1971-09-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 32(l)(p) relating to the correctness of the records of the House. If it is accepted it is a debatable motion, but I do not desire that there should be any debate except to the extent that it is necessary for me to explain the need for the motion.
On September 15 last, as found on page 7830 of Hansard at the top of the left-hand column, there appears a quotation from a previous edition of Hansard relating to a motion which the House passed on a previous occasion having to do with the subject of fish and game laws as they relate to native Indians. When I rose on that day, September 15, to seek permission to move a motion under Standing Order 43 I did not make any reference to the motion concerning fish and game laws as they relate to native Indians but rather to another motion which the House passed on the same day. Consequently, Hansard has recorded the wrong motion. In order to correct the record, and because a great deal of confusion has been created in the minds of members of the government of British Columbia, who of course did not need this excuse, I have brought this matter before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, I understand, wishes to correct the record of Hansard. This is done normally in a very ordinary and expeditious way simply by indicating what the change is that the hon. member wishes to be made. I must tell the hon. member that this cannot be done under Standing Order 32(l)(e) unless the hon. member has given notice to the Chair. There is no provision for this kind of motion without notice. In any event, there should be no difficulty in the hon. member indicating what change he desires, and I am sure it will be agreed that the change be made.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this motion is under Standing Order 32(l)(p). I assume it would require unanimous consent to move the motion without notice. In any event, the motion I seek to move is seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and reads as follows:
That the words quoted at the top left-hand column of page 7830 of Hansard lor September 15,1971 as follows:
"That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the interdepartmental committee, the establishment of which was
announced on March 29, 1965, which studied the question of fish and game laws as they relate to native Indians"
be expunged and the following substituted therefor:
"That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Stan-bury-Fields report."
If that motion is acceptable, the record will be corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is still my suggestion to the hon. member that changes in Hansard should be made in the normal way that has been traditional in the House. What I must now ask is whether there is unanimous consent for the motion, which is debatable of course, to be moved. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege concerning the absence today of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). In response to questions yesterday the minister indicated he would be meeting today with officials of General Motors Corporation with regard to the reported lay-offs in Oshawa and other centres. That meeting has been held. Surely the House is entitled to expect a report from the minister on a matter of such importance. In any event, surely the House is entitled to have the minister here so he could be subjected to questions on such an important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are 2,000 families involved. A backup of unemployment will also take place. The minister seemed upset, if not angry, yesterday because he had not been consulted about this matter in advance. He is not in the House today. I understand he will be meeting the press after the question period. If it is the roster system, which has no support under the rules, that is preventing the minister from being in the House today, I say that this is contemptuous of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
8062

September 22, 1971
Absence of Minister from House


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a violation of the privileges of the House and its members. I hope the Prime Minister will make it very apparent to the minister that not only is he permitted to come into the House today but that the Prime Minister would like him here to answer these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Prime Minister rising on the question of privilege?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege. I wish to indicate that the House knows perfectly well there is no violation of privilege in this instance. If there were, I would like to hear a quotation from the rules as to what privilege was violated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: You would ignore them if we cited them to you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that they have no arguments, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewis:: I rise on the same point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is required to make a ruling before there could be a debate on a question of privilege. The Chair should indicate now whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. There might have been a point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think hon. members will appreciate this is not essentially a question of privilege and the matter cannot be debated or considered by the House on such basis.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the Prime Minister found it necessary to sit down before he completed his remarks because, regardless of whether or not there is a specific rule to which Your Honour or anyone else may point, there are moral rules in this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: There is a moral obligation on the minister who has met with the heads of the corporation in light of serious lay-offs and has a statement to make. If he has called a press conference, presumably he has something to say. There is a moral obligation on him to say it to this House and let hon. members find out from him exactly what was done. I suggest that when the Prime Minister seeks to hide behind technicalities as to whether a rule can be cited, it is merely further evidence of the contempt in which this House is held by him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party that it is a shame I was not permitted to complete my answer because I think I had a very rational explanation to put to the House. However, it is not my habit to try to speak above shouting such as was then apparent among members of the opposition. If they are not interested in eliciting information-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Stop being so pompous, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You see how it is, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Get out of the
kindergarten.


Mr. Drury:: This is a kindergarten, all right.


An hon. Member:: You are worse than Maclnnis.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be that bad. I am sure that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be giving an explanation to the press when he meets them and which the House is apparently not prepared to hear.


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


Mr. Broadbent:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that the Prime Minister has not decided to assure the House that the minister is going to make a statement to the House rather than to the press. I have been informed that spokesmen for General Motors told the press that the minister would be making a statement and they refused to comment. I think the least the minister can do is to make that statement to the House.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion to the House. Seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I move:
That this House requests that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce appear in the House today to report on his meetings with officers of General Motors.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member requires unanimous consent. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSITIONAL


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of pressing and urgent necessity. Seconded by the hon.
September 22, 1971

member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), I move:
That this House is of the opinion that the government should divide Bill C-244 into two parts, and that arrangements should be made for a House order so that a bill to provide for the transitional payment of $100 million could be passed without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the calendar year 1969, how many trips were made by Jet Star and/or other executive jet type aircraft owned by the Department of Transport?
2.	In each case, what were (a) the dates (b) the duration (c) the destination (d) the passengers?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. The compilation of information and data required to ensure an accurate response to individual categories in these questions would warrant an immense amount of work by departmental staff at a considerable cost. The amount of work is enhanced by the fact that Department of Transport aircraft generally make well over 200 such flights each year. Every effort is made to answer questions of a more specific nature.


COST OF COMPUTER STUDIES FOR WHITE PAPER ON TAX REFORM
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total amount expended on computer studies for the White Paper on Taxation?
2.	To what companies, on what date and in what amounts were such funds paid?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. In
addition to computer studies performed on government facilities, the following amounts were spent on computer studies for the White Paper on tax reform: Company: Systems Dimensions Limited, 770 Brookfield Road, Ottawa, Ontario amount: $11,544.35 date: January 1, 1970.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Coates: 1.	How was the staffing of the Inforama Pavilion at "Man and His World" determined?
2.	Is the release issued which indicates there are eighteen persons involved in the operation of the Inforama Pavilion and that
Questions
sixteen of these are residents of Montreal, correct and, if so, why was such a large number of the total staff selected from Montreal?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of State):: 1. The
staffing of the Inforama Pavilion at "Man and His World" was determined on the basis of previous experience of this and similar pavilions at "Man and His World", and elsewhere. Local university placement offices and the National Film Board assisted in providing a list of suitable candidates who were then selected on the basis of personality and competence.
2. The figure of eighteen persons is correct. Since the exposition operates seven days per week with hours which require two shifts per day, each position manned at any given time requires approximately three people on strength to take care of shifts and allow for days off. Most of the staff is from the Montreal area for the reasons that, (a) it was not considered to be in the public interest to pay living allowances in addition to salary, therefore persons from the area would be able to live at home or in their regular place of abode; (b) it was considered essential that all staff be fluently bilingual, and the Montreal area provides one of the best sources of young people with this qualification.


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-GRANTS TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What programs of the Department of Communications provide grants, subsidies and other cash incentives to private industry?
2.	What amount was provided to industry through each program in each of the past five years?
3.	What amount, by program, has gone to each of the five major regions of Canada in the same years?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: 1.
None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
1971 CENSUS-SAINTE-MARIE CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Schumacher: 1. During the fiscal years 1969-70 and 1970-71, were any payments made to the Seignory Club, Montebello, Quebec by the
24319-22}

September 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
government and, if so (a) what were the amounts (b) what were the reasons for each such payment (c) to whom was each such payment made (d) for which departments were such payments made?
2.	Who are the owners of the Seignory Club, Montebello, Quebec?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, is the ownership a partnership or private corporation and, if so, who are the principals involved?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, while I agree that these motions should stand in this instance, may I refer to one standing in my name, No. 248, which I admit is not of very old vintage. It asks for the tabling of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of the United States regarding the proposed nuclear device test at Amchitka Island. In view of the fact the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has said in the House that he intends to raise this question generally during the nuclear arms debate at the United Nations, and in view of the fact that the proposed nuclear device testing date is getting closer and closer, it might be desirable to have that motion put at the earliest possible moment and the correspondence tabled so that all Canada can see the nature of the communications between the government of Canada and the government of the United States.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of those remarks and look into the matter to see if something can be done soon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can give the House some information following the discussions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and officials of General Motors today. Can he tell the House whether, following these discussions, there is any measure the government is taking to avoid these lay-offs? Has the government satisfied itself that the proposed lay-offs are the result of a genuine problem of overproduction, or that there is some exportation of employment by this corporation in this case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not in a position to inform

the House on that matter. I understand the minister had a very important meeting this morning with officials of the company and that he unfortunately had a subsequent commitment at Lansdowne Park, I believe, with the forest products industries. He has had that obligation for some time. Because of the complexities of the discussion he had this morning he did not feel he could easily convey the results to somebody else to report to the House. It is because of this conflicting engagement that he could not be here at this time to report to the House, but I am sure his views and report on the meeting will be made known as soon as possible. I believe he has a press conference at 3.30.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to find it possible to meet the press but not the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at the same time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which I am sure relates to a matter within his own knowledge. Now that his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made a vigorous attempt to bring home to the people of the United States the serious consequences to this country of President Nixon's economic measures-I have in mind the possible effects of the surcharge and other United States measures on Canadian employment-I wonder whether unemployment has reached a point serious enough for the Prime Minister to intervene directly to bring this home to President Nixon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the country may be aware of the speech made yesterday in New York by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was made publicly to an important audience and we have expectations that these representations will come to the knowledge of important United States officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the government regards this as a matter of importance in view of the fact that an important minister of government has made such a speech. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how serious unemployment has to become in Canada before he will intervene directly and take up this matter with President Nixon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter can be extremely serious and still be very well dealt with by ministers of this government and by officials. The opposition should realize once again that this is not a one-man government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You can't sell that, Pierre.
September 22, 1971



SPECIAL MEASURES TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL-PROPOSED MEETING WITH PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of the most recent report of the Economic Council of Canada which, according to press reports, urges special measures to reduce the very high rate of unemployment now and the high rate of unemployment to be expected this winter. Is consideration being given by the government to such special measures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably referring to the annual report which, under the law, was tabled in the House a couple of days ago and I believe is dated early in July. Therefore his information is a little bit out of date.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am referring to. I will not argue with the Prime Minister, but I should like to ask him specifically, without reference to the report, whether the government is calling a conference of the provinces and municipalities not in December or January but immediately in order to arrive at some work for this winter that will create possibly tens of thousands of jobs across Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member may have been away from the House, but a couple of days ago I explained I was trying to have a meeting with the provinces and that already four dates had been proposed by me in October and November. There is still some difficulty in obtaining agreement on any of those dates. As soon as I have a firm report from the provinces as to what date they can attend I will convene such a meeting, but I will not, as the member suggests, demand that the provinces come down here right away.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when that question was asked and answered, and I noted that the Prime Minister said he was seeking a meeting on non-constitutional matters. I am also aware of the letters that have gone to him and the letters he has sent. I want to ask him whether he has asked the provinces, and through them the municipalities, to come to Ottawa to discuss some work program for this winter to deal with unemployment or has he asked the provinces to come and deal with general matters without specific reference to the problem of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I explained that to the House too. Some time in the summer I wrote to the provinces to try to obtain from them consent to a day early in the fall. As is the usual practice, we do not begin to discuss the agenda until we have at least some tentative agreement on a date, but I did indicate publicly in this very place that it was the government's intention to have the item of the economy very high up on the agenda. I think the House would realize that even if it had not been our intention it probably would have been put there at the request of the provinces. Under the circumstances I do not see what more the Leader of the New Democratic Party wants.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the Prime Minister's answer that in fact he has not taken the
Inquiries of the Ministry
initiative to call a special conference for the purpose of discussing works this winter to deal with unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the New Democratic Party can, as usual, draw the conclusion he wants from any premise. The facts are as I stated, that I am trying to arrange a meeting with me of the first ministers of the provinces on subjects to be discussed. I indicated that one of the subjects should be the very one that concerns the member, but I cannot follow his logic when he deduces from that that I would get more results if I told them to come down here now because we want to discuss this particular agenda.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government when it meets with the provincial representatives to put forward a specific plan or suggest "special measures to combat very high unemployment and high prices and costs" as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada in its report which it has made recently to the government and which has been in the government's hands for quite some time? Is that the intention of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as with the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, it is obscure to me whether the report is the annual report, as I think it was, or some other report as the Leader of the New Democratic Party said it was without indicating what other report he was thinking of, if he was thinking at all.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that the report that I am referring to is the report that was recently handed to the Prime Minister and the government. I am asking him if he intends to take specific action or not.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Prime Minister a further supplementary in a non-argumentative and polite way. I asked him if he intends to do certain things for the good of the people of this country. As I see it, there is no reason why the Prime Minister should not answer. I am simply asking, does he intend to continue to ignore the recommendations made to the government by the Economic Council of Canada as this government has continually done in the past? Answer that one. On your feet and answer that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


George Harris Hees: What a chance this country has with a government like that!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry

September 22, 1971



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscaminque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Last Monday my friend the hon. member for Belle-chasse asked the minister the following question:
Has an application for a grant been filed with his Department by the Societe populaire des pates et papiers du Quebec which plans establishing a cardboard plant in Cabano but is now facing major financial problems? If so, what reply has been given to that company?
The minister answered that he would inquire and report to the House. Is he now in a position to tell the House whether that company has obtained federal assistance?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have had inquiries made in the department. No application was made by this company with regard to Cabano. I believe an application was made on December 18, 1969 for the establishment of a cardboard factory at Sacre-Coeur, in the Lac Saint-Jean region, but no application to that effect was made with regard to Cabano.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, related to the one put by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
Am I justified in thinking that the minister, when he receives an official application from the Societe populaire de Cabano, will grant it his usual sympathetic attention and will make a special effort in favour of the request?


Jean Marchand: As far as sympathy is concerned, that is sure, Mr. Speaker. As for money, we shall see, it will all depend on the request.



FINANCE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of increasing evidence and expectations that interest rates will rise significantly, even to record levels, and that money supply will tighten, will the government make a clear policy statement with regard to government policy on interest rates and consumer credit in order to allay increasing consumer and investor uncertainty?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have the lowest short-term interest rates in the western world in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Watch out, you are spraining your wrist, Ben, congratulating yourself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Like father, like son.


An hon. Member:: Tweedledum and Tweedledee.


An hon. Member:: He looks like the yellow rose of Texas.


Robert Norman Thompson: Not having received an answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister another. I remind the minister that everything we read from financial observers points to higher interest rates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the supplementary?


Robert Norman Thompson: It would be easier to ask a supplementary if the minister would answer my first question. In order to stimulate consumer and investor activity and relieve the upward pressure on the dollar, will the government consider initiating a strong low interest rate policy for the rest of this year and for 1972?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing. If my friend will look at the expansion of the monetary supply in Canada he will find it has been the highest in many years.



MANPOWER


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I normally would direct to the Prime Minister but I would like to get a thoughtful and reasonable answer so I will direct it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration instead. With respect to the announcement by the Aluminum Company of Canada of a cutback of one additional smelter at Arvida involving the lay-off of an additional 300 men and the prospect that the next such move by ALCAN will take place at Kitimat in British Columbia, are the minister's manpower consultative services, which are supposed to be able to assist laid-off workers, in operation at Arvida and does he contemplate using the same mechanism for potential lay-offs elsewhere?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to speculate with the hon. member about what may happen in other places. We ordinarily respond immediately to any notice of lay-offs, offering consultative services and attempting to go into discussions with management and labour. I would want to check the exact state of the item to which the hon. member referred.
September 22, 1971



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but before asking it I should like to welcome him back to the House and hope that he was successful in his hunting in the Yukon. The question concerns Bill C-187 which the minister announced in Whitehorse last Saturday will not be brought forward this session. In view of the 72 per cent decrease in investment capital flow in the Yukon last year in the mineral exploration field, will the minister restore confidence in that industry for next year's program by telling the House that it is not his intention to proceed with Bill C-187 but to withdraw it from the order paper and from the committee?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I was in the Yukon and I made a statement. The press in the Yukon responded in an editorial by saying it is responsible government at its best. The other day the hon. member said I was enjoying the outdoors. I worked on Saturday and I took a holiday on Monday. Yesterday I was in Calgary doing my work. I would like him to correct the record in that regard. I must say that the economy of the Yukon is very good. There is almost no unemployment there and the people did not complain. They like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: For you fellows to work one day out of three is pretty good.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Calgary North is rising on a question of privilege I shall recognize him, but I think I should point out to hon. members that we are running behind the regular schedule this afternoon. Unless we limit supplementaries a number of hon. members will not have an opportunity to ask their questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I yield the floor to the hon. member for Yukon, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: The reply of the minister displayed a rather astonishing sensitivity which seems to be shared by the treasury benches generally. May I ask in a very nice way whether the minister would restore confidence in the mineral industry in contemplating next year's exploration program by doing as they have asked and stating in the House that Bill C-187 will be withdrawn from the order paper and the committee. In this way we might get some restoration of investment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said in Whitehorse that this bill will not be proceeded with at this session. The committee was in the Yukon and received representations. I have decided that I want to study them and make changes if any need to be made. In terms of the prospects for investment in the Yukon, I must say it looks very good. Production of minerals in the Yukon this year was greater than the year before and I think it will be better next year.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


John Edward Broadbent: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the announcement yesterday that all the facilities of the minister's department will be brought to bear in terms of manpower retraining assistance to the workers about to be laid off at Ste. Therese, Quebec, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce acknowledged that the government had two or three months notice of this action, can the minister inform the House what specific measures have been taken by the government to alleviate the situation of the workers who are about to be laid off?


Otto Emil Lang: Again, in any of these individual cases the work being done is very comprehensive indeed, and I would like to get a full report to make to the House.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, to pull the Minister of Labour out of unemployment in the House, I should like to put a question to him.
In view of the fact that hundreds of employees will be laid off when the Chemcell textile plant closes down in Montmagny early in October, will civil servants from his department be sent to Montmagny to help the employees concerned to benefit from the regulation providing financial assistance for the readaptation of employees in the textile and clothing industry, because there will then be a large number of requests and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member put his question. He could perhaps give the minister the opportunity to answer it.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I think the idea advanced by the hon. gentleman is a very good one and I will instruct the unemployment insurance officials to get into immediate contact with the company and the employees of the company who may be laid off in the near future.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
May I also ask the minister whether the regulations of the board responsible for the implementation of the legislation providing for retirement pensions to workers who will become unemployed might not be amended so as to cover people at 54, because many will be affected at that particular age?

September 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman is suggesting that I change the law, which I cannot do, but he has pointed out to the House the very beneficial-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as I understood the question, is suggesting that we modify the rules under the law which permit early retirement of people affected by the rationalization of the textile industry. I think it is a beneficial piece of legislation which permits retirement as early as the age of 54 under certain conditions which I believe are very generous. This legislation has been accepted by the House, and it would be impossible for any minister unilaterally to change the law that has been adopted.



CIGARETTE PRODUCTS BILL


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announcement yesterday by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council that their advertising code has been amended to include the major provisions contained in the cigarette products bill, for example, the removal of all radio and television cigarette advertising as of January 1, 1972, is the minister now prepared to abandon the cigarette products bill, so damaging to tobacco growers and so unenforceable?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Without at all agreeing with the conclusions and opinions of the hon. member I would indicate that the government is pleased with the reaction of the tobacco industry generally, but this does not affect the government's intention as expressed in the bill when we have the legislative time necessary to deal with it.


William David Knowles: May I ask the minister then what are the objectionable features that are lacking in the proposal of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council?


John Carr Munro: I think that is obvious if one compares the steps they have taken with the provisions of the bill.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: My question is for the Minister of Labour and it arises from the increasing number of welfare applications being made while applicants are awaiting payment of unemployment insurance benefits. Is the Unemployment Insurance Commission adopting any new procedures for prompter payment of claims?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. gentleman for his usual courtesy in serving notice of his question. Under the new act which is now in effect there are provisions which permit the assignment of unemployment insurance payments by claimants to welfare officers when financial assistance is needed from the first day of the lay-off period. In so far as the speeding up of claims is concerned, at the hon. member's suggestion I have asked for an investigation of the evidence of the rate at which claims are processed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister mentioned that there was provision in the new act for assignment. May I ask him whether these provisions in the act have now been implemented by regulations or departmental procedures?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Discussions are now going on at the provincial level between officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the various appropriate departments of the provinces. Meetings are also going on at the local level between local unemployment insurance officers and local welfare officers across Canada.



DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-SUGGESTED DECENTRALIZATION OF SERVICES

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour.
Since in my part of the country and in many others also there are many undue delays in handling unemployment benefit claims, does the minister intend providing for decentralization in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act so that its provisions may be carried out more quickly and effectively?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This question keeps reoccurring, as it should. The monthly survey of outstanding claims indicates that for the month of August 98.1 per cent of claims were paid on or before time. The approximately 2 per cent of claims which are delayed are delayed for a variety of reasons, one of which is sometimes inefficiency in the department, with which we can deal, but more often because of the fact that claimants do not fill in the forms properly or omit to mail them in some cases and just do not register their claims at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that if we spend too much time on supplementaries, we will be running out of time very shortly.



SUGGESTED PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN TO INFORM PUBLIC

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
As the public is confused regarding the application of the new Unemployment Insurance Act, does the department intend to use information media such as newspapers and television in order to enlighten the public and thus facilitate the application of this act?

September 22, 1971


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, publications which give a simplified version of the new act are available in all unemployment insurance offices. In addition, there have been weekly advertisements, as has already been mentioned in the House, and more are contemplated between now and the beginning



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of actions taken by many Indian parents in northeastern Alberta to withhold their children from attending school and the prospect that by the end of this week the number being withheld will reach approximately 2,000, the reason for this action being to back up demands for better classroom facilities and other necessities, can the minister indicate to the House what steps are being taken to give adequate assurances that meaningful action will be taken to fulfil their requests?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I received a report on this matter, just a few minutes ago, and I am informed that the Regional Director, Mr. Greyeyes, is in contact with parents about this problem. We are trying to make parents realize that it is impossible to provide all the facilities which they would like to have immediately. However, we have assured them that we shall do all in our power to clarify this situation as soon as possible, and it is hoped that students will immediately resume their studies.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that Indian officials have indicated that only a personal commitment from the minister will stop the tide of this development, is the minister prepared to make that commitment and in effect grant the requests that are being made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can hardly make a specific commitment, because the matter is too comprehensive. It concerns not only the facilities but also the type of education those pupils must get, and since they attend a provincial school, the provincial government must also be involved. Therefore I cannot give a final answer today.



SHIPPING


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week I asked the
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister whether he would investigate the congestion in Vancouver harbour and the alleged low priority given to Canadian shipments. He told us at that time that he would report within a few days. Is he in a position to say anything more today?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a written report which I will be glad to make available to the hon. member. The gist of it is that in so far as is humanly possible preference is being given to Canadian cargoes. That is not always possible because of the mixed nature of some cargoes. The decisions with regard to the sequence in which ships are unloaded are being made largely by what I believe is known as a wharf committee, or a committee of the most concerned people. As for the question of a possible embargo, this is generally regarded as being an unwise step even if it were possible for us to introduce it, and there are some very big reservations about that. I believe that is the basis of the report. I will send it to the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you.
*



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received the final report of the Le Dain Commission? If so, when does he expect to table it? If not, when does he expect to receive it?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. I can advise the hon. member that I have not received it. In the latest conversation I had with the chairman of the Le Dain Commission he indicated that possibly it will be ready by the end of the year.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Knowing of his great interest in creating jobs throughout the country, I am sure that he must be aware of the problem I am about to raise. In light of the fact that Acadia Fisheries closed their processing plant at Canso two months ago, resulting in the unemployment of 500 people, and since some months prior to that their Mul-grave plant was also closed, thereby putting another 300 workers on the unemployment rolls, may I ask the hon. gentleman what steps have been taken by his department to alleviate this serious problem?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member did not give me notice of his question one hour before the
Inquiries of the Ministry

September 22, 1971
opening of the House because I would have been in a position to make a full report. I will do that tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the roll-on, roll-off service between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island was scheduled to commence on August 1 and has not yet begun, can the minister tell the House how soon we can expect the service and the reason for the delay?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason for the delay is well known. Upon examination the vessel concerned had more difficulties of an engineering nature than had been known prior to inspection. These have now been corrected and I would hope the service could begin in the very near future.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent statement by the Prime Minister in Ste Adele that our youth should go into business and try to change it from the inside, can he say whether he was stating government policy? If so, can he inform us of any measures the government is contemplating to employ youth in this manner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a suggestion like that obviously is not government policy. It is an indication of the way I think the business world should be developing in Quebec in particular. There is no particular measure the government can take that I can see to force young people and business people together. Therefore it was in the nature of a suggestion.



RETRAINING GRANTS-REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT OF THREE YEARS IN WORK FORCE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of manpower regulations that now prevent the availability of manpower grants for training and retraining until a person has been in the work force for three years, will the minister consider amending the act so that all unemployed can qualify for those grants?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated to the House many times, the question of the three-year rule is under 
constant review and discussion with provincial authorities. The basic position has been one of providing training for those people who have been in the labour force and not to those who are basically in the main educational stream and are up to 18 or 19 years of age. This, of course, must be reviewed in light of the numbers of people now seeking training and the availability of training places. We are looking at the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE AMONG THOSE UNDER 24-NATURE OF STUDIES-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister indicated that the government was both alarmed and concerned about the high rate of unemployment among those in the 14 to 24 age group. He indicated as well that special study and attention would be given to this matter. Can he indicate the nature of any studies or investigations which have been put into effect and also when we may expect some report on this very serious matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Manpower and Immigration just gave an example of the consideration we are giving to this aspect of the question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are four minutes left before the end of the question period. I wonder whether supplementaries could not wait until tomorrow. I am anxious to recognize the hon. member for St. John's West.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House when he is going to introduce legislation dealing with unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance benefits that came into effect on July 1 are applicable to fishermen as well as to other members of the work force in the same manner as when the old act applied. There was an inference at one time that another plan might be developed through the Minister of the Environment, to be aimed specifically at the fishing industry. In the interval all self-employed fishermen coming under the old definition will be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for fisheries tell us when he is going to introduce his new plan dealing with unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen?
September 22, 1971


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, a new plan is under active consideration. However, it is not likely to be introduced until next year.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inquire of Canadian National Railways whether or not any changes are being contemplated in the upcoming fall timetable which would further downgrade service in western Ontario, particularly freight service between Stratford and Sarnia? As such a move would undoubtedly cause further lay-offs in the area, would the minister use his persuasive powers to try to prevent any further deterioration of such services?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take note of the question and to get an answer for the hon. member.



PROGRESS IN DETERMINATION OF CASE INVOLVING REFUSAL TO PAY FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since the minimum wage is still not being paid in Canadian National hotels across the nation, can the minister say what progress has been made in reaching a final determination of the case involving Jasper Park Lodge and as to the certification of a group of employees under federal legislation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister ol Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is a certiorari action against the board before the Alberta Supreme Court. I have asked, through counsel, for this case to be accelerated.



JUDGES ACT


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I think I can ask it succinctly. When will the Judges Act come before the House again? Will he include in the Judges Act an amendment to cover supernumerary judges of the Supreme Court because of the large backlog before the Supreme Court of Canada and the overworking of the judges?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have had some conversations with the House leader and with other leaders of the House. I understand there is a possibility that the bill may come forward on Friday afternoon. As for the point about the Supreme Court, the question of supernumerary judges as they affect the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Supreme Court was dealt with fully in committee. I gave reasons why I did not feel we could contemplate that amendment. As for the work load of the Supreme Court of Canada, the hon. member will recall that when we were last talking about the Supreme Court Act in the House I suggested that it was inevitable that the court would have to be given the means to control its own roll through the introduction of an amendment to the Supreme Court Act whereby all cases would go before the Supreme Court of Canada by way of leave only.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the subject of universality of membership in the United Nations in which he is a believer. Can he advise if our delegation is making efforts in the General Assembly to bring about a situation whereby the people of Mainland China and Taiwan will both be represented in that body by delegates of their de facto governments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has a one-China policy. We consider that there is only one question immediately before the United Nations and that is who speaks for China, who occupies the China seat? The question of the future of Taiwan is a matter for the future to decide.



CANADIAN ACTION TO ACHIEVE FORMULA FOR PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF WAR OR CIVIL STRIFE

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Canadian delegation to the General Assembly keep pushing as a matter of the highest priority the acceptance of a formula by that body for providing food, medicine and other assistance to the innocent victims of war or civil strife?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is the government's policy. In so far as these items come before the United Nations or if we can take the initiative, I can assure hon. members that the Canadian government will be supporting them strongly.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House

September 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
leader. Eight days ago I asked the minister if consideration was being given by him to'the report of the Special Committee on Election Expenses and whether new legislation was being prepared. He has had eight days to ruminate on the matter. Can he now advise the House if legislation is being prepared and whether it will be presented in this or the next session?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as a government we are concerned about the question of election expenses. We did refer the matter to a committee for study and its report was received toward the close of the earlier part of the session. We are now considering that report. We will advance the matter as quickly as we can but, as the hon. member will appreciate from looking at the present list of legislation on the order paper, it is improbable that we can deal with it in this session. It is even more improbable that we would have time to deal with election expenses in this session. I can hardly make a firm statement at the moment as to what will happen in the next session.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that the report has been in the hands of the minister since June 3, almost four months, and in view of the position taken not only by him but by the Prime Minister and members of all parties in the House on this matter, can he assure us he will make representations to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that legislation be brought forward during this Parliament?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are all at one in our interest in promoting this matter. I hope we can have that legislation during this Parliament. That is our objective.



FISHERIES


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Is the Minister of Fisheries now in a position to give the time and date of the conference on conservation of our fisheries resources in the Atlantic area and does he propose to extend an invitation to Members of Parliament from the Atlantic provinces to attend and participate?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, 10:30 a.m. on October 8 in the West Block. The hon. member will be invited.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would have raised this matter a moment or two earlier except for Your Honour's interjection with regard to the length of the question period. In any event, I have risen at the earliest opportunity.
My question of privilege relates to the answer of the Prime Minister a moment ago on the question of youth employment. Either Hansard for last week is inaccurate or the Prime Minister's story has been completely altered since that time. Last week the Prime Minister informed the House that the government was going to look very seriously into the high proportion of youth unemploy-

ment. This afternoon the Prime Minister indicated that they were doing nothing whatsoever except continuing the usual program that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicated in his answer to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Possibly the Prime Minister could take this opportunity to correct the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to hon. members. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the general business of the question period. Although I am not in a position to offer wise commentary such as my esteemed colleagues did who took part in the debate yesterday, I would like hon. members to listen for a few minutes while I present a position which should be of assistance to all hon. members.
My question of privilege does not arise out of any personal frustration with regard to the question period. It is about the only vehicle left for members of the opposition to hold the government accountable for its behaviour and actions from day to day, bearing in mind what has happened to the estimates and the redirection of the legislative process in recent years.
Despite the wisdom and great competency of Your Honour in being able to recognize members, when looking to my left a few minutes ago I counted 20 members who were unable to ask questions. I know there were many members who, like myself, did not seek the floor today because they felt it would be imposing on the rights of other members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member for Vegreville could not pursue the matter he raised by asking supplementar-ies even though the minister who would answer was in the House for the first time in many days. The fact that he could not develop his urgent point will lead to frustration on the part of 2,000 native people in his constituency.
The general state of the economy occupies a good part of the question period. I did a good deal of research on the question period from the opening of the House on September 7 until yesterday. I discovered that 197 questions had been asked about the economy. This is an indication of the great concern which the opposition feels about unemployment and various other matters of this type and importance. Because of the discretion which must be exercised by the Chair in determining questions that can be asked and the 40 minute time limit, frequently opposition members are not permitted to pursue very important supplementaries, especially supplementaries that pertain to the critical state of affairs in the country today.
On this basis House leaders, in co-operation with the Chair, must reassess the length of the question period which is now of 40 minutes duration. It must be reassessed because the matters which the country will be facing this winter will be of great importance and the country will be robbed of the right to have these matters
September 22, 1971

pursued in depth and detail and the government held accountable for its behaviour. The question period is one of the few vehicles left. I am sure hon. members will be in agreement with extending the sitting day for a period of 15 minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour in order that the question period might be lengthened.
The roster system must be re-examined. Day after day members of the House of Commons are frustrated because they cannot ask questions on very urgent matters. This is also frustrating to their constituents. Members are not able to pursue matters through the ministerial heads of the various departments. The Prime Minister continues to pass the burden and responsibility for responding to the various ministers, even though they may not be in the House at that time.
I suggest that either a committee or the House leaders question the type of responses that members are getting from government ministers who answer for various departments. Despite the fact that members try to save time during the question period, out of frustration or because they are not as forward as they might be, I challenge any member to look through the 197 questions asked and show that the government has made a legitimate effort to respond to the needs of the people through their elected representatives. The hon. member for Egmont expressed frustration today. Other members are frustrated because we are not getting any indication of government responsibility from responses to questions asked during the question period by the elected representatives. This whole process has to be re-examined.
For Your Honour to be able to carry on in your usual competent fashion, and for members elected to represent their constituents to pursue matters as important and urgent as the economic affairs facing this country as well as local matters such as the one raised today by the hon. member for Vegreville, there has to be an early reassessment of the whole matter of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, it has just been mentioned that it might be possible to reconsider the business of the question period. In the interest of Parliament, I think it might be important if the meeting is going to take place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has heard the representations made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan); they are directed to the party leaders who might hold a meeting to consider this suggestion in order to improve the daily work of the House of Commons.


Robert Muir: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It deals specifically with the replies, or lack of replies, received from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I stated when I posed a question earlier today that I had not given notice because of the fact I was quite sure
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
this hon. gentleman was well aware of what was taking place in this case, 800 people having been laid off from their place of employment. When the minister attempts to reply to questions we get "nothing" answers or we are told he will inquire. The other day someone used the phrase "Trudeau the shrugger". He is becoming Marchand the shrugger. He shrugs his shoulders and gives no answer.
Earlier this week my hon. friend from Central Nova posed a question about other lay-offs, having given the minister ample notice, some days notice. Again the minister said he would inquire. He had no answer. We face this situation time and time again. In fact, the minister informed me after that effort, following the question asked by my hon. friend from Central Nova, that if he were given notice answers would be forthcoming. This is untrue. It does not happen that way. My hon. friend from Central Nova gave notice several days before asking his question. It was not necessary to do that today.
We face a situation where 800 people have been placed on the unemployment rolls. They must suffer the degradation, as able-bodied men and women, of having to seek welfare. I agree with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. Despite our best efforts it has become impossible for us to ask questions in the House and get answers or, at least, honest efforts to reply. The Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice, a few of those who sit on the treasury benches, are quite willing and happy to do the best they can and you know you are at least getting a sincere attempt to give a helpful answer. But I must lodge a strong protest with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the government, as to the activities which are taking place. Unemployment is rolling up into the hundreds of thousands, yet the government sits idly by and does nothing about it and will not even answer legitimate questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with questions which were raised during the question period concerning the intention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to hold a press conference at 3:30 this afternoon on the subject of his conversations with senior officials of General Motors Corporation. If there is unanimous agreement in the House, and I am sure there would be, I wonder whether the leader of the House would approach the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and ask him, in light of what took place during the question period, to reconsider his original intention and make his statement here before the House.


An hon. Member:: Revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, September 21, consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stablization of prai-
[Stage Direction]
September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
rie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks this afternoon on the amendments to Bill C-244, which is now before the House, I should like to remind hon. members of the statement made by the House leader of our party early last summer when this bill was introduced, to the effect that if the government would agree to make a distribution of the amount provided for in the bill by way of a transitional payment, and deal with the matter by way of a supplementary estimate, the party to which I belong would be prepared to pass it within half an hour and get the money into the hands of the farmers.
With respect to the two amendments which are before us in connection with this very controversial and questionable bill, may I say I support them because any amendment introduced by the Official Opposition or by other parties in the Commons would, no doubt, if accepted by the government, make this legislation more palatable and more effective as far as western agriculture is concerned. I should like to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board what motivated the government in bringing the bill back to the House at this particular time, despite the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has been telling all and sundry that his tax bill was to have complete priority? Was it because during the summer recess, when the minister had the opportunity to check more closely on public opinion in the west, he finally realized the seriousness of the economic plight which our farmers are facing? Or was it because the government has at least become aware of the outrageous and deeply questionable position in which they have placed themselves by failing to meet the requirements of the law through their decision to withold payment of some $87.6 million presently owing to the Wheat Board under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act? Or is it because the dark shadow of the Assiniboia by-election, perhaps even of a general election, is casting a pall of gloom over the Liberal party in western Canada? Whatever the reason, I am more than surprised that the minister should not have learned his lesson, if not during the summer recess, then in recent days in the Commons. I had hoped he v/ould return ready to present us with realistic amendments to the bill which would make the bill more acceptable to the western farmers.
In order to refresh our memories, let us read the title of the bill and the text of the two amendments we are debating. The bill is described as "An Act respecting the Stabilization of Prairie Grain Sale Proceeds" and to repeal or amend certain related statutes. The two amendments we are considering read as follows:
1.	That Bill C-244 ... be amended by adding the following to paragrah (c) of subclause (1) of clause 2 after the word "producer" in line 18 at page one: "and after the deduction of the increased costs of production and including stabilization payments, if any;"
2.	That Bill C-244... be amended by deleting the words "amount that is 90 per cent of the" (a) from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 3 at lines 31 and 32 at page 2 (b) from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) of clause 3 at lines 4 and 5 at page 3.

This sounds complicated, Mr. Speaker, but it is pertinent to the economic welfare of western Canada. With regard to the word "stabilization" in the title of the bill, I wish to emphasize that this should mean an economically viable agriculture industry. This is the point around which a lot of the contentious debate revolves. Farmers ought not to be offered stabilization at poverty level as the bill in its present form would bring about. It is with this objective that the hon. member to my left has brought in these amendments and this is why I, as a member of the agriculture committee, feel duty bound' to rise and support them.
I was amused by the remark of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), who is also a member of the Agriculture Committee, when he noted that farmers think. I wonder when he realized that farmers think. Sure, farmers think. They take plenty of time to think and that is why they are so unhappy about this bill. They have had time to think about it and about what it would mean to them in its present form.
Not only have the farmers been thinking about this, but all of the major farm organizations have been to Ottawa to appear before our standing committee to present farmers' views on this piece of legislation. These organizations included the three prairie wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the United Grain Growers, the Canada Grains Council, Unifarm, and even the minister of agriculture from Manitoba who attended in person. Besides this, each member of the standing committee, made up of 30 members, received over 3,000 letters, each protesting the bill in general and, more specifically, the very area that we are debating in these two motions. Just think, Mr. Speaker, some 90,000 letters were received. Think of the widespread ramifications of these protests as far as this bill is concerned. People have taken the time to write 90,000 letters to Members of Parliament about this bill.
Let me just quote briefly from several of these briefs. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the points they make are very relevant to this debate. I am holding in my hand the brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture under date of May 7, 1971. On the first page of the brief two very valid points are made, and they are as follows:
1.	The vitally necessary payments to be made to prairie producers as so-called "Special Transitional Payments" in the amount of $100 million. These are urgently required.
I underline that, Mr. Speaker. Indeed the federation itself emphasized it.
2.	The long term stabilization and storage policies contained in the Bill. These require much improvement... They should not be, and need not be, conditional.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker.
They should not be, and need not be, conditional.
The brief continues:
We cannot accept the assumption, as a ground rule set by the government, that to get the immediate payment the long term policy must be accepted. It would be highly improper for us to temper our criticism of the long term grains policy in this bill- and we do have criticisms and very serious ones-out of a feeling of fear and urgency respecting possibly delay of these essential
September 22, 1971

"transitional" payments. It is clearly and unmistakably the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the special payment is made and made soon, while also ensuring that adequate opportunity is given for the consideration, modification and improvement of the long term proposals contained in the bill.
Let me sum up the two recommendations made in the brief which are pertinent to this legislation:
1.	The "transitional" payment must be made immediately and not be made conditional either upon acceptance of the rest of the bill as it stands or upon its rapid passage.
2.	Aside from the "transitional" payment, the bill is not acceptable as it now stands. While supporting the principle of a stabilization policy, the Federation position is that the following minimum modifications to the policy are required to make it acceptable.
I could go on to read at some length, but what is said is incorporated in the two motions now before the House.
The Alberta Wheat Pool also made several points in its brief, and I want to quote from it briefly to substantiate the emphasis that has been put on these amendments. On page 2, the following appears:
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, our association has some serious reservations about the proposals of Bill C-244.
Then, on page 5 of their brief this statement is made:
The provisions of the bill for stability relative to this situation are unattractive. Were we heading into a period of deflation we could of course view the proposals in a different light. We are inclined, however, to accept that inflation will continue more or less along the pattern of recent times. Should this turn out to be the case, then the stabilization plan as proposed seems entirely inadequate to be of real benefit.
We have recently had debates in the House on the government's tax bill as well as the latest unemployment and inflation figures, so the worst fears expressed on June 1 have now been realized.
May I make another short quotation from the brief presented by another organization representing western farmers in order to bolster my argument in this debate. On page 10 of the National Farmers Union submission to the Standing Committee on Agriculture under date of June 3, which deals with Bill C-244, this statement appears:
The illustration serves to indicate that the shotgun approach for calculating the basis for grain stabilization payments over the total designated area on a weighted average is discriminatory and can deprive a specific region or even areas within a region itself from receiving payments or result in an unjustified transfer of income from one region to other regions or between farmers within a region itself.
This is another of the basic complaints that we have received about this legislation and the motions now before the House have particular relation thereto. The National Farmers Union goes on to say this:
Not surprisingly, farmers in a region heavily dependent on grain income contribute a greater percentage of total realized net income toward the stabilization fund than do farmers in less dependent regions. Although not based on the 90 per cent concept, the point is nevertheless illustrated in Table II.
A further very real shortcoming in the Bill C-244 concept of stabilization is the absence of any price mechanism to compensate for rising costs of production.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Let me read that again, Mr. Speaker:
A further very real shortcoming in the Bill C-244 concept of stabilization is the absence of any price mechanism to compensate for rising costs of production.
This last statement refers to what the hon. member who moved these motions was trying to emphasize. The second motion seeks to repeal or amend certain related statutes and is very pertinent to this whole discussion. In effect, it relates to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the PFAA deductions, among other things. These measures have always provided some reasonable assistance to farmers by way of stabilizing their income, and had the $87 million now owing the Canadian wheat farmers been paid to them when due, it certainly would have been of great help in keeping their industry on an even keel.
Here I have to make a point that I think is very relevant and which has been overlooked so far in this debate. I refer to the fact that under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act it was only the wheat farmers and not the growers of oats, barley, flax, rye or rapeseed who were benefitting from this particular measure. In the present bill, the particular clause that we are debating provides that the $87 million now due and owing to our wheat farmers who have been so seriously affected by lagging wheat sales over the past four years be cancelled, and that this same amount be included in the present proposed $100 million transitional payments. This would mean that the federal government would provide some $13 million only over and above what is owing the western wheat farmers. This, Mr. Speaker, is indeed a clear case of robbing Peter to pay Paul and underlines the raw deal that western farmers who have specialized in wheat growing only get from this bill.
In view of the situation facing the farmers today, and in view of the serious readjustment period through which they are passing, I suggest we must examine the proposal to base the plan on the record of returns over the past five years. This, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the debate. The record over the past five years is so bad that we cannot be satisfied, looking into the future, that use of the past five year average as the criterion for stabilizing farm incomes is appropriate. Had these five years been good years, or had a longer period been taken into the formula, the story would be different. In the past five years we have had falling sales, lower prices, increased income costs such as interest rates, taxes, cost of machinery and repairs, inflation and fuel, with the highest cost of living in history. So this legislation does not take into consideration the continued increases in the cost of production the farmer has to pay.
In conclusion, before this bill is satisfactory it will have to have built into it a formula which takes into consideration this inflationary factor referred to in these amendments, otherwise I must advise the government it will not be acceptable to our western farmers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today Bill C-244, the grain stabilization bill. We are dealing with amendments to that bill introduced in this House on June 22 by my seatmate, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). The amendments

September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
before us are very important and relate to the most essential parts of this bill. As the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) said, they really get down to the core of the bill, or what you might call the more controversial parts of this legislation.
We are not just dealing with a short-term measure or something that will have an effect for a few months or a year or two. It is something that will have many long-term ramifications, not only for the farmer but for the people who live in small towns, villages and even small cities in constituencies such as mine. Cities of the size of Yorkton, with 15,000 people, are directly influenced in almost every way by what happens to the farm economy. People in constituencies such as mine are very interested in what happens to a bill such as this. They are interested in the amendments we propose in an attempt to make the bill as realistic as possible.
This bill was referred to perhaps more often than anything else during the six or seven weeks I spent in my constituency during the summer recess. Nearly everyone in that area is concerned about it. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, has suggested that we stop filibustering and pass the bill so the farmers can get the $100 million. I wish this bill were that simple, and I am sure the farmers share that wish. They all want and need their share of the $100 million.
Almost all the farm organizations are suggesting that we split this bill and pass the clause dealing with the $100 million immediately. I think everyone in the House is unanimously agreed in that regard. However, when we study the rest of the bill clause by clause and consider its most crucial points, we find that in the opinion of most farmers it will do more to hinder them than to help them. Most farmers believe that if this bill is passed in its present form it will stabilize their income at the poverty level rather than augment their income as it should be doing. Most farmers, regardless of their standing on the political ideological scale, are opposed to this bill. Most of them have asked us to do everything we can to get the minister to listen to their representations and make basic changes such as those suggested in motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Many people feel that factors such as the cost of production should be taken into consideration in the stabilization bill. Many farm leaders and agricultural economists, who know more about agriculture than most of us here in the House, say this bill does not take into account factors such as the cost of production. This is probably difficult for those in the House who are not familiar with farming operations to comprehend. The cost of operating a farm goes up and down like a yo-yo each year because of the many indeterminable factors. In many parts of Saskatchewan this year there was an invasion of the Bertha army worm. This, in itself, has cost the people of that province many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Things of this kind have to be taken into account when we are discussing a bill of this sort.
Another thing that is directly involved, as most people see it, is the fact that this may mean a first step toward introducing the recommendations of the task force on agriculture. If we stabilize farm income, as this bill attempts to do, we will be expediting the exodus of many people from the rural areas. This measure is certainly not

going to help the low, average or middle income farmer, those people who are just eking out an existence on the farm.
In essence, this bill presents a test to this minister in that the government has been saying for a long time it believes in participatory democracy. If there were participatory democracy and the government listened to the representations of farmers and their organizations it would change this bill immediately. It could do so by accepting the two amendments proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. This would take into account the cost of production.
It is not often that farm organizations are unanimous. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers Union, the wheat pools and others are basically different in ideology, and most have different interpretations in respect of major farm issues before the country. Most of them have different suggestions as to how to solve farm problems. All of these organizations, the Farmers Union, the Federation of Agriculture and the wheat pools in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, as well as the United Grain Growers, are unanimous in their feeling that this bill is not good enough, and that it should be studied and changed. There was a conference two days ago of the ministers of agriculture from the three prairie provinces. Even though they come from different political backgrounds, they were unanimous in their opposition to this bill as it stands. This is another reason for the government to change the form of this bill as it stands before the House today.
We are not opposed to the stabilization of farm income as a result of a measure that takes into account the cost of production and net income rather than gross income. This would benefit the producer. Such a measure would be of assistance to farmers and would allow them to stay on the farm. We are not opposed to the principle, but we do oppose a bill such as this which will probably hinder rather than help the majority of farmers.
The debate on this bill provides us with an opportunity of deciding whether this minister and his government really mean what they say about participatory democracy. Democracy is more than just an odd election, and it is more than just listening to people occasionally. A real democracy is one in which the people are involved. It means accepting ideas and putting them into legislation and into practice. In this way the people can play a real part in making decisions that affect their own lives. The farmers are unanimous in this regard and they have expressed a consensus through their farm organization representatives.
When we go back home to our constituencies we are constantly reminded that this bill contains an element of blackmail. The government has $100 million that the farmers want and need, and it says that once the stabilization bill is passed the farmers will get that $100 million. Regardless of politics, is it not time that this type of tactic was abandoned in Canada? We should stop holding out bribes to entice people to accept the things they do not want. This is a genuine and sincere feeling being expressed by the people on the farms back home in Saskatchewan.
September 22, 1971

To add insult to injury, we have the controversy of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I am told that there is now something in the order of $80 million which should be paid to the Canadian Wheat Board and then to the farmers. Let us not continue with the old style of politics in which there is an attempt to bribe and blackmail the people with little gifts, and then ask them to accept something which they do not want at all. This is contempt for the people themselves. I speak not as a politician trying to make points but as someone who grew up on a small farm, and whose family is still on a very small farm. Everytime I see my family and friends, I understand the difficulty they are facing and the fear they have that the government no longer listens to them or really cares about them, but wishes to implement some things in the task force report which would mean that eventually two-thirds of the farms would be threatened or destroyed. That does not have to be the case. We could bring in some genuine amendments to this bill so that it would be a good bill and one which would be accepted by the farmers in the prairie provinces. So, I appeal to the minister, through you Mr. Speaker, to seriously consider postponing or adjourning this debate at some time and really listening sincerely to the voice of the farmers in western Canada or at least to the three prairie governments which represent them.
This bill was first introduced into this House several months ago. It was debated for a considerable length of time in the committee. A number of people appeared before that committee as witnesses. Then, the bill came back to the House and was debated again on June 22. As I said before, the minister has accused us of being political and of filibustering the bill because there was a Saskatchewan election. This is not the case. I do not think we should concern ourselves with political points of this type. We could be as equally suspicious that the minister has introduced the bill just before a by-election as he has been that we are filibustering. Let us stop playing games, let us get down to business and do something really meaningful for the farmers of western Canada.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, would the member allow a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think I will allow a question from the farmer from Winnipeg South Centre.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am the first one to admit I am certainly not a farmer, but even labouring under that handicap-


An hon. Member:: It is not a handicap.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was referring to the handicap of not being a farmer. Is the member saying that with these amendments this bill is a reasonable bill or is he suggesting that the whole thing should be tossed out? Is he seriously discussing the merits of the bill with or without the amendments or is he saying the whole thing is so wide of the mark that we are wasting our time discussing it? I am confused about what he has been saying.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I say that we should divide the bill and send out the $100 million right away. I think all this is understood. The minister asked about the bills as well as the amendments. To answer the first part of the question,
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
we suggest the bill should be divided and that the $100 million should be sent out. Just try us on that. I am sure we are all in agreement on that point. Second, I think we should really study the entire concept of stabilization. Let suggestions come from the farmers, from the grassroots, to the people who actually draft the bill. Let suggestions come from the farm organizations to the government rather than from the top to the people below. In the event the minister will not listen to us and will not withdraw the bill, we have suggested a series of amendments which we think will improve the bill as it stands on the order paper today. These are amendments which would take into account the cost of production, which would take into consideration factors which would increase the total income of the farmers and that would take into consideration 100 per cent of farm income instead of 90 per cent, and so on. If we cannot have the whole bill studied, we would at least like to have some of these amendments considered very seriously.
There are a number of other things I could say about this bill which concern the farmers back home. However, one thing which seems to be of very great concern to western farmers is the fact that this bill will stabilize their income on the basis of an average over the past five years. Most people say that if you did this you would be basically stabilizing farm income in western Canada at the poverty level. Many people fail to realize that the net farm income-and this again indicates the difference between net and gross-has fallen drastically in western Canada over the last few years. I have some statistics from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which I believe are very relevant and which should help members of this House in comprehending what is happening out there. These statistics are from the May edition of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and show that the net farm income in the province of Saskatchewan fell from $462,348,000 in 1968 to $202,718,000 in 1970, a drop of about 56 per cent over a two year period.


An hon. Member:: That is why we want the gross.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One reason we should change this bill is to really help the average farmer instead of hindering him. Why stabilize his income at such a low level? Why not do something to put some cash into the farmer's pockets? The minister and members say, look at the sales. If we were receiving a decent price for wheat we would not mind looking at the sales. We get less for a bushel of wheat now than we did in 1969, despite the fact that the cost of bread and so on has gone up drastically and despite the fact that there is no guarantee that the cost of these other commodities will not go up in the next year. These are some of the real factors the farmer faces and which he cannot control. If the farmer had the say, maybe we would not be as adamant now about some of the things we say but the farmer cannot control these factors and that is why he needs a better stabilization bill than he is getting now. In respect of farm income, the same situation applies in Alberta and Manitoba as in Saskatchewan.
Farm income in Manitoba fell from about $162 million in 1968 to about $79 million in 1970, and in Alberta farm income fell from about $364 million to about $226 million. So, this trend is uniform right across the board in the prairie provinces. We must do something to guarantee in a

September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
real way the stabilization of farm income in the future so that the farmers can plan and make decisions themselves in order that their farms may be more efficiently operated. Farmers are efficient. Farming, as an industry, is perhaps the most efficient industry in this country. What the farmers need is the right to participate in decisions affecting their own lives. All they are really asking for is a say in these decisions, that they not be made by the bureaucrats for them but by them in their own interest. I do not think the farmers are overly greedy. They are just asking for a fair deal.
There are many other aspects of this bill towards which these amendments are directed and with which we must be concerned. One thing which has been mentioned is that the bill is to be applicable right across the Prairies in a uniform way and would not take into account what may be special circumstances in certain areas. There might be a crop failure around Yorkton, in the Peace River country or in the north because of drought or because of the Bertha army worm or some such thing. The income of the farmers in these areas may be well below the average, but because conditions have been very good across the rest of the Prairies they do not qualify to receive funds from the stabilization plan. This is the type of thing that has to be changed if this plan is to be meaningful to most of the farmers in western Canada.
Now, I wish the minister would take into consideration some of the things that we have been speaking about in this debate, but even more important-it does not matter that much that he listen to us-I wish he would listen to farm organizations who have the expertise and first-hand knowledge on all these issues. All we ask is that he listen to the farmers themselves. This to me, as I said before, seems to be a natural extension of democracy, a thing we should be doing in this House. Instead, we are getting further and further away from the people. I am sure that if the Liberal members of this House, as was pointed out last night, were to go out to the Prairies and talk to the farmers they would come back and say the same things we are saying, that farmers do not want this bill as it is.
I would like to ask in a very serious way that members, such as the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Cobbe), rise and speak in the House. I am sure that he knows the reaction of farmers to this bill. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski) and several other members of this House should be in this debate also, but they are not. I wonder why? My suspicion is that they know what farmers think of this bill and because of that they do not want to participate in this debate.
I should like to mention one or two other matters before I sit down. All hon. members who know something about agriculture should rise and speak on some of the more important aspects of this bill, such as the need to include cost of production as a factor in working out a stabilization plan. In addition, rather than basing a stabilization plan on gross income, it should be based on net income because the farmer's gross income depends on the type of farm, the year, and other circumstances beyond his control. It is very deceiving at times because one may deduce from what a farmer has physically that he is a very wealthy man, but this is often not the case. There are

intangibles, as I said, to be considered such as weather conditions, drought, insects such as the Bertha army worm in rapeseed fields, and so on. These factors must be taken into consideration by the minister if the plan is to be meaningful to farmers.
Last but not least, I hope that he will either delay this bill or agree with us to adjourn the debate until he has an opportunity to hear from the three prairie governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. If some changes are not made, in 20 years time there will possibly not be a rural prairie society left that is even recognizable because over two thirds of these people will probably not be on the farms. Communities which those farms support will become ghost towns, and many of them will desappear altogether. That is not what I want and that is not what farmers want. Farming communities should be preserved and encouraged by all of us, regardless of whether we come from large urban centres or from rural areas.
Once again I would ask the minister to seriously consider listening to the voice of the people and not quite as stubborn and adamant in what he thinks are his solutions to agricultural problems. I do not want to wait until the next federal election before the people make the decision. I would like the bill changed now. If it is not, it will be changed after the next election because the people will not tolerate such utter nonsense. With the Assiniboia byelection coming up, I hope that the minister will demonstrate to us some courage and show that he does come from the Prairies, that he knows the people and has sufficient sensitivity to listen to what they want. Then, he will either seriously amend the bill or withdraw it altogether to be reconsidered. In the meantime, let us send out the $100 million and make those payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act because this money belongs to the farmers. It is owing to them under the law of Canada, and it is payable every month. We should start paying it out now.


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


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: The two amendments to Bill C-244 which are before us, both of which stand in the name of my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), attempt to do three things. First, they attempt to have stabilization payments, if any, added to the value of the grain sold by the producer for the purpose of calculating gross proceeds from sales. This would, over a period of time, raise the amount of the five-year average of proceeds from grain sales and thus increase the number of farmers eligible to receive payments from the stabilization fund. In addition, there would be an increase in the amounts they would be eligible to receive in years of low grain income. That is a provision with which I should think all members in this chamber would be sympathetic.
The second thing the amendment attempts to do is, by removing the provision in the bill that stabilization payments be based on only 90 per cent of aggregate grain sale proceeds of all producers for the crop year under review and relating it only to 90 per cent of the five-year average of aggregate grain sales, to have the computation based upon the total figure for the crop in question and the full figure for the five-year average. In so doing, one of the glaring defects of the bill, that of providing for propor-
September 22, 1971

tionately low stabilization payments to be made at times when the drop in farm incomes is the largest, would be avoided. The merits of this action are so obvious that I do not think I need even argue them in great detail. Surely, it is obvious that in attempting to stabilize incomes in an area of the economy where, even including income in kind-that is what you grow and eat-incomes are marginal and it is essential to ensure that both the absolute and the relative figures of assistance be highest in the worst years, and it is in order to ensure this that the amendment has been submitted.
The third task which the amendments that we are considering attempt to accomplish is to have stabilization payments computed on the basis of net income rather than upon gross income. The amendment in question does so by providing that increased costs of production be deducted from the purchase price received for grain sold in the process of calculating the basis upon which to make stabilization payments.
In order to present accurately the case for a plan based upon net farm income rather than gross farm receipts, it is necessary to relate the shortcomings in the gross income approach to yet another defect in the bill, and I could do so in a couple of sentences. We in the NDP have two major reservations regarding the approach to stabilization taken in this bill. First, the plan starts from an aggregate basis, namely, total cash receipts for the marketing of prairie grains. Second, as I have already indicated, the plan works on a gross receipts basis without regard to costs of production.
We see a number of adverse effects resulting from the combination of these two techniques. First, because the plan is based on aggregate marketings of prairie grains there would be enormous pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board in slow years to make large volume sales regardless of price and while this might not be a bad policy in a marketing sense it would be disastrous for the individual farmer, especially the smaller farmer, because of the violence it would do to his net income position. Second, because the plan is based on gross income receipts from marketing rather than net farm income, the plan would do absolutely nothing to slow down or counteract the net income squeeze being experienced by farmers. I am referring to the pernicious phenomenon commonly referred to as the cost-price squeeze in which rising costs and reduced prices are combining to force more and more farmers out of business.
The third major defect we see in this approach, because of its being based upon gross income, is that the degree to which a farm unit participates in the plan depends upon the total grain marketing of that farm unit up to a limit of $10,000. In the chronic oversupply situation in which we find ourselves in the west, orderly marketing depends on quotas and quotas at present are related directly to total cultivated acreage, unfortunately. Thus, because the plan is based on gross receipts, the more successful the plan is, the more farmers would be forced to attempt to increase the size of their farms in order to obtain sufficient quotas to reach at least the limit of $10,000 in grain marketings so that they could participate fully in the plan. Obviously, this implies further rural depopulation because if the
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
farmers participating are to have the acreage necessary, that means they are going to have to expand the size of their farms. In effect, this means that some farmers are going to have to be removed from the land to make room for others to expand. In brief, the current relentless competition amongst prairie farmers is bound to continue with the result that the number of farmers in the prairie region will continue its rapid decline. This may be the point at which the government is aiming, even though they will not admit it. If it is not their intention, I fail to see the reason for their resistance to the attempt to introduce net farm income into the plan.
The fourth adverse effect this bill would have upon the prairie economy would be to produce the anomalous situation of forcing up the price of land in a depressed farm economy, thus further raising the overhead which must be supported by the farmer whose costs are already too high. This effect would follow logically from the third result of the plan which I discussed just a moment ago and that is the tendency to force farmers to seek to increase the size of their farms in order to gain maximum benefits from the plan. The merit in the stabilization plan as proposed by the minister is the fact that the government of Canada has committed itself to long term expenditures in the interests of the western Canadian farmer. The flaws in the plan lie in its specifics and those specific flaws are such that they would effectively prevent the plan from doing what it purports to do, that is providing western farmers with some form of real income security.
The two amendments before us, submitted by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar attempt to remedy some of the specific defects in the plan in order to allow it to accomplish its expressed objectives. The key recommendation contained in these amendments is introducing the idea of basing the plan upon net farm income by deducting from grain receipts the increased cost of production.
We on this side of the House have not been alone in this contention. Farm groups appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture have made the same point. The minister of agriculture from Manitoba also made the point when he appeared before that committee. Now, all three prairie agriculture ministers have got together and written the minister telling him that is their position and they would like to discuss it with him. Surely, it would make good sense for the minister to take the time to listen to them since they represent the area that this plan is supposed to help.
I cannot understand why, having received unanimous representations from the three provinces involved in the plan, the minister would wish to proceed with the bill without hearing their representations. Nor can I understand why the minister is not content to take the suggestion offered on numerous occasions from this side of the House. If he is worried about the cash income position of the prairie farmer and wants to send out the acreage payments provided for in the bill, why does he not split the bill, make the acreage payments and then take time to discuss the other provisions of the bill with the prairie ministers? Surely a plan designed to be ongoing, designed to last for years with potentially profound effects upon the prairie grain economy, is important enough that the minister simply cannot deny the three prairie agriculture ministers the opportunity to discuss it. I hope that the

September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
minister will take my representations in the manner in which they are intended and will give some consideration to seeing the prairie agriculture ministers before he proceeds any further with this bill.
On this side of the House we are perfectly willing to allow passage of the acreage payments and, therefore if the minister sees fit, to split the bill. We will not allow it to go through in its entirety when we know it contains such serious defects.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. Minister rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This can only be done if the hon. member who has the floor accepts the question. The Chair would ask the hon. member if he is ready to accept a question from the hon. Minister.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to answer it.


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, as I said earlier, I shall be glad to meet with the prairie ministers of agriculture, but I am not sure I have received any word from them yet about that. I wanted to ask the hon. member, when he suggests that his party would be agreeable to giving unanimous consent to splitting the bill, does that cover an agreement to split the bill so that clauses 32 and 33 might be passed immediately and more time taken over the balance of the bill?


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, the offer which my party has made repeatedly referred only to transitional payments. It would not apply to clause 33.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult for one to understand the confusion that the people in the agricultural industry face these days in view of the number of agricultural bills and regulations that have been introduced in a short time. I refer to such items as the farm products marketing agencies bill; prairie grain stabilization bill; grassland incentive program; Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act amendments; Canada Grain Act and many others. Then, we get into the old numbers game-176, 177 and 244. It is very confusing to those in the industry who are trying to sort out the total programs, and it is even more difficult when we have some people who have done an outstanding job of mixing up those programs in the minds of producers. At times members have been forced to vote against legislation which they know is good. I do not like to see people playing politics with the livelihood of others. I do not think anybody would disagree that many changes are needed in the agricultural industry. If this industry is to keep up with the changes made in other parts of the world and other segments of our society, the changes we make must be practical.
Many suggestions have been made lately about what should be done with the money involved in this bill. It has been suggested that a payout of $100 million should take place immediately. Basically, this would mean separating the payment provision from the stabilization plan and a

percentage of the $100 million going to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, no; oh no! It is different money.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: This payment would have to be credited to wheat farmers and to wheat farmers alone. I can see that the producers of oats and barley would get very little. Once again, the producers who in the past made an effort to overcome the problems of surplus in some areas of agriculture, either voluntarily or through the Operation Lift program, get the short end of the stick. We have introduced many programs. Many bills have come before the House dealing with the production of wheat. In many cases it has been evident that little consideration has been given to other grain producers. The cash advance payments bill, for instance, really was not an equitable arrangement for those who were not growing wheat.
It has been suggested that if the stabilization bill were to pass, the government would no longer be overly concerned about the agricultural industry because it could be argued that the stabilization bill would be looking after the problems of the grain farmer. This is a ridiculous statement. I cannot imagine any government scrapping all the programs which presently deal with the agricultural industry. No bill is perfect in the opinion of all. Changes need to be made to bills at various times. If the controls and regulations do not do the job that they should do, they should be changed. I am a firm believer in that.
Months have been spent on this program, Mr. Speaker, and many, many people and organizations have been consulted. I agree that the farmers should ask for all they can get. Nobody disagrees with that. It was even suggested that the "Big 3" from western Canada should be heard. Some of their representatives have already been heard. Those people appeared before our committee, along with many other people. I am sure that they feel more money would improve this bill. Who does not feel that way about most things? More money would do wonders for many bills which have been presented and enacted into law. I am confident that more money will be put into this program as time goes on. It is very evident that the agricultural industry will require more assistance, if one considers world conditions. Speaking of more money, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of some Members of Parliament who spoke behind the curtains and in hallways in favour of an increase in their salaries and then, when the time came to vote, voted against that increase. The provision of more money will help almost anything, if you do not have to suffer the consequences.
I hope that following passage of this bill the government will undertake a continuing review of it and, hopefully, make changes to it, because this bill spells out a totally new concept for the agricultural industry. It is a new program introduced in an effort to stabilize income. The Standing Committee considered the problems of the agricultural industry and the need for stabilizing income.
It has been suggested that if farmers had not grown crops other than cereal crops in the past, many of them would be even worse off than they now are. Some hon. members feel that after this bill is passed we shall not hear any more about the stabilization program. They feel
September 22, 1971

that way because there is a clause in the bill which requires a periodic review. They are afraid that the effects of this bill will not be reviewed until that time limit is up. I do not think this is true. I know that all members of this House are sincerely concerned about the agricultural industry and the effect economic conditions are having on it.
The suggestion that we should base contributions on net income as against gross income is very interesting. It is a suggestion to which I, personally, gave an awful lot of thought. However, I have never been able to determine what the net cost of production is in many segments of agriculture. I agree that methods are being improved and that we can get a better picture of what those costs are. Nevertheless, at present I suggest that there are very few producers who can give a definite figure as to how much it costs to produce various grains. This amendment suggests that deductions should be made on the basis of the net income of producers. The bill provides that the payments are to be based on grain sales proceeds. It has been suggested that we should change the bill and base the contributions on net income. We know, and it has been suggested many times in this House, that there are producers who have not had a net income in the past few years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's under Liberal governments.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: That would mean, in those cases, that there would be no contribution to the fund which, in turn, according to the other parts of the bill, would mean, basically, that there would be no payments to those farmers from the fund since the payments are based on the amount contributed to the fund. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that it is possible for me to support such an amendment to the bill. I say that because, basically, we would be helping only those who have enough income to contribute to the fund. Many, many producers in the immediate past would not have been able to contribute to the fund. There are some in that position even at present. Therefore, they would not be able to take advantage of this bill. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I personally cannot see how I can support this amendment.


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


Gerald Richard Cobbe: Certainly.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member was suggesting that the majority of farmers today are not keeping accurate records of their operating costs. Was he suggesting that a little while ago?


Gerald Richard Cobbe: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that. I know that in the immediate past there has been a tremendous effort on the part of producers to keep accurate figures covering all their operations. Nevertheless, it is still very difficult, in my opinion, to determine costs. You get different answers from many producers about the actual costs of producing various types of grain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit another question? I am wondering if I heard the hon. member correctly. Did he say in his speech that since some farmers did not have a net income, they therefore
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
would not be able to make contributions to the fund and would not be eligible to receive payments from the fund? If he is saying that, may I ask him whether he is not aware that if a farmer makes grain sales he will make contributions to the fund whether or not he gets a net income?


Gerald Richard Cobbe: Mr. Speaker, may I say this in answer to that question. I was referring to the effect of the amendment.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am not particularly well acquainted with all the technical consequences of Bill C-244. However, I must state my views and the comments of my constituents on that problem concerning grain producers, especially those of western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we must consider here the necessity of removing some prejudices among eastern and western producers. Some of those prejudices are sometimes kept alive by the government. I would not say wilfully, Mr. Speaker, but it amounts to the same thing. It is extremely unfortunate for the fellowship which should exist in the farming community of Canada, whatever the area concerned. It is also unfortunate for the Canadian consumer who at the present time cannot take advantage of the plentiful crops offered by the producer.
In a country where production is so easy, where enormous quantities of all sorts of good things and all sorts of food products are available, it is inadmissible that the consumer cannot really benefit by it. And he does not benefit by it. Why? For the very reason that there appear to be some basic difficulties in the matter of organization and procedure and because the principles that would promote distribution according to the needs of the Canadian people are not being applied.
I would like to give an example. The eastern producer, especially the one from Quebec, finds it absolutely impossible to understand why it is so difficult for him to obtain at a reasonable price products that are overabundant in the western part of his country, when he has an extermely hard time in making ends meet. Of course, he comes to the conclusion that the government favours the western producer. It is unfortunate that these producers should think so, but apparently they don't quite know what-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but, having listened attentively from the beginning of his remarks I tend to feel he is wandering considerably from the subject. We are at the committee report stage and the two motions before us relate specifically to clauses 2 and 3. It is quite difficult, at this stage of the proceedings, to allow the hon. member to deal with the overall subject of the grain market, of marketing, of agriculture in the East and in the West. The Chair is quite willing to grant him a maximum of latitude but would invite him, as soon as he can, to arrive at a conclusion which will at least relate his remarks to the motions now before us.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind words. I may seem to be drifting away from the amend-

September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
ment as such, but the fact remains that to come to a conclusion, I had to draw a parallel between the western and the eastern producer. In passing legislation on grain production we, in Parliament, must strive toward fairness to all. That must be our prime concern, and I take part in this debate with that in mind.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, though the matter concerns more specifically the members from western Canada, I too wanted to add my grain to this debate on grain.


Roch La Salle: What grain?


René Matte: I see the member for Joliette thought right away that he could put in his seed.
This amendment really deserves our undivided attention. Offhand I would say it is very adequate. As it was so aptly put yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who brought in this House a whole stack of letters received from western producers, it is necessary to say here what the producers themselves want.
Through this amendment, we will give satisfaction to these producers who have a first-hand knowledge of their real problems and are in a position to know what should be built into this bill to improve it and to do them justice. This is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am in complete agreement with the content of the amendment. Western producers will be able to produce in a reasonable and viable manner and I hope that the East will benefit from it. In this way, we will do justice to everyone and really benefit from the tremendous advantages offered by our Canadian agricultural production.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would say "if I could get a little silence in the House . ..".
Notwithstanding the very important matter we are now discussing, during the question period earlier today it was revealed that a minister of the Crown, instead of coming before this chamber with an important report following his conversation with executives of the General Motors Corporation, decided to hold a press conference. That press conference has now come and gone, but the issues involved are still with us, namely the high and increasing level-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will admit that we are getting a bit far away from the motion before the House at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: I intend to move a motion, Mr. Speaker. I am explaining the reasons for it.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the press conference has come and gone, but the issue, namely the high and increasing level of unemployment in this country, specifically in the automotive industry, is still with us. I think the House should have the right to hear a report from the minister on the results of his conversation this morning with executives of General Motors. Therefore, I intend to
move a motion after which I intend to move that we revert to motions to enable the minister to make a statement to the House on his conversation with representatives of General Motors. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the debate on the report stage, motions Nos. 1 and 2, of Bill C-244 be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair hesitates to put the question to the House at this time because it has some doubt as to the acceptability of the motion in its present form. First of all, in my opinion, the wording of the motion does not appear to follow the practice to which we have become accustomed, whereby such motions to adjourn are simple motions to adjourn the debate and do not relate to part of a debate only. In this particular case, the motion does not ask for the adjournment of the debate but merely for the adjournment of the report stage on motions Nos. 1 and 2. In the opinion of the Chair, the House has resumed the report stage of the debate on Bill C-244 in its entirety. The House might at this point be concentrating on motions Nos. 1 and 2, but if it is desired to adjourn the debate, a motion will have to be presented which would plainly ask for such an adjournment, and would imply adjournment for the day of debate on any sections of the bill we have in front of us, not only motions 1 and 2.
The Chair is ready to invite opinions from hon. members although I am not sure they will affect the ultimate decision. Does any hon. member wish to comment on the procedural aspect of the motion?


Mr. Horner:: As I understand the motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, it is a motion to adjourn on the condition we would then hear from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce following his press conference with regard to the employment situation and his discussions with officials of General Motors. I do not believe one can move a motion to adjourn coupled with a condition; it has to be unconditional. Of course, the hon. member has the right to move another motion, but I believe the present motion is out of order because it seeks to impose a condition that we should then hear the report of the minister on his talks with General Motors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two or three points have been raised in the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might deal first with the point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. It is true that my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby said that the reason he was moving his adjournment motion was in order that it would then be possible to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to come in to make a statement. But there is nothing in the motion to this effect. This often happens. Even the hon. member for Crowfoot sometimes moves a motion which says such and such, and then makes a speech telling us why he has put the motion forward. That is what my hon. friend has done.
With regard to the point Your Honour raised from the chair, I must say I have a good deal of sympathy with the position you have taken. It so happens that yesterday my hon. friend from Moose Jaw moved a motion in the same words:-''that the debate on the report stage of motions

September 22, 1971

Nos. 1 and 2, Bill C-244, be now adjourned"-I am reading from page 8041 of Hansard for yesterday. That motion was allowed by the Chair, put to the House and voted on. There is no law which says the Chair cannot change its mind. In fact, I have spent a good many years trying to get the Chair to change its mind on a number of points. But I can see Your Honour's point that to move the adjournment of the debate just on the two amendments now before us does seem to be a direction as to what to do next, namely, to go on to other amendments to the same bill. I recognize that the Chair has ruled on various occasions that members who are not of the government do not have the right to make that kind of motion.
I suggest, therefore, that perhaps my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby might accept the thinking of the Chair and might be willing-because I believe he still has the floor-to change his motion to read simply that the debate be now adjourned. In other words, I am inclined to agree with the position Your Honour has taken and, if he will accept it, I will give that advice to my hon. friend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Unless hon. members have further comments to make, I would like to add a few observations. First, as to what was said by the hon. member for Crowfoot. Although the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby did say something about the effect of the motion on certain actions of the House afterward, as far as the Chair is concerned it only has before it a motion for adjournment with no such conditions attached. That point was well taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. On the other hand, the House is aware that it is the master of its own rules and, as has happened in the past, hon. members can by unanimous decision temporarily suspend any debate for a limited period of time and then return to the debate which was interrupted. However, this can only be done by unanimous consent, not by a motion of the kind we now have in front of us.
I am sympathetic to the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He referred to the motion put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, accepted by the Chair and voted upon. I must say that the Chair, in making its first observation on the motion which is before us took that circumstance into account and nevertheless came to a decision, after looking at the rules and practices of the House, that the motion before us is not in the proper form. Hon. members will observe at page 382 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition form No. 40 relating to adjournment of debate. The form reads:
That the debate do now adjourn.
The alternative form reads:
I move the adjournment of the debate.
According to past practices in this House, there has never been a condition attached to a motion to adjourn the debate. The hon. member who has put the motion might accept the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he so wishes, and in that case the chair could accept the motion. Otherwise, it would have to refuse the motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that the motion was being moved without condi-
Division
tions; there were simply prefatory comments. However, I will accept that suggestion and adopt the revised wording proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will 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.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is in the House, I wonder if we can obtain the unanimous consent of the House to enable the minister to make a brief statement on the result of his conversations with the General Motors Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]


Mr. Speaker:: The unanimous consent of the House is required for the purpose of reverting to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I find that the amendment before the House is one of great importance to my constituents, even though I represent a relatively urban riding in Ontario. As hon. members know, the riding of Brant contains two of the largest farm implement manufacturing corporations in Canada, Massey-Fer-guson and White Farm equipment. For the past two years both of these companies have been in a depressed condition, and the main reason that these industries have been depressed has been that western farmers, grain producers and wheat growers, have been unable to purchase farm machinery, mainly as a result of the policies of the government. I should like to suggest, in fact I urge, hon. members to consider that this amendment would create more cash for the western farmers and therefore dramatically demonstrates the relationship and the interdependence between western grain growers and the urban workers in eastern Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I would like to discuss for a couple of moments the very real problems in my city of Brantford. The North American Combine plant, when it was operating at peak, was employing between 1,300 and 1,400 workers on three shifts. At present there is one shift and about 200 workers in that huge, modern plant. To dramatize the situation even further, if one looks beside Massey-Fergu-son and the North American Combine plant, one sees acres and acres of combines sitting there doing nothing, totally unproductive. They have been sitting there for two years, during which time the workers at the North American Combine plant have been on unemployment insurance and many of them, while waiting for unemployment insurance, have been forced to go on welfare. Some of those whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out are back on welfare. Brantford has become a depressed city to a large extent, mainly because of the government's economic policy in relation to the western farmers. White Farm Equipment, which at one time was the famous Cockshutt factory but is now an American corporation, has been in a depressed condition for two years as well. They have been in bad shape for a long time. There are men there who came back as veterans after the second world war who now have 22 and 23 years seniority, but who are unemployed. This is a disgrace to two major farm implement corporations, and I suggest once again that it is the result of the government's agricultural and economic policies in relation to the western farmers.
It makes very little difference whether the worker at the North American Combine plant is making 10 cents an hour, $2.50 or $4 an hour; the point is that there is no money in the west to buy anything from the North American Combine Plant. Very often our rural citizens are tempted to blame labour for raising the costs of farm
September 22, 1971

equipment. This is a perfect example of the cost factor of labour having no bearing whatever. I suggest to you that unless the western farmer is able to get more cash, the eastern worker will continue to suffer. It was interesting to note that many of the Conservative opposition members who come from the west voted against this amendment.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I find that rather difficult to understand. Perhaps it is my nal'vete as a very new member in this House, but it seems to me that every member of this House from a western constituency should have voted for this amendment. After all, the western farmers, the grain producers, have been suffering from a depression for the past two years, and this affects my constituency. The problem is that in a country the size of Canada, it is very difficult for the people in factories and for the farmers on the prairies to realize the interdependence and the relationship between the two. I hope that if my few brief remarks do nothing else, they will at least prove that there is a substantial interdependence. There has to be money to purchase the goods, and if the goods are purchased, in Brantford in this case, we will be able to put people back to work.
I should like to state that one of the main reasons Brantford voted NDP in the last federal election was the depressed state of the farm implement business. Yet, it seems to me that the government as yet has not recognized this. They still cannot understand that unless we can put people back to work-and this amendment would help put people back to work in the east as well as assist the western farmer-that unless we resolve this real problem of unemployment, this winter will prove disastrous. I should like to suggest that every possible attempt be made to put as much cash as possible in the pockets of the western grain producers as quickly as possible so that the demand for farm implements in eastern Canada, and specifically in the city of Brantford, will go up. Of course, then we will put people back to work and the situation in my community will be much improved. On a per capita basis, Brantford has an extremely high welfare rate. We have conflicts within the community; we have frustrations and we have very deep rooted social problems, most of which stem from our depressed economic position.
I should like to urge once again in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this situation be rectified so that if at all possible the economic interdependence between the west and the east will be dramatically brought home to the people, to the factory workers and to the farmers on the Prairies.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he resumes his seat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that he can ask a question only if he gets consent from the hon. member. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member if he is of the opinion that the effect of this
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
amendment would be to allow the automobile workers in this area and those connected with the farm machinery industry to continue to operate on the strength of the money that will be added to the income of the western farmer?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would agree entirely with that question; it certainly would improve the economic situation.


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister oi Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very great interest that is being shown by members on the other side of the House in Bill C-244 and also because of the very great importance of this bill to western farmers, I now wish to move under Standing Order 6 (5) (a):
that the House agree to sit after six o'clock to continue consideration of the report stage of Bill C-244.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion just proposed by the hon. Minister, which corresponds to the provisions of Standing Order 6 (5) (a). Before putting the motion, the Chair will follow the practice that has been used in the past for such motions and read Standing Order 6 (5) (b) concerning the voting upon this question:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.

I have to suggest to the hon. member that before the motion is put, hon. members who are opposed to it must rise, and if ten members or more rise, automatically, the motion is deemed to be withdrawn; otherwise, it is passed.

Hon. members have heard the motion.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: According to the same Standing Order, more than ten members having risen, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for letting me have the floor at the report stage on Bill C-244, entitled "An Act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes."
In this bill, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I should like hon. members to give the hon. member for Lotbiniere the opportunity to proceed with his remarks. Private talks may be carried on outside the House.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members on the other side are once again being reasonable.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the basic problem which is raised by Bill C-244. First, part of the recommendation is on a certain amount. Here is an excerpt of this recommendation:
-of one hundred million dollars to actual producers resident in
8086

September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Canada and named in a permit book issued for the 1970-71 crop year before March 1, 1971;
Furthermore, there is in the same bill another problem which complicates the situation even more, and this is the definition given by the government for grain sale proceeds, This is why we have now an imbroglio in the House and we must participate in this debate in order to clarify the problem.
The expression "grain sale proceeds" is mentioned in section 2 (l)(c) and I will quote what follows:
-means the amount of the purchase price of grain produced on land described in a permit book and sold by a producer to a licensee, after the deduction from the purchase price of the grain of the lawful charges that are applicable to the grain on its sale to the licensee by the producer;
That is a definition grasping for accuracy. Now what the opposition and western wheat producers seek is a clear definition of "grain sales proceeds."
My colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) made a speech yesterday which drew much attention and in which he defined the word "production." I believe that all hon. members will benefit from listening to it again, and I quote:
-the expression "costs of production" comprises many things which, of necessity, are involved in a production cycle; it includes not only seed grain, fertilizers and labour costs, but also capital investment, interest, depreciation on equipment and that resulting from weather conditions on the land being used. All these things must be taken into consideration if justice is to be done to the producer who devotes himself to agriculture, tilling the soil to extract from it what is required to feed mankind.
The government, by introducing Bill C-244, aims at legislation justifying grants to producers. Producers, however, rightly claim, as attested by the thousands of letters they have sent to the minister in charge, to my colleagues and to many hon. members, that the bill is unfair to them, depriving them of a stable and regular income and that the definition of what is to be supported is so vague that they are prejudiced thereby.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) contains the following words:
"and after the deduction of the increased costs of production, and including stabilization payments, if any;"
The amendment makes clear the wording of the bill so that producers may be sure to get justice. In order to illustrate what producers want, here is an extract of a letter sent to hon. members, and I quote:
As a member of the Committee on Agriculture or as a member of Parliament I ask you to take the following positions on Bill C-244.
Separate the payment of the $100 million from the rest of the legislation and refuse to consider Bill C-244 until the government has made such payment.
They are also asking that the meaning of that expression clarified.
Therefore, it is the duty of each hon. member to take part in the debate in order to legitimate the request of producers and make it known to the government.
Mr. Speaker, something in the recommendation accompanying the bill proves that the government is not very logical in its legislation and statements. I quote:

-the present measure respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds; to provide for the calculation, authorization and rate of stabilization payments-
Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars, not five or ten, are involved. We must find out how and to whom we shall distribute those $100 million, and what will be the basis for calculation. The recommendation is very definite. It deals with production and determination of sales proceeds.
With regard to calculating sales proceeds, it is clearly indicated that the production cycle must be included. And as my colleague from Bellechasse said, it is necessary to define what we mean by production.
If the minister responsible awards grants without taking into account the depreciation of machinery, interests on investments, bad weather-so many factors that make up the production costs-it could happen that the producer will receive less than what it has cost him. Therefore, at the end of the year, what would happen to him is what the eastern milk producers are experiencing, that is a loss.
For instance, in the province of Quebec, manufactured milk or fluid milk producers have to work, but they are hit with a surtax on their production if they produce more than their quota. They are penalized, why? Merely because the law is not clear, it does not give a clear definition of production and does not make any connection between a grant or assistance given by the government, the Canadian Dairy Commission or the Canadian Wheat Board and the real production cost.
In my view, this is not a political question, but an administrative one. However simple it may be, it could become very serious if the government is not willing to revise its positions and to accept the proposed amendment.
I do not want to take more of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that it was my duty to invite the government to revise its positions so that the difficulties faced by the milk producers in Quebec or in eastern Canada do not become the lot of the wheat producer in the West and that the government in its dealings with producers, be they from the East or from the West, be finally motivated by business-like principles and not by sentiment or politics.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, before taking part in this debate on a very important piece of farm legislation for western Canada, I have listened to the remarks of all the members on the government side as well as of the opposition and I have tried particularly to understand the position of the members opposite who since yesterday are strenuously objecting to the passage of the bill.
As for myself, I have been a member and vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the same situation which exists today occurred last year at all the sittings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
It seems that each time we consider a farm bill, the same thing happens. When we try to help our farmers, those who claim to help agriculture constantly object to the government's bills.
I noticed earlier that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) stood and voted against the motion proposed by
September 22, 1971

the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson). So did the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. May the Chair remind the hon. member that usage forbids a member to pass remarks on votes taken in the House. These are decisions of the House, which has to accept them as a whole.
Moreover, I will take this opportunity to remind the hon. member that he is straying considerably from the subject, even if he has not started yet speaking to the two motions before us, and I will invite him to tie his remarks, as soon as possible, to the present debate.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to deal with the problem which concerns us at present. One can see the kind of cooperation we are now getting.
It is absolutely normal to ask for additional income. Farming has undergone changes and also, in a more rapid way perhaps, production standards. Productivity rates increased in that sector more rapidly perhaps than in any other industry. If we keep on producing regardless of market demand, it is perfectly logical and normal in that economic area. But, if we cannot find markets, the selling price goes down as well as the farmers' profits.
Following the discovery of new varieties of grain, of the rational use of fertilizers and improved farming methods, there has been in the western provinces, during the last few years, a production explosion as far as grain is concerned.
I do not think that situation happened only in the grain industry because broiler production and swine breeding also increased tremendously. If our production shows a 3 or 4 per cent excess over consumption, prices are directly influenced and the producers' income is affected accordingly.
I believe that voting a measure on the stabilization of prices based on an average excess of 5 years is a longterm solution in respect of farm production, and above all if we consider that when we reviewed our dairy policy, we set the production volume according to consumption.
Since then, while the dairy policy was being studied, the members of the Ralliement Creditiste and of the opposition parties to no avail have criticized the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for having managed to stabilize production in proportion to available markets.
Since then, under the dairy policy of the government, production had to be commensurate to market demand. Our dairy industry has been successful, and even if the dairy producers are not entirely happy, they have realized to what extent the government was serious and wished their production to be profitable.
The problem is not one of production. Whether it concerns grains, pork or poultry, the problem consists in establishing an orderly production plan related to marketing. That is the goal set by the present government.
I would urge hon. members-because some of them have stressed the importance of solidarity-to help producers. As regards Bill C-176, farmers are waiting for its adoption which would bring a measure of order in their farm production. They are waiting for it, and yet we are
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
still debating a bill purporting to assist western producers whom we wish to help. We must provide this opportunity so that western and eastern producers alike may realize the importance and the seriousness of the present government in establishing an orderly production.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I implore the patience of the cavalier gentleman on the other side. I want to make a few comments. We intend to support the amendment which has been offered by the hon. member to my left. I will give some reasons for that later.
In view of Your Honour's admonition a while ago, I hope I will be able to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). He made a very good speech. He asked a question and wanted to know if he was being naive in asking it. I have never had occasion to believe that any member of the party to my left could be characterized as naive. I say this in the kindest possible way. The description might well be afforded to some of the people who voted for them and may live to regret this decision, but I am not able to answer for my colleagues.
We sometimes come to spontaneous decisions as to how we record our vote. I will try to answer the question asked by the hon. member. Today we felt that the circumstances of the situation and the precipitate actions taken by this government were such that we should record our opposition to them. We proceeded in this way and supported the motion, but that was defeated. The government was able to employ full use of its exceptionally obedient majority. I did not agree with or would not accept the decision that was made. The decision having been made, I was not inclined to support the amendment offered earlier.


An hon. Member:: Now who is naive?


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not expect my friends to be naive. I sometimes think members opposite exhibit far more characteristics of naivete than the gentlemen to my left. There is no doubt that my friends on my left are socialists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: We recognize that. We can deal with them. Years ago I attended a school in Vegreville which is well represented today. My teacher used to say "I know very well I smell a rat; I smell it in the air. I shall nip it in the bud."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is the near-socialists opposite that perplex us. By their refusal to support this amendment at the report stage, they have shown that they are more interested in bringing in a measure of socialism in this country than the members to my left. I am glad that this amendment has been moved. In the standing committee dealing with this issue, my colleagues from this party were probably very indefatigable and persuasive. I presume they persuaded the hon. member to move this motion at the report stage so they would not have to move it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
8088

September 22, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Gerald William Baldwin: For that reason, I am glad to support it. There may be other reasons, but we intend to support it. I will give the reasons for supporting it shortly.
I think it absolutely repugnant to be requested, as we were a short time ago, by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) to sit well beyond the time of adjournment without any limitation as to when we would desist from the debate. Members opposite have the carriage of the proceedings of this House. For many weeks before the June recess they had every opportunity to bring forward this issue for debate, as well as other matters. Because of their incompetence, disorganization and incapacity to deal with a legislative program, they did not do so until two weeks before the time we were to recess. With precipitation and haste the minister proposed we sit for an unlimited time to deal with a matter in respect of which there are 14 amendments, including one in the name of the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sixteen.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are 16 amendments. It is this kind of action which makes us challenge the bona fides of this government and all the government ministers. Before we rise, I will be asking the government House leader what the government proposes to do on Friday and Monday, and whether they feel there is such importance attached to this bill that they will bring it back on those days. Are they going to refuse to deal expeditiously with Bill C-262 which the government thought was important enough to bring in on the first day of the resumed session. I will be asking those questions. With my usual courtesy, I am giving oral notice to the government House leader so that he will be prepared to reply.
With that little detour, I will now come specifically to the amendment. We intend to support the amendment. We in the opposition, including the members of the New Democratic Party, intend to see that the farmers of this country get a fair deal. Without this amendment, the proposed legislation will work a tremendous hardship on the farmers of western Canada. I was in my constituency during the recess, and I had an opportunity to speak to a great many farmers in the area. I spoke about this amendment and other amendments to Bill C-244, and I think it is fair to estimate that 90 per cent of those involved in agriculture at the producing end will find that this bill in its present form is repugnant to them. In the absence of an amendment of this kind, which has the effect of providing that the increased cost of production must be taken into consideration in establishing what will be the stabilization fund-


Otto Emil Lang: That is not what it says.


Gerald William Baldwin: -the bill is an inequitable one, a monstrous bill.
The minister will have his opportunity to speak. If he wishes to speak again, I would be perfectly prepared to hear him. He could take the rest of the time available until six o'clock if he has anything useful to say.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Pay your bills.
(Mr. Baldwin.]


Gerald William Baldwin: I hope the House will give an additional opportunity to the minister to explain why he continues to be a lawbreaker. My hon. friend said "Pay your bills". Why does not the minister pay to the farmers of western Canada money which is owed to them under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member has taken advantage of the patience of the Chair. He should stick with the amendment as far as possible, in the short time which is available this afternoon and not go back to the subject of a debate which took place the day before yesterday.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister to speak, provided he deals with the questions I have raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member is aware that if the minister were to speak again at this time he would be in contravention of an established rule. However, as I said earlier, the House is master of its own procedure and the hon. gentleman could speak again if there were unanimous consent. I do not know what kind of precedent this would create, but I am prepared to ask whether there is unanimous consent. At the same time, the Chair is not sure whether the minister wishes to take part in the debate at this point.


Otto Emil Lang: I would be glad to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Would the House give unanimous consent to the minister to speak a second time?


Frank Howard: No. I would be quite happy to give consent if, before the minister took the floor, we had an assurance that the bill would be divided into two parts so that the farmers could get the money which is available to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Taking into account the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena and some of the "nays" the Chair has heard, there does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Otto Emil Lang: Thanks, anyway.


Frank Howard: There is just a minute or two available to us before six o'clock. I wish the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) were here because I have something to say which relates to the position he took a while ago. I do not like commenting in their absence upon the attitudes taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. However, the minister chose to leave, and he must live with it. I refer to the attempt made by the government a few moments ago to get the House to sit past the normal hour of adjournment. This practice is followed occasionally and, in other circumstances, might have been an acceptable course. But in this case it amounts to an attempt by the government to legislate by exhaustion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members are aware that the rule of relevancy is very important. I
September 22, 1971

do not see how the last remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) can be related to the two motions we have before us. He has referred to a completely different motion, one which might have been brought up during the debate. That motion did not relate at all to the debate upon which we are now engaged, and the Chair feels that at this time the hon. member should direct his remarks to the motions before us.


Frank Howard: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to abide by your ruling and admonition. Even though I might have been slightly out of order, I was right on the point.
Perhaps I should indicate at the outset that I intend to move an amendment to the amendment presently before us. I shall do so for the sake of greater clarity. This will provide hon. members of the House who have already spoken in the debate, and who have had a great deal to say, an opportunity to respond to some of the erroneous views which members on the Liberal benches have put forward.
The amendment I should like to place before you, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after "deduction" and substituting therefor the following: "of the amount by which the costs of production for the crop year within which a levy under section 9 is deducted exceeds the cost of production for the crop year ending on July 31, 1970."
The purpose is very simple. It is to insert a base year upon which to measure increased costs of production. We felt that without this sort of clarification the amendment would have left wide open the question just what was meant by increased costs of production. Increased compared to what? The sub-amendment specifies a particular year. That would be the base, and the increased costs of production would be the increase over and above the costs in that particular year. The intention is to provide clarity.
When the debate resumes, I am sure I shall have an opportunity to expand upon the merits of the amendment I have just moved and perhaps to deal also with the major objection which every farmer and farm organization I know has raised to this piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Skeena is probably aware that it is now six o'clock. The
Business of the House
Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member would not expect an immediate decision on this motion. It is an amendment to a motion amending a clause in a complicated bill, and perhaps the Chair might be given an opportunity to consider its procedural acceptability. I should like to look further into the matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Might I ask the leader of the House what the business is to be for Friday, and for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week? We know what has been proposed for tomorrow. I ask this so that hon. members can prepare themselves in such a way as to facilitate the passage of whatever good legislation the government might be able to bring forward.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the interest of the hon. member. My dilemma is not unlike his. There are so many competing items of priority legislation that it might be difficult to choose among them.
The Minister of Justice mentioned today that we would, hopefully, arrange to deal with the Judges' Act on Friday afternoon. Subject to confirmation tomorrow, we shall call the Employment Support Act on orders of the day on Friday, then the Judges' Act and the tax bill. I am not quite certain when I can call the agriculture stabilization bill again.


An hon. Member:: Don't bother.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall tell the hon. gentleman as soon as a decision is made.


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


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker; I was just going to say that I have complete confidence that Your Honour will make a favourable ruling on the sub-amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member should not prejudge the issue. It being six o'clock, the House will stand adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday# September 23, 1971