useful to the people of western Canada, then in the first instance I suggest it should immediately pay the money it owes under Chapter 2 of the 1956 statutes, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the Canadian Wheat Board should then pay to the farmers the amount which it owes them, on the normal basis. There can be no alternative to this. The government has been in default. It has broken the law. This situation has gone on for 14 or 15 months. There is no other way in which the government can purge its contempt and make itself respectable again.
My second suggestion is made on the assumption that the bill will pass. The government has the troops, the bodies-I was almost going to say the willing, dumb bodies, but I will just say the willing bodies-to compel passage of the bill. I imagine that having secured consent from his colleagues the minister intends to persist with the bill until it is passed. I also assume that the government is going to reject all of the useful and valid amendments that have been proposed. This being the case, I suggest that the minister make use of the amendment
October 6, 1971

which he has placed on the order paper. I suggest that when the bill does pass clause 32 should be immediately proclaimed. This is the clause which provides for the payment of $100 million. I suggest that then the balance of the clauses of the bill should not be implemented.
I suggest that the implementation of the balance of the clauses should be delayed for some considerable time. In fact, I assume that the minister has no intention of operating the new provisions at least until the new crop year arrives. I suggest that the order in council containing the proclamation bringing the rest of the clauses of the bill into effect should be delayed until there has been an honest, valid and meaningful attempt by the government to secure, in co-operation with the farm organizations, farmers, provincial governments and the opposition parties, a form of stabilization bill that will work, that is acceptable, and does not contain the repugnant provisions of the present bill.
How in the name of heaven can the government be satisfied that this bill will meet the real requirements of the farm population of western Canada? In the light of what has been said by the farm organizations, by members of the New Democratic Party, by members of this party, and by the prairie ministers of agriculture, which I assume the minister must have taken to heart, how can the government be honestly and truthfully satisfied that this bill meets the needs of the prairie farmers? If the government genuinely desires such a result, and I have not completely ruled out that possibility at this stage, then what I suggest could very easily be brought about as the means to secure it. But because I do not trust the government any more, I would insist that any order in council implementing the remaining provisions of the bill should not come into effect until an affirmative resolution was introduced in this House, and debated without time limitation.
These proposals are simple. As I say, I make them on my own behalf, as some indication of what might be worked out if there is any real, honest, genuine intent on the part of the government to try to do something for the people of western Canada. We all know that the cash position of a great many farmers in western Canada is desperate. Yet despite that, the people in many parts of the west will not buy this bill in its present form. It is to their eternal credit that they feel that way. The government would be failing in its duty and conscience if it failed to take that into account, and if it failed to work out a means by which this money could be paid. The government should seek to meet that obligation, and with respect to the rest of the bill it should work out terms which are acceptable to all of the farm organizations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before putting the question, I think the Chair should inform hon. members that although Standing Order 75(11) provides for the deferring of the recording of the yeas and nays at report stage on different motions, the Chair has decided to call in the members in this instance because otherwise we would be merely postponing study of the first two motions until
Division
the end of our study of the other motions, when we would re-open the debate on motions Nos. 1 and 2. The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.
And the Clerk-Assistant being about to call the names:


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North knows that members should not come into the Chamber or leave the chamber or move from seat to seat while the motion is being put. I do not want to be difficult about this but I believe I must bring this rule to the attention of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is called on the main motion now before the House, namely the one in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), I should like to make another plea to the government. The farm organizations of western Canada which speak for the farmers have made a strong appeal to the government that Bill C-244 be amended along the lines recommended in this motion. The recommendation, which is the primary recommendation in just about all of the submissions that are being sent to the government, is that consideration be given to the net position of the farm economy of western Canada rather than the gross position with respect to the application of stabilization payments.
May I take a moment to explain the reason, as I see it, for the motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. The general scheme of Bill C-244 is that money is put into a stabilization fund partly in the form of payments made by farmers and partly in the form of payments made by the government. Payments are made out of that fund to the farmers only under very stringent conditions. The principal condition is that a crop year would have to be so bad that the total gross income-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I have been given information to the effect that the hon. member has already spoken on the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought at first when the hon. member rose that he had not spoken before, and if I am wrong the hon. member will tell me so. However, my understanding is that he did speak previously, as reported at page 8441 of Hansard for Tuesday, October 5. If I am correct the hon. member could still pursue his remarks with the consent of the House, but the information I have from the table is that the hon. member's speech is recorded from pages 8441 to 8447 of Hansard for October 5 last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would greatly enjoy catching me out of order, and if I am I shall bow to the Chair. But when I spoke yesterday, October 5, I was speaking to the amendment, not to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that when the hon. member seconded the amendment he was speaking to both questions, but I appreciate that the matter is perhaps difficult to interpret from a procedural standpoint. I am sure the hon. member would agree that, procedurally speaking, his seconding the amendment would put him on record as having spoken both to the motion and to the amendment. However, perhaps this is being technical; I do not want to do anything to prevent the hon. member from expressing his views at this time. If there is agreement-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may, of course, be wrong in my interpretation, which is simply a preliminary one. If
[Mr. Speaker.)
October 6, 1971

the hon. member feels that I have incorrectly understood the situation I would be pleased to hear from him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when you suggested I had spoken, and when Your Honour referred to a speech I made yesterday, as recorded at certain pages in Hansard, I of course objected because that was a speech I made on the amendment. I am quite aware of a citation that used to be in the books governing members who seconded motions, but I think Your Honour would have to go back many years to find when this rule was applied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member that if the only record that we have of his having spoken on the main motion is that he seconded the amendment, it would be interpreting the rules rather strictly if I were not to allow him to speak to the main motion. Certainly, that is my view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe I was pointing out that the main principle of this bill is the provision of stabilization payments to farmers under certain conditions, conditions that we regard as too severe. In order for farmers who are growing any of the six grains covered by this bill to receive payments, a year must be so bad that the total income in the area covered by the bill is less than 90 per cent of the average total income of the preceding five years.
When one realizes that, among other factors, there is the fact that the cost of production has gone up, it can readily be seen that, if in any such difficult year the farmers do not get paid unless their gross income falls below the five year, this will have the effect of precluding the making of payments under the stabilization fund for many years. Gross income could be a very large figure whereas the actual net income of the farmer, because of increased costs of production, could be below the average income of the previous five years, and yet no payments would be made to the farmers. That is why we feel very strongly about this bill and that is why these amendments are still before the House. We feel the bill should be amended to right this provision, namely that stabilization payments out of the fund to the farmers will come into effect in any year when the net income of the farmer falls below the average of the preceding five years.
We would also like to change the 90 per cent figure and other things, but we do feel that this principle of distinguishing between the gross income and the net income is one that is extremely important to the successful operation of this bill. Again, I remind the minister that the organizations representing the farmers of western Canada are putting this point as number one in the pleas they are now making to the government. I suggest it is just possible that the farm organizations might understand the situation and might know what is best for the farmer, and I think the minister ought to pay attention to their pleas.
I know, this House being constituted as it is, and in view of the vote we have just had, that if this amendment comes to a vote and the government says it has to be turned down it will be turned down. If we simply go on and put the bill on the statute books, the effect will be to
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
provide a bill that will not do what its sponsors say it is supposed to do. It will not be a piece of legislation that will stabilize farm income in western Canada. It will not be a bill to even out the humps and hollows, it will be merely a bill which will result in the farmers putting millions of dollars into a fund for one purpose, namely that in a catastrophic year payments will come out of the fund for the farmer. That will not be satisfactory, and I urge that consideration be given to this amendment.
Like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who spoke a while ago when we were on the previous amendment, I should like to make some suggestions to the minister and to the government. As I have already said, if this comes to a vote and the government says it must be turned down that will be the end of the amendment. As the minister knows, representations are still being made to him and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for further consultation about this bill. The minister and the Prime Minister have been invited to go out west to meet officers of the National Farmers Union and the wheat pools and, despite some difficulty there was today as to whether Thanksgiving weekend is the time to do this, I hope these meetings will be held.
If the meetings are going to be held, surely the thing to do now is to desist from further debate on this bill in the House of Commons. We are not asking the government to withdraw the bill in the sense that it be removed from the order paper, but we are asking the government to let the bill stand. The government has other things it wants to proceed with, including the tax bill and a few other items, and this is the purpose of our continuing the debate at this time, to plead with the government to let this bill stand in order that consideration can be given to ways in which the bill can be improved.
Although there have been difficulties in the past day or two, so far as the Chair is concerned, about hon. members staying in order when speaking on the amendment, I submit there should be no difficulty about staying in order on the part of those who speak in respect of this amendment because it touches the very heart of this bill; is it to be confined by this reference to gross income so its benefits will never flow to the farmer, or is it to be a measure based on net income that will help get the benefits to the farmer in a way that will even out the humps and hollows?
It has been said in the course of this debate that the principle of stabilization legislation is good. We confirm that, for we believe there should be legislation to stabilize farm income in western Canada. We think it should be on a rational basis which holds out the prospect of raising the level of living in western Canada, not just stabilizing it at the poverty level, or perhaps a level that is declining. We think a rational stabilization plan should be worked out. We do not think this bill does that. It is tied to this $100 million carrot, as it were, and it is mixed up with this whole question of whether the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act money should be paid out.
We suggest that the whole thing has got into a mess which should not be continued any longer. Let me say that we agree with the contention from the other side, indeed from both sides of the House, that there should be stabilization legislation, but despite its title we think this legislation is not that kind of legislation. We also agree with the

October 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
other side that the whole question of how we provide for storage of surplus grain in western Canada, not just wheat but all six of the major grains, is one that is not adequately covered by the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We do not think that is a piece of perfect legislation which must stay for all time. We think there must be a new policy in regard to the way in which we provide for the cost of storing surplus grain.
By the way, that is another of the main points of the representations farm organizations are making to the government at this time. They not only want net income as the base rather than gross income, a two-price system and a few other things, they want the whole policy regarding storage costs to be put on a rational basis. To narrow all this to two things, what is before us in this bill is a proposal for stabilization, which is not satisfactory and will not work, and a proposal in respect of storage which simply repeals the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act without putting anything in its place.
What the farmers of western Canada, through their farm organizations, have said they want is for the government to sit down with them and work out a rational solution to these two problems. I will go as far as giving the minister credit for being aware of the fact that these two problems exist. It is clear, I admit, that purpose of this bill is to cope with those two problems. He is attempting to get something better than the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and something in the way of stabilization, but with great respect I say he has not solved either of these problems.
In the meantime we have become lost in the battle over the payments which have not been made under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for 15 months. We have become lost in respect of figures and the arguments about which piece of legislation would be best and which would pay the farmers the most in the next three years. We have heard arguments about $170 million as compared to $113 million, and we have heard different figures from both sides. I think that all this proves this bill is not a satisfactory solution to these two main problems; the problem of providing for stabilization on a rational basis and the problem of providing a rational program for the payment of the cost of storing surplus grain in western Canada.
In light of all that I believe the farm organizations are being reasonable, logical and responsible in asking the government to give this matter further consideration. A Liberal member, whom I need not name, asked me earlier today if I realized that by our continuing to debate this bill we were challenging or tempting the government to withdraw it or cease to proceed with it so that it would not pass and did I not feel badly about that and realize the disastrous consequences that would flow from that. I said to him, "Do you think we are fooling around; that is precisely what we want". We want the government not to proceed with Bill C-244 in its present form, to let it lie on the order paper and to meet with the farmers of western Canada to discuss a rational and sensible solution to these problems, with a view to obtaining an adequate stabilization program that, would even out the bumps and hollows and not just take care of a serious hollow which occurs once in every 20 years. It should be evened out to provide

a decent level of income for the farmers of Western Canada.
The other problem is to do something better than the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act does in respect of the problem of grain stored in western Canada. As I say, this is a place where we can debate and have votes. I know as well as I am standing here today that if there is a vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar it will be defeated, and we will go on to debate the other 14 amendments on the order paper at the report stage. I know those amendments will be defeated and that the bill will go through in its present form. We also know around here that when legislation gets on the statute books it takes a long time to get it changed. The whole idea of improving the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is a good one. The whole idea of a plan to stabilize farm income in western Canada is good, but if we are to cope with these two problems let us do so sensibly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And honestly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) says "and honestly". I join with him, but I was trying to avoid that kind of assessment at the moment. We believe that many things are going on which we do not like, but at the moment I am trying to make the plea which has come to us from the farm organizations out west and which we know is coming to the minister because of the message received in the last day or so from the head of the National Farmers Union. I am trying to plead with the government to give this whole matter the further time it deserves and not to just say there are two choices, live forever with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act with its declining value or accept the stabilization plan in Bill C-244. Those are not the only choices. It is true that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act may decline in value and that it does not cover other grains and so on, but it is equally true that Bill C-244 will take more money out of the farmer's pockets than it will put into them. This problem will not be solved by saying, as the Prime Minister did on television on Sunday, that under Bill C-244 $170 million will be given to the farmers in these three crop years. That does not happen to be true. All they would get would be $100 million, and in the two crop years referred to they would pay back $35 million into the fund. Therefore, their net benefit would be only $65 million.


Otto Emil Lang: Unless there is a failure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, unless there is a failure. I did not know my hon. friends opposite were contemplating such a bad year while they were in power. In a sense, I am getting a little away from what I had intended to say. I like to get into an attack on the deception, the dishonesty, the misleading figures, the blackmail and all the rest of it, but I believe the point has been reached when this issue has become deadly serious. As I say, when a certain Liberal member spoke to me earlier today and asked if we knew what we were doing and finally said that he thought we were fooling, I told him that we were not fooling but that we think this is an important matter and that the issue should be grappled with in a sensible way. We go along with the Prime Minister in the context of participatory democracy. We believe
October 6, 1971

the people who are affected should be heard, and in this case that means the farmers.
I have some doubt about the extent to which the farmers of western Canada were heard last Friday in view of the fact that the ministers went home not understanding what had been agreed to. I would plead that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Prime Minister and the members of the government meet with the heads of the National Farmers Union and the heads of the wheat pools to discuss with them their proposals. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) a while ago placed on Hansard the four points contained in a telegram he received from the local wheat pool in his area, and my colleagues have placed on the record those same points from other organizations. They are there; they are very clear. There are about four main points involved. The minister must not tell us these are things which are outside the scope of the bill because when one talks about a better way to cope with the question of storage under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and when one talks about an adequate stabilization plan one is talking about things that are in this bill. If we do not deal properly with them now and this bill is pushed through and put on the statute books in its present form, we will be fastening upon the backs of the farmers in western Canada something that will cost them far more than they will get.
I said the other day that it is like some of the other legislation which has been put through this House which was supposed to be an improvement. I referred to the new unemployment insurance scheme, the new veterans legislation and the new old age security legislation. Today we have to cope with people who find that under these improved pieces of legislation their position is worse than it was before. I submit that will happen in respect of this legislation.
I wish to end on a pleading note. I say to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and his friend and mine, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson), who are having a little tete-a-tete right now, that I recognize-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I finish my sentence?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize the sincerity of the government in saying that the two problems of storage and stabilization have to be met and that that was the reason for bringing in this bill. I ask them, however, to realize that the farm organizations of western Canada do not believe this bill properly solves either of these problems. I ask them to meet with those organizations and let us all come up with a better bill.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who spoke before me, I consider the bill before us to be confusing. Primarily I want to strongly support the amendment presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) to the effect that some
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
amendments are required in order to increase the value of the bill.
In support of what I have just said, one needs only refer to the explanation given yesterday, October 5, 1917 by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as to whether the hon. minister knew exactly what the farmers would get under the new prairie grain stabilisation legislation, recorded on page 8446 of Hansard, from which I quote:
If we have the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act route followed, without therefore passing Bill C-244, of the $62.1 million which would be paid we know that $38.6 million would reach the farmers because that is in connection with a crop year for which the transactions are concluded. Had that amount been paid it would ordinarily have been paid on June 17 as we made quite clear at all times.
I have received perhaps 600 or 700 letters from western producers first telling me to ask the government to make the payments according to the former legislation, and afterwards, they agreed with the new legislation. Yesterday, the hon. minister said, and I quote:
The $38.6 million would therefore have reached the farmers. The balance would apply to future operations of the wheat pool as would the $30.8 million and the $20 million estimated for the subsequent years. These would apply to future wheat pools. The point I made to the hon. member who just spoke was that should any of these pools turn out to be in a deficit position, not one penny of it flows through to the farmer. So, there is no certainty possible at this time whether those amounts of money will get to the farmer. All that would happen would be that the payment by the treasury would, to that extent, reduce the treasury obligation on another account. It would not get to the farmer if the pools were in a deficit position, as it was a year ago when the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act payments did not get through to the farmers.
Mr. Speaker, such statements by the minister explain very well why western farmers are so worried about Bill C-244. In fact, they know very well that, if the June 1971 payments had been made, the situation would have been less confusing. Farmers think that this legislation is to put an end to the $38.6 million owed to them by the government under the former act.
I received today from Bonnyville, Alberta, the following letter:

As a half section of land farmer, I ask you to vote for the Prairie Grains Stabilization Act. The transitional payment I would receive would amount to $511.85. I would get much less under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
Yours truly,
Denis A. Rondeau Bonnyville, Alberta.

Farmers, especially the smaller ones, do not hesitate to say that this law is required to provide them with an improved income. However, they are concerned as to the amounts that they will receive. We, in this House, do not even know just what is in store for farmers.
Yesterday, the minister referred to approximate amounts, but nobody really knows what they are. This is why I definitely agree with the amendment moved by the

October 6, 1971
Division
hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to amend this legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion no. 1 of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.
Orllkow
Paproski
Peddle
Peters
Ritchie
Rodrigue
Rose
Rowland
Ryan
Rynard


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is with regard to a press release apparently issued under the name of the minister allegedly responsible for the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The parts that are particularly obnoxious, repugnant and incorrect are the following:
-throughout the weekend indicated time and again that the Leader of the Opposition refused to agree to the moratorium.
The following then appears in quotation marks:
"We didn't know for certain until Monday morning when I consulted with the Conservative House Leader that they had no intention of assisting farmers, agreeing to the moratorium" Mr. Lang said. "I was very surprised and angry when after they had sabotaged the moratorium, they then announced an intention to cooperate and bring C-244 to a vote. That apparent about-face was soon identified as being for the public only, as they have continued to talk and waste time at every opportunity."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. I reject it entirely. I repeat what I said on Monday morning when this question first came up and I raised the question of privilege. At that time I said, because the government had indicated through its spokesman that a moratorium was contingent upon there being some consideration of amendments and changes to Bill C-244, this would be satisfactory. When I was told categorically that prospects for any changes were very, very remote, I made it quite plain that as far as this party was concerned, there was no objection to there being any moratorium.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: It's a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As was indicated when discussing this matter earlier, particularly at the time the leader of the New Democratic Party was speaking, if there had persisted to the beginning of the House sittings on Monday an agreement simply to have a moratorium on the debate and any discussion of legalities without any preconditions about what was involved or what would be assumed as a result of that moratorium, we would likely have had one.
The House leader for the official opposition has today confirmed what I suggested at that time, that the failure to obtain a moratorium was due to their insistence that their agreement depended upon our committing ourselves in advance of any discussions or conversation about the likelihood of changes being made in the bill at this time. We had to make very clear to them that it was not a likelihood at this stage. We made that clear to them. At that point they refused the moratorium on that understanding.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that some hon. members want to rise on this point. There cannot be a debate at this time on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He has raised the matter. As is the practice of this House, the member who is directly concerned has been given an opportunity to reply to the point. There is no motion before the House and, therefore, no matter to discuss.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) are apparently anxious to make a contribution to the debate. I suggest there can be no debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River, unless they have a point of order or a different approach. My ruling is the matter as raised by the hon. member for Peace River cannot be pursued. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Peters:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the same press release, the section that refers to the New Democratic Party. I quote:
"On the other hand the NDP have renounced their hypocrisy and have now clearly stated that they are totally against the Bill under any circumstances. -"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: It's a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the minister has charged hypocrisy on the part of the New Democratic Party in connection with the position it has taken. I consider the minister to be dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: He is stupid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: He is well aware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I suggest to all hon. members that the House is really not doing itself any good by these charges and countercharges which are being levelled. The hon. member for Timiskaming suggests that statements were made, which are not in accordance with the facts. I wonder whether that will lead us anywhere. We have had this debate today. It will continue for a while yet, and I really do not think we ought to pursue the matter by way of points of order or that any conceivable purpose could be served by pursuing discussion on the plane which has now been reached.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Don't get political.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
8502

October 6, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


David Lewis: I do not intend to try to outshout anybody. If hon. members want to shout I can stand here until they are finished. If the minister had made the statement in the House, it would have been a different thing, but the minister knows and every member of this House knows, that members of the New Democratic Party have opposed Bill C-244 as a bad bill and as being a disservice to the farmers of Canada from the very first day. The minister knows this, and his statement in his press release-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The statement by the hon. member for York South confirms what I said a few moments ago. Every member here-and there are some 200-odd members here, more or less-could get up and accuse the other side of making false statements or of having made statements which were not in accordance with the facts. We could go on for a long time on that basis. Again, I suggest to the hon. member that we are seeking to continue a debate which, in any case, will continue for some time yet. I do not think we shall achieve anything which is of use to the House or to anyone or anything, by pursuing the matter further.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Temiscamingue rising on a question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a question of order, Mr. Speaker.
If the name of our party was not mentioned in the release just referred to, it is because we want Bill C-244 to be voted upon, and we want to see an end to the politicking that is now going on.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bill with amendments: Bill C-262, An Act to support employment in Canada by mitigating the disruptive effect on Canadian industry of the imposition of foreign import surtaxes or other actions of a like effect, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. October 7, 1971