1971-06-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
ITranslation]
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 

FISHERIES


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic salmon fishery, as many hon. members know, is in difficulty. Stocks have been declining for many years and pollution, together with overfishing for this unique species, has caused the Canadian government to introduce special measures for the protection of salmon runs on Canada's east coast.
One of the causes for a decline in stocks has been increased catches by foreign nationals. The development of a major commercial fishery off the west coast of Greenland is a case in point. Beginning in the early 1960's, and with increased effort through to 1969, fishermen from Denmark, Norway, the Faroe Islands and Greenland itself took large quantities of Atlantic salmon many of which originated in this country.
The highest reported catch of Atlantic salmon off west Greenland was in excess of 2,000 metric tons in 1969. This was equivalent, in that year, to the total Canadian commercial catch on the east coast of Canada.
The Canadian government has protested this increase in fishing for Atlantic salmon. It made its views known both to the individual countries involved and at the annual meetings of the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.
This summer, for the first time, a limit will be placed on the total fishing effort by Denmark. It has agreed, officially, to limit the number of vessels involved to that reached in 1969. This is the official position of the Danish government. However, it should be noted that the total
number of Danish vessels engaged in the Atlantic salmon fishery off Greenland fell from 15 to 13 in 1970. The forecast for 1971 is now a maximum of ten, three of the largest vessels which previously engaged in this fishery now having been converted to other fisheries.
When I was in Denmark last week, the Danish Minister of Fisheries, who is also the Minister for Greenland, told me that his government was concerned about the supply of Atlantic salmon and was adopting three measures which, taken together, could affect the size of the Danish fishing fleet ip future years. They are: 1. The introduction of a tax on the quantity of salmon caught; 2. Government loans to enable salmon fishing vessel owners to convert to the taking of other species such as sharks and shrimps; 3. The launching of a special research program, aimed at discovering additional species which could be taken by these vessels in other waters.
I therefore expect that the Danish ca' ch, off west Greenland, will decline. I expect that the catch by the Norwegians and also by the Faroese will decline. They will decline, also, because salmon quotas off Norway, in the northeast Atlantic, are being reduced and vessels which, until recently, have participated in both the northeast Atlantic fishery and off Greenland now have a much shorter season in which to try to recover their costs.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that developments with respect to the Common Market could largely eliminate our problem. If Denmark follows the United Kingdom and joins the European Common Market its commercial fishermen will no longer be able to operate within the 12-mile limit off west Greenland. The same applies to Norway and the Faroese. The west Greenland inshore fishery, in other words, will be reserved mainly for the native peoples living in Greenland. And if we succeed in gett:ng the United Nations to accept a high seas ban for salmon fishing at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973, then the only Canadian salmon taken off west Greenland will be caught within 12 miles of Greenland itself.
I do not wish to imply, Mr. Speaker, that all our problems are solved. The Danes, like the Norwegians and the Faroese, will continue to fish off west Greenland in 1972 and 1973. Denmark, officially, is also holding its 1969 level of effort. However, as I said earlier, the forecast is for a reduction in vessels making the trip to west Greenland and the offshore catch of Canadian salmon should be reduced accordingly.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the announcement made this morning by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry with regard to efforts that have been made to conserve Atlantic salmon.
I should first like to thank the minister for the courtesy he extended to the official opposition by delivering a

June 7, 1971
Fisheries
copy of his statement to my office about 15 minutes prior to the opening of the House.
While we welcome any move that will result in the conservation of our declining fisheries resources, it is somewhat regrettable that the best agreement which could be reached with Denmark at this time on the conservation of Atlantic salmon is one that limits their catch this year to an amount similar to the take in 1969. I point out to the minister that a limit on the number of vessels that will be used in the fishery really has no bearing on the take of salmon by the Danes. All that is required under an agreement of this type is for fishing activity to be speeded up, and with a declining number of vessels, the Danes can still take as many or even more fish than were taken in previous years.
The minister has stated that in 1969 the reported catch off west Greenland was in excess of 2,000 metric tons, which was equivalent to the total commercial catch off the east coast of Canada in that year. This is a large quantity of salmon. As a result of the huge take of salmon on the high seas our salmon stocks have declined all along the east coast until today this species is rapidly becoming one of the extinct species off our coast. We simply cannot sustain this amount of fishing activity.
There has never been a period in the history of our fishing industry when our over-all fisheries resources have been so sorely threatened. This point, which has been made time and again, was made very forcefully by representatives of the industry when they held their 26th annual meeting in Ottawa between May 2 and May 5. At that time, one of the resolutions put forward by the Fisheries Council of Canada called for recognition of the concept that anadromous species of fish such as salmon were the rightful property of the country of origin and other countries should therefore refrain from catching them.
It seems that this concept has not been put forward forcefully enough by our representatives and our spokesmen in the Department of External Affairs when attending international meetings on this problem. There has been little or no change within the last decade in fishing operations carried out in international waters. It makes no sense whatever for Canada to spend approximately $2 million annually on the development of salmon stocks and in restoring salmon runs if other nations adopt the attitude that high seas fishing can be continued without regard to the source of the salmon.
We welcome this announcement as only a very small step in the right direction. I cannot urge too strongly upon the minister the need for securing agreement at the 1973 International Conference on the Law of the Sea on the concept that anadromous species such as salmon belong to the country of origin.
I understand that at the present time a congressional investigation is being held in the United States on this matter. It may be advisable for the minister to bring the subject before the fisheries committee, composed of members of this House, for consultation on this important
matter. Nothing short of a total ban on the catching of salmon on the high seas is acceptable to the members of the official opposition.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, our group welcomes the announcement by the minister. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to study his remarks. The copy of his statement was sent to the member of the fisheries committee who usually responds for our party.
The information that we have come to some kind of an agreement with Denmark on the conservation of the Atlantic salmon fishery is of great interest, I am certain, to all hon. members, especially those who live on the east coast. However, I point out to the minister that while overfishing by the Danes has been the cause of most of our trouble with regard to the depletion of Atlantic salmon, pollution has also been a cause. In numerous rivers on the east coast where the salmon have normally spawned pollution has prevented them from going up these streams to spawn. This is another aspect which the government must study if we are to obtain any real benefit from the agreement with Denmark. We must do something with regard to our streams in Canada to ensure that spawning areas are available when these fish come to the east coast to spawn.
I have attended several meetings of the fisheries committee. There have been repeated warnings by individuals who have appeared before that committee with regard to declining stocks of other species of fish off the east coast of Canada. Along with the hon. member who has just spoken and other hon. members, I urge the minister to do everything possible to carry out the investigations which are necessary to ensure that this vital and valuable fishery on the east coast of Canada is retained and expanded in the years to come.
We certainly welcome this announcement and hope it is one of the first of many steps to make sure that we conserve our fisheries for all time.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the difficult situation in which our east coast fishermen find themselves and we appreciate all measures taken to improve their lot.
That agreements be entered into with other countries, that is good. But, if the government dealt with the pollution problems of both the east and the west coasts of Canada, that would be of great help to the fishing industry which is surely of value to the country. I say it again, any measure to help east coast fishermen will have the support of my colleagues, especially the Social Credit members. I am happy to hear the minister inform us this morning of the measures presently taken to help the fish.ng industry in eastern Canada.

June 7, 1971



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Peddle: 1.	What was the total cost of newspaper, radio and television advertising by CNR in Newfoundland in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970?
2.	What were the media and amounts paid to each in each year?
3.	What is the anticipated expenditure for 1971?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian Railways advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Advertising of the various services offered by the company is done in accordance with what is considered to be the requirements of the market. Expenditures covering advertising are controlled through an annual budget which is also made in accordance with considered requirements. The placing of advertising is a matter of internal management and it is not the practice to disclose the information on a territorial breakdown basis.


CONVICTIONS FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
Mr. Peddle: 1.	How many convictions for possession of marijuana were registered in Canada for each year since 1960?
2.	What were the penalties imposed in each case?
3.	What were the ages of the accused in each case?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. 1960, 15; 1961, 12; 1962, 11; 1963, 30; 1964, 27; 1965, 40; 1966, 109; 1967, 453; 1968, 1,078; 1969, 2,313; 1970, 5,399.
2 and 3. To obtain the information requested would require a manual search of records which would be prohibitively expensive and for which funds are not available. For this reason, it is regretted that the information cannot be provided.


POLICY OF AIR CANADA ON BILINGUALISM
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is Air Canada's policy on the distribution of French newspapers on its flights?
2.	What is Air Canada's policy on the use of French at the Ottawa Airport?
3.	What is Air Canada's policy on bilingualism?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. It is Air Canada's policy to board French language newspapers at points of publication on flights where there is an anticipated demand, in a quantity proportionate to the total number boarded. Where French language newspapers are not published, but are in demand, a supply is flown to the departure
Questions
point to be boarded as appropriate. French language magazines are boarded on all Air Canada flights.
2.	Services to the travelling public are provided in both official languages.
3.	To provide bilingual services to the travelling public in Canada and elsewhere wherever there is a significant and regular demand. The matter is under continuing review.


AIR CANADA-YARMOUTH AIRPORT
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Since the recent reduction of personnel at Yarmouth Airport, by Air Canada, have any flights been delayed and, if so (a) how many (b) by what length of time?
2.	What is the normal ground time for Air Canada flights at Yarmouth?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. During the period February 21 to March 18 inclusive ten flights were delayed for periods ranging from two to fourteen minutes as a result of unusual heavy freight, accommodation of late arriving passengers, and minor technical difficulties.
2.	Flight 330, 35 minutes; flight 331, 25 minutes.


WHEAT BOARD GRASS SEEDING PROGRAM
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Is It the intention of the Wheat Board to continue the grass seeding program as it was under Operation Lift in 1971 or beyond and, if so, will payments remain the same?
2.	Is it the intention of the Wheat Board to continue to exempt land seeded to grass from grain quota?
3.	How many acres were removed from quota acreage by the removal of grassland from quota?
4.	What was the total decrease in quota acreage resulting from quota changes under Operation Lift?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The Federal Government is continuing to offer a $10 an acre payment under the Prairie Grains Policy Forage Program to farmers who switch production from grains, oilseeds and other crops to forage. To qualify for payment farmers must increase their net forage acreage by at least 25 acres and decrease their net crop and summerfallow acreage by a corresponding amount in order to qualify for payments. There is no maximum for the individual farmer nor are there any restrictions on the use and harvesting of nurse crops. The incentives will apply for three years or on 4 million acres of land, whichever limit is reached first.
2.	In the 1971-72 crop year land actually seeded to perennial forage (up to a maximum of one-third of the total of land in summerfallow, in the six quota grains and in miscellaneous crops) will form part of a producer's total assignable acreage base.
3.	5,396,065 acres.
4.	13,777,952 acres.

June 7, 1971
Questions


ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES OF CNR TRAINS, TORONTO TO HAMILTON
Mr. Sullivan: 1 What were the scheduled times of departure and arrival for CNR trains from Toronto to Hamilton from the period of March 12 to March 22, 1971 and what times did the said trains actually depart and arrive?
2. In the case of each late arrival, what was the reason?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: As listed on Page 14, Table 30 of the company's System Timetable issued effective February 1, 1971, the following trains operated between Toronto and Hamilton during the period in question: 637 Lv. Toronto 0915, Arr. Hamilton 1002; 641 Lv. Toronto 1720, Arr. Hamilton 1810; 651 Lv. Toronto 2305, Arr. Hamilton 2347. On nine occasions late departure from Toronto resulted from delay in arrival of incoming connecting trains or loading of passengers and on three occasions resulted from equipment problems. Late arrivals at Hamilton occurred on 18 occasions and resulted from the foregoing and because of slow orders which were in effect on sections of the track.


RENTAL OF PIERS IN HALIFAX BY NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What piers in Halifax are rented in their entirety by the National Harbours Board (a) to whom (b) on what terms?
2.	What piers in Halifax are rented, by the Board exclusively, as to portions thereof (a) to whom (b) on what terms?
3.	Has the Board received complaints that small companies are not able to obtain rentable space from the Board and, if so, what is being done to answer such complaints?


Gérard Duquet: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Pier C Container Terminal excluding area of dock approximately 1800 feet and 50 feet back from the face of dock, (a) Halterm Ltd. (b) As per Heads of Agreement between NHB and Halterm Ltd.
2.	None, (a) N/A. (b) N/A.
3.	No complaints received by the Board.


DELIVERY PERMITS ISSUED BY CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Mazankowski: How many delivery permits were issued by the Canadian Wheat Board in the crop years 1968-69 and 1969-70 to producers for the delivery and sale of wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: In crop years 1968-69 and 1969-70, 190,606 and 190,004 Canadian Wheat Board delivery permits, respectively, were issued to producers.


COST OF QUEBEC BRIDGE
Mr. Godin: 1. What was the initial cost of the Quebec Bridge?
2. What was the amount of interest paid?
[Mr. Lang.)
3. Has the total amount been paid and, if not, how much is
still owed?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The total capital cost of the Quebec Bridge including expenditures up until 1927 is shown in the Public Accounts of Canada at $21,706,664.49.
2.	Nil-The Quebec Bridge was entrusted to CNR for management and operation by authority of order in council P.C. 115 of January 20, 1923.
3.	Not applicable.


REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS TO DORVAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total amount of repairs and alterations effected to the Dorval International Airport since July 1, 1970, and what will be the final estimated cost of these repairs and alterations?
2.	What is the reason for the repairs and alterations that are being carried out?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The total cost to the Department of Transport of repairs and alterations at Dorval since July 1, 1970 until May 12, 1971 was $2,042,287. The final estimated cost is $9,307,231 and includes road and carpark construction begun before July 1, 1970. The major part of these funds is allocated to the provision of interim terminal building facilities.
2. These repairs and alterations are necessary to accommodate the B-747, L-1011 and other wide-bodied aircraft and provide increased capacity until Montreal II Airport is expected to be operational in 1974. Work is also necessary on the runways and taxiways which will accommodate these large capacity aircraft.


LOANS GRANTED UNDER THE CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON SPECIAL AREAS
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	For the period December 1, 1970 to May 1, 1971, how many loans were granted to the Province of Quebec under the provisions of the Canada-Quebec agreement on special areas?
2.	How many loans were granted from the signing of the agreement to December 1, 1970?
3.	What is the duration of each loan?
4.	What is the interest rate for each loan?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secrelary lo Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Fifteen.
2.	Seven.
3.	All loans are for a duration of 30 years, except one, which is for 15 years.
4.	The current rate, as established by the Department of Finance, is:
Repayment Period	Rate
15-19.99 years	6|%
20 years or more	61%8%
June 7, 1971


GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION OF STOL AIRCRAFT AS FEEDER PLANES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What consideration is being given by the government to the participation in the development of STOL aircraft as feeder planes to areas of high population?
2.	Has consultation been initiated with private companies with regard to the implementation of such a programme and. if so. which companies?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Consideration and study are being given to all applications of STOL air transport systems in Canada. These applications include: (a) city-centre to city-centre; (b) regional, that is a service to improve transport and communication in less heavily populated areas; (c) feeder, including service from small centres to major urban centres and service connecting various centres to major airports, and (d) applications unique to northern areas of Canada. The announcement of a program to establish a demonstration service made on 13 May, is for a city centre service. Other applications will continue to receive examination and where it proves efficient and economical services may be introduced appropriate to these applications.
2. The Minister of Transport has met with groups from the Air Industries Association of Canada (AIAC) to discuss STOL programs and to hear the industries' views on a National Major Program. The AIAC represents most of the manufacturing companies in Canada who have an interest in STOL.


CNR HOTELS IN CANADA OPERATING AT A LOSS IN 1969-70 AND 1970-71
Mr. McGralh: What CNR hotels in Canada operated at a loss during the fiscal years 1969/70 and 1970/71?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Hotel Bessborough, and Hotel Macdonald.


P.E.I. DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUDGET
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has a budget been submitted by the Province of Prince Edward Island to the Government of Canada with respect to moneys required for the fiscal year 1971-72 under the P.E.I. Development Plan and, if so, what are the details?
2.	Has the whole or any part of the submitted budget been approved by the federal government and, if so, what are the details of the projects approved?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. The Province of Prince Edward Island does not submit a budget to the Government of Canada. Program proposals within the plan are developed jointly.
2. All the proposals are not yet final. When they are, the program expenditures will be made public.
Order of Return


CIRCULATION AND COST OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PUBLICATION, &quot;NEWS&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,461
Mr. McCulcheon:: 1.	What is the total circulation of the News published by the Information Division, Department of Agriculture?
2.	What is the annual cost of this publication?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The
circulation of the weekly publication News is 2,535.
2. Annual cost-$13,520.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
1971 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For the 1971 Census of Agriculture (a) how many questionnaires will be used (b) how many questions will be asked?
2.	How many and which rural areas were chosen to test the draft agricultural questionnaire in the Fall of 1968?
3.	For the Agriculture quality check program (a) what percentage of all census-farms will be re-enumerated (b) what will be the area sample (c) what will be the questions?
4.	For the 1971 Census of Canada will the government hire university students as enumerators and, if so, how many?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has agreed in principle that the federal government will accept constitutional changes increasing provincial jurisdiction with regard to income support and social service programs, or at least enlarging the area of the priority of provincial legislation in these fields?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, no agreement has been reached with any of the provinces concerning any constitutional amendments beyond those which were mentioned in the communique of the February conference. Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, there has been discussion by some provinces of amendments they would like to see made to the constitution, particularly concerning social security matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is, therefore, the position of the federal government with regard to federal and provincial jurisdiction in the areas of income support and social service programs and the respective priority of federal and provincial jurisdiction in those areas the same as that set

June 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
forth by the government of Canada in its working paper submitted several federal-provincial conferences ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is still the position of the federal government. As the Leader of the Opposition says, it was published in a white paper that we tabled at the conferences. I should add that at the request of one of the provinces we have asked the other provinces to consider an amendment to section 94A. This was done by the Minister of Justice in consultation with the various provinces as much, I believe, as two months ago. None of the provinces has yet indicated agreement, nor has the federal government; but the Minister of Justice did bring this amendment to the attention of the other provinces. We have no final position from the other provinces on this as yet.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from the Prime Minister that his government is not prepared to accept the proposed changes to section 9 4A, and that the government of Canada will go to the conference in Victoria taking precisely the same position in regard to income support and social services jurisdiction as was expressed in the working paper presented at a prior federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the second part of the question, we will repeat the position we took in the working papers to which the hon. member refers, but we will discuss with all the provinces the possibility of this amendment to Section 94A that I mentioned a moment ago and which was brought to the attention ol all the provinces. I do not know what the consensus of the conference will be.



NATURE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 94A- MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL STANDARDS IN SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would he indicate to the House what kind of amendment was requested? While I am pleased to know that the Prime Minister has had a conference with the Prime Minister of Quebec, would he also indicate to the House whether he has had direct discussions with the premier of any other province on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the latter question, I have had, of course, direct discussions with other premiers regarding the June conference. In reply to the first question, I cannot give the exact text of what was suggested, though it has been submitted to all provinces, because we did agree that the documents for this conference on June 14, 15 and 16 would not be made public. Therefore I do not think I should make the substance of it public.


David Lewis: Could the Prime Minister at least inform the House, if he feels free to do so, whether the approach taken would remove from the federal Parliament any jurisdiction in this field, or would it be a divided or
concurrent jurisdiction? Does the Prime Minister feel free to tell us in what direction the amendment would go?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel free to answer that question; to do so would be to reveal the substance of the amendment. I hasten to add that it is merely to make the negotiations more hopeful that we are taking the position that no province will publish its position on negotiations that might have taken place since the February consensus.


David Lewis: Can we have from the Prime Minister, even at this stage, an assurance that the federal government will not agree to any amendment to the constitution that would destroy any possibility of national standards, that, even though some province or provinces may have particular responsibilities or additional powers, national standards in the area of old age security and other social security measures will not disappear from the scene in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That indeed is the position we have taken in our working papers. I probably would not want to go even as far as the leader of the NDP when he says even though some provinces might have-I forget his expression-some special powers. We are not taking this position. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, we are taking the position of our working paper, which is known to the public. However, we are going to meet in Victoria to negotiate and discuss, and the provinces and the federal government will have to make up their minds as to what they are willing to agree to by way of amendment, if we are going to reach any agreement at all. As the House knows, there will be no binding agreement imposed on Parliament. If any agreement is reached in Victoria it will of course be discussed in Parliament to see whether or not we have its approval.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Everyone knows that the Prime Minister took a constitutional in company with the premier of Quebec yesterday afternoon. Was Section 94A of the Constitution then discussed? My second question is as follows: will whatever is granted to Quebec be also made available to other provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as for the other questions, I do not want to go into the detail of the discussions. But as regards the question asked by the Social Credit leader, I may say that should there be a constitutional amendment the position of the federal government is to insure effectively that all the provinces receive the same treatment.
I would like to add that the difficulties with regard to the amendment which the hon. member has mentioned are as follows: the federal government feels-and I believe that this touches on the question raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party-that it should continue to redistribute the wealth to the poor of our coun-

June 7, 1971

try. It should have certain powers in the fiscal and social fields, as otherwise only the rich provinces would be able to assist their needy people and the less wealthy provinces would see their income reduced because they would receive no assistance under federal programs.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize one last supplementary on this subject and then go to the next subject.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put this supplementary question to the Prime Minister. When he referred to the government's working papers by which it intends to stand, do these papers include the white paper on income security for Canadians which was tabled in the House last December and which implies a considerable degree of federal involvement in the maintenance of income security?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the paper, indeed, in which we made our position most clear and to which I was referring in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. It is in that paper that we indicated it is in the national interest, particularly of the less-favoured Canadians, that the federal government maintain jurisdiction in these areas. If it does not, the provinces will not be able to follow national standards and we will have the richer provinces helping their people to a greater degree than the poorer provinces will be able to do. That is why the federal government has taken the position that it is not a question of trying to keep power for ourselves, it is to keep power for the federal government in order that we will be able to redistribute the wealth across the country to individuals who need it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mi. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, if such a person is in the House. In view of the gravity of the situation in East Pakistan and West Bengal, will the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement tomorrow on motions dealing with the whole situation and, in particular, with Canada's contribution to the massive humanitarian relief required and to the political settlement which is essential?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could discuss the possibility of a statement with the department, although I could perhaps satisfy hon. members by answering questions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be back in Canada from Europe on Friday, I believe. Perhaps at that time he will want to make a statement as he did on May 28, but there is little to add to that statement. The figure of $2 million was given to the House as the amount which has been offered 24107-55
Inquiries of the Ministry
to the High Commissioner for Refugees at the United Nations. There have been various other bodies in Canada which have contributed generously to the relief of the plight of the East Pakistanis. The federal government has indicated a willingness to do even more if such moneys were needed.


Mr. Brewin:: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what consultations, if any, are going on with other countries such as the United States, Britain or India with a view to united pressure of the world community to bring about the political settlement which is surely essential to dealing with the problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been discussions of this problem among various countries, but I cannot answer as to what results seem to be forthcoming. We do realize that, apart from the medical and other relief aspects, it is necessary to come to grips with the political problem, but we are not waiting, of course, for the latter to stand in the way while we are helping the refugees in every way we can.


EAST PAKISTAN REFUGEES-ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEASURES TO COPE WITH PROBLEM
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, while the $2 million to which the Prime Minister referred dealt with the situation as it obtained some time ago, in view of the fact that a new emergency has arisen, with some five million refugees now in India and the outbreak of cholera in Calcutta which could have disastrous consequences, is the Canadian government taking any immediate emergency measures in addition to the supply of vaccine, which I understand is being flown there today, in order to help India to cope with this monumental problem which has suddenly been thrust upon it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are working through the World Health Organization and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who are co-ordinating relief assistance with the Indian government. I repeat that the federal government indicated it was prepared to assist to the tune of $2 million. The way in which this will be spent depends on the co-ordination possibilities which are required. It is apparently and obviously a very difficult task to co-ordinate relief on such a scale and under such political conditions, but we are doing it through the United Nations agencies.
Canadians have also been very helpful. OXFAM has contributed $10,000 for general relief expenditure and has indicated its intention to provide up to $140,000 for a field medical unit. Canadian Mennonites have provided $30,000 and an additional $35,000 has been pledged. The United Church has contributed $25,000 and the Anglican church $10,000 for field services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the information is of interest to the House but perhaps this is the kind of detailed information which might more appropriately be provided to the House on motions.

June 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the enormous problem that appears to exist and the very distinct possibility, if not probability, of a tremendous calamity taking place, is the government of Canada taking any steps in conjunction with world organizations to really assess what needs to be done there to prevent a catastrophe of astronomical proportions taking place? Will the Prime Minister not agree that while the approaches he has mentioned are very estimable, something on a much larger scale in the form of a much more highly co-ordinated world-wide effort must be organized if we are to face our responsibilities as citizens of this world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you very much.


Mr. Hees:: That was not for you, Pierre.


Mr. Bell:: You are not on a trip now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has indicated to the government of India that it has experts available if it needs experts to help, as the Leader of the Opposition just said, assess the situation. But the opinion of everyone is that the situation now at this stage has been fairly well assessed and for the moment the needs are well known. It is a matter of meeting these needs, and Canada is contributing in meeting these needs in co-operation with others in the way I have just said.


INDUSTRY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of economic development.
Considering the difficult situation in which the Soma plant-la Societe de Montage Automobile Soma Inc.- finds itself as well as the bankruptcy of Automobiles Manic Ltee-maker of Canadian cars-has the minister been consulted, or has he been requested to provide financial assistance to prevent the closure of this company or to improve the situation in which the Soma finds itself?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the name of my department is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
There have been discussions between my department and Manic company and we have awarded them an extremely generous grant. Unfortunately, they still have financial problems. I know that the provincial government is especially interested in that case and I hope there will be a solution. As for me, I can hardly do more
regarding financial assistance since there would then be disparity in relation to the invested capital.
As for the Soma plant, Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about its present situation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the report handed to the government some time ago by the Prices and Incomes Commiss.on to the effect that four major Canadian oil companies have been in violation of the government's price restraint program, is it the intention of the government to take steps in the near future to require these companies to comply with these price restraints?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. As this report was made to the government, not to the minister but to the government, some time ago and obviously has been discussed, according to all reports, extensively by the cabinet, can the Prime Minister not give a report to the House now in view of the fact that the government's action or lack of action in this regard will have a considerable effect on any possible price restraint program the government may have in mind for controlling the present inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the report was made to the government, but the minister who answers to the House in this regard is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and in this government we like to share our responsibilities.


George Harris Hees: You like to duck your responsibility in reporting for the government and you know damn well you do.




Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Considering that the NATO council discussions have concluded and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not due back in the House for a week, will we be having a statement on motions about the meeting of this body which some of us consider to be rather important?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but in the hubbub I did not get the consideration of the question. I do not know what body the hon. member is referring to. Perhaps he would assist me by telling me the body he is talking about.
(Mr. Speaker.]
June 7, 1971


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry he is so detached about NATO which is a fairly important world organization. In light of the fact that the minister is not due back in the House for a week and since the meetings are concluded, will there be before the minister's return a statement in the House on those discussions and Canada's role therein?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to ask the Minister of Labour but perhaps in his absence I could direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with the fisheries union situation in the Maritimes. Why have such a large number of fishermen who were fired by Acadian Fisheries prior to the end of March experienced such unusual and prolonged difficulty in establishing benefits at the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Nova Scotia?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary can answer the question briefly he will be allowed to do so, but the hon. member has asked a question in a form which I suggest is not acceptable. He is asking the government to explain why certain things have happened, and a question in those terms is not normally acceptable. Normally it should be replied to by way of a general statement on motions. However, as I have suggested, if the parliamentary secretary can answer briefly he will be allowed to do so by the Chair.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission found claims for 35 workers in this particular matter. Of these, four went off claim, six qualified for seasonal benefits, three qualified for regular benefits, nine qualified for year-round fishing benefits- draggers-and 13 did not qualify because of insufficient contributions. There is a very lively interest on the part of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in seeing that full justice is done these men.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Would he say whether special steps have been taken to prevent the impending closing of the Chemcell plant in
Inquiries of the Ministry
Montmagny which would result in the dismissal of some 200 workers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have learned, as the hon. member, of the eventual closing of the Chemcell plant in Montmagny. The company itself has made no request for assistance either to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to my department. And the main reason for the shutdown would be a market trend toward knitwear rather than fabrics.
So, Mr. Speaker, since the company has not requested any assistance, I do not see how I could run after it to give it assistance that it has not requested.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-BREAKDOWN OF GRANTS BY PROVINCES-JOBS CREATED
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State. Since the selection of summer programs under the Opportunities for Youth program has now been completed, can the minister tell the House the amount of funds allocated to each province under the program?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that as soon as the complete list of all projects to be approved is ready, it will be tabled here, including the figures on distribution by regions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the minister now in a position to tell the House how many jobs have been created under the program to date?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, once again it would be an approximation since the figures will not be known exactly before the list is completed. Even then we shall not be able to tell how many jobs were created as a secondary effect of the program. But as for the jobs directly created, we shall give figures as precise as possible when I table the complete list of approved projects in the House.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the minister tell us whether the people have been advised in some way that their projects had been approved?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there are very few approved projects whose approval has not been communicated to their initiators. However,
there are a few because, as I have already informed this House, we had to maintain some sort of a "cushion" in order to be able to meet unexpected requirements or situations. Therefore everything has not been completed, but I can say that there are very few projects concerning which the promoters have not been informed.

June 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Monireal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
It there are few projects left at this time, could the minister say when he expects tabling the final report in the House?


Gérard Pelletier: Very shortly, Mr. Speaker.


BROADCASTING
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 3, I asked the Prime Minister whether there had been any change in federal policy on the issuing of broadcasting licences. In view of the Prime Minister's earlier reply to a question this morning relating to social and income security policy, to the effect that all provinces should be treated equally, can the Prime Minister explain the difference and distinction between federal policy in the issuing of broadcasting licences to agents in right of a province, and how that licencing policy applies to educational institutions compared with cablevision stations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again the Chair will allow the Prime Minister to reply briefly to the hon. member, but when the hon. member invites a member of the government to explain why such and such a situation exists he is really inviting a statement which normally ought to be made on motions. The hon. member at that point is not seeking information but is rather inviting a debate or argument back and forth between himself and the minister responsible. I always hesitate to make these interjections because they take so much time. It might be easier to say nothing and allow the Prime Minister to reply. However, I have again tried to make the point, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he might reply briefly to the hon. member's question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the situation he described in his question some days ago, I understand that the purchase was not by any government, but mainly by insurance companies. Therefore it is a private purchase. As to the matter of licence and permit, there has been none issued. Of course they will appear before the CRTC, as everyone else does, and then we will see what the decision is.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your earlier admonition about argumentative questions, but on a point of order before I come to my supplementary may I point out that questions do become argumentative when answers are perhaps not responsive to earlier questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order, and the hon. member could not know what the reply would be when he asked the question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, yes, I did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did know.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member, in any event, return to the matter and ask a question rather than rise on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will return to the supplementary, but I know the answer to the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should understand that he is given the floor for the purpose of asking a question. If we get involved in points of order and questions of privilege we lose quite a bit of time. However, I have no objection to the hon. member asking a supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a question of privilege before I come to the supplementary, Your Honour implied that I was perhaps being a little facetious in saying I knew the answer of the Prime Minister before he gave it. In my original question I deliberately referred to the answer of the Prime Minister on June 3 when he said, among other things;
I do not believe the sale to which the hon. member refers is in any way an encroachment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will not allow the hon. member to continue further on a question of privilege or point of order. It is as simple as that. He has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question. He has the same rights as all other members of the House. His right at the present time is to ask a question, and supple-mentaries if he wants to. I would be quite prepared and delighted to allow him to ask supplementaries.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will not pursue the matter at this moment but I thank Your Honour-Your Grace-for the privilege of asking a supplementary. Without trespassing too far, but because this is a most important question which could have been raised on the constitutional issue-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is my question, if some of those opposite will listen including, I hope, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.


An hon. Member:: We are on pins and needles.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the application now before the CRTC as of May 31, set out in part as an application by Csisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec-I guess that is the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund-which under section 4 of the act is set out as an agent of the Crown in the right of the province. Will the Secretary of State please explain to me or to the House how the Prime Minister can say that there has been no encroachment on federal policies on the issuing of broadcasting licences when the directive of his government on June 4, 1970, says that no such licence shall be issued to any agent of
June 7, 1971

the Crown in the right of a province-and I can read the regulations?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how there could have been any encroachment on the order in council mentioned by the hon. member since no licence has been issued. There has been a private transaction whereby some American interests were purchased by a group of Canadian interests. No licence has as yet been issued. The CRTC merely told the new group of owners it would process their application at the end of June and decide whether a licence will be issued in their favour. There has certainly been no encroachment, since no licence has been issued.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer of the Secretary of State does the Prime Minister intend to modify or amend the cabinet directive of June 4, under section 27 of the Broadcasting Act, prohibiting the issuing of broadcasting licences to agents of the Crown in right of a province, which it was declared on June 4 could not be done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, why should we amend it, Mr. Speaker?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, partly because of the answer of the Prime Minister who stated earlier that all provinces should be treated on a basis of equality, by this directive of June 4, 1970, education institutions in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan were eliminated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize at this point that we are debating the issue as between the hon. member and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and this is what I was humbly trying to suggest earlier should not be done. If the hon. member has a supplementary he m:ght ask it now, and then I will have to go to other hon. members who are seeking the floor.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of reports of action taken by government inspectors in Quebec who have raided food stores and removed eggs from the shelves which they alleged were imported from other provinces, has the minister been in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec in order to discuss this action which is rather unprecedented?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed with the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec the legality or otherwise of this action. What I
Inquiries of the Ministry
have discussed with him and with other Ministers of Agriculture are ways and means by which we can avoid this happening again, or indeed escalating. I would hope the House would find it possible to respond to the request that has been made in that regard.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of these new developments in the chicken and egg war, is the Department of Agriculture undertaking a crash research program in order to develop a new type of hen that will lay eggs identifiable as to the province of origin?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Having told me earlier that generous grants had been paid to Automobiles Manic Lt6e, I ask him whether he intends to investigate the matter any further in order to determine whether some unscrupulous persons might not possibly have "pocketed" these federal government grants?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, because had this occurred the matter would by now have been brought to court. We did investigate but not concerning problem such as that.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Weniworlh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. As the matter of unemployment is urgent, can the energetic and able Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner:: I'm glad you woke up, Rip Van Winkle. [Translation]


Colin David Gibson: You could perhaps understand if you would listen.

Can the parliamentary secretary inform the House if applications for unemployment insurance increased or decreased in the month of April?

June 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I have a short reply to this question. Official figures have not yet been released but indications are that there were approximately 40,000 fewer claimants on benefits at the end of April than in the month previously and a marked reduction in initial claims received.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the House how much of the 40,000 reduction in those getting unemployment insurance benefits was due to people going back to work and how much was due to the fact that people ran out of unemployment insurance benefits?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the official figures have not yet been released-


George Harris Hees: Just the political figures.


Raymond J. Perrault: -but of the encouraging reduction in total of 40,000 fewer active claimants very few of them at that time of the year, could be expected to be off benefits because their benefits had been exhausted. There is an encouraging reduction in the number of initial claims received. Indeed, I know the opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this is debate between the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member asking the question.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The minister has stated that the government has made known its views on deep sea salmon fishing at the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Would the minister indicate whether all countries, except Denmark, accept Canada's position on banning the taking of salmon on the high seas?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we requested a 20 per cent annual reduction in the Danish catch. Four countries finally voted against maintenance of the Danish vessel quota including the United States and the U.S.S.R.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House whether Canada's position, as placed before the ICNAF meeting in Halifax, on general conservation of
the Atlantic fisheries resources met with any degree of success?


John (Jack) Davis: I would say yes, Mr. Speaker. We are certainly hopeful that the next law of the sea conference in 1973 will produce a total ban on all high seas fishing for salmon.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
McClelland and stewart
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Last Friday I asked the Prime Minister to give Parliament information on whether the federal government was invited to participate in financial assistance to McClelland and Stewart, the publishing house. The Prime Minister informed us that the Secretary of State brought the matter to the federal cabinet some time ago-


An hon. Member:: Pierre Berton is going to buy them out.


David Lewis: -and later said he would prefer that the Secretary of State tell us what he communicated to the provincial government of Ontario. Perhaps the Secretary of State could do that now.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have informed the Ontario government that the matter was under consideration by the federal cabinet and that no final decision had yet been reached. This is the only information I can give the hon. member today, because I think the decision will be taken only this week.


David Lewis: Could the Secretary of State inform the House when the invitation from the Ontario government was received, how long the cabinet has been stewing over this relatively simple although very important problem and how soon, before McClelland and Stewart goes underground or is sold to Americans, the federal government may reach a decision?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to provide the hon. member with a complete schedule when I have had time to draw it up. It will be difficult, however to define what advising the federal government is, and if this can be done just by a phone call or if a more formal letter must be expected. But I also wish to point out before resuming my seat that the whole problem of Canadian book publishing was examined by the federal government and by my department in particular when we met publishers from across the country as early as January. But I think that the hon. member will not quarrel with me over my statement that a policy cannot be established on so sensitive a matter in a few days.

June 7, 1971


OVERSEAS STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM-APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND APPROVED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he can now answer the question I asked on Thursday as to how many applications have actually been approved by the countries concerned with regard to the international student summer employment exchange program?


Otto Emil Lang: I am obtaining that figure for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 4, consideration of Bill C-219, to establish the Canada Development Corporation, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose on Friday, motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were under consideration. Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 3?


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are discussing at this stage of the bill will result in the deletion of paragraph (b) of subclause 2 of clause 6. It is a rather interesting amendment and the reason our party has proposed it is the fact that the clause now in the bill indicates that the Canada Development cannot invest in any company with less than $1 million worth of capital. The deletion of this paragraph would allow the corporation to invest in corporations with less than $1 million worth of capital. We think this is rather important.
To begin with, we feel it should be at the discretion of the directors to check into any operation. I point out that frequently these operations start in a small way and have trouble getting off the ground. They might not have $1 million in capital when the CDC is ready to invest. We feel that this restriction should be withdrawn. There is no doubt that small companies need help most of all and we will find quite frequently that if we cannot get assistance for them from the CDC they will probably remain small or even go under. It is in this particular field that the CDC could do a great deal of good. If these small operations cannot get some assistance from the Canada Development Corporation, where are they to get the money to expand?
Canada Development Corporation
I point out to the House again that the amendment also bars the CDC from starting a new industry based on a particular resource. I think this is wrong. One of the main objectives of a development corporation should be to look into the resource industries of this nation and see if it is not possible to have more fabrication of raw materials take place within our own country.
At this time I should like to refer to one or two instances in my province of British Columbia. There is a fair amount of copper mining in the province, yet we find that all the copper concentrates are shipped out of the province. It seems to me that this is an opportunity for the CDC to investigate and to see if there is not some possibility of having more fabrication of this particular raw material take place within the province of British Columbia. It seems ridiculous for these concentrates to leave Canada. Most of them go to Japan where the job-intensive industries are based as far as the fabrication of copper concentrates is concerned. It appears that the clause now in the bill would bar the setting up of an industry based on this particular source of raw material.
I have made this point before and I will make it again. For every job made available for a Canadian worker in the extraction of copper ore, the raw material necessary for the concentrates, many jobs are made available in those industries which undertake the fabricating of the raw material. It would help if we could even establish a copper smelter. There is sufficient ore in British Columbia to justify the establishment of a copper smelter. That, I believe, is where emphasis should be placed. We ought to reach into this field and provide more jobs for Canadian workers. We need only look at the unemployment figures in this nation to see the trouble we are in through our lack of secondary fabricating industries. We must take a more positive attitude toward the processing of resources within our own country.
Why should we stop at a copper smelter? Why not fabricate copper ingots in this country? There are tremendous sales potentials in Canada for copper wire which is relatively simple to manufacture. Here, again, is where the CDC could enter into the economic picture of Canada. It ought to move into this field and encourage the setting up of industries similar to the ones I have suggested. For example, it should encourage the manufacturing of copper wire which, as I said earlier, is relatively simple to produce. It could also become involved in the manufacture of copper pipe and related products. The farther down the line you go the more job intensive these industries become. That is the sort of emphasis we want to see with respect to an organization such as the Canada Development Corporation. We think it ought to invest in developments of this type.
May I draw to the attention of hon. members another raw material, again found in British Columbia-asbestos. There is a whole region around Cassiar where asbestos is found. However, every pound of asbestos mined is shipped from British Columbia to various countries throughout the world. Some of it even goes to countries in Africa which some of us say are backward. African

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation countries fabricate some of the asbestos that we ship from British Columbia. This is utter nonsense. If other countries can fabricate materials for their own use and for sale elsewhere, it is obvious that asbestos products ought to be fabricated in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada where the raw material is produced. Here is a role which the CDC ought to attempt to fill.
This is why we urge that paragraph (b) of subclause 2 of clause 6 be deleted. We feel this would eliminate a very unfair provision which seeks to limit investment by the corporation to firms with more than $1 million in capital. The two examples I have cited to the House, copper and asbestos, show what can be done if we have the will to do what is necessary and the determination to insist on the setting up of small or medium-sized industries in Canada to fabricate some of the raw materials found in our own country. I contend, and the members of my group have been pressing this point for a long time, that unless we insist on more fabrication within Canada, there will be a large mass of unemployed with us for many years to come. I urge hon. members to take another look at this clause and to accept the amendment we have offered to the House for the deletion of that particular paragraph.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague on Friday. It seems to me that this bill has had a longer period of gestation, a longer period of pregnancy, than any bill which has been considered in the history of the Canadian Parliament. The proposal to establish a Canada Development Corporation was brought forward by the Liberal party in the election of 1962. It was included in virtually every throne speech that has been made since that time. Nothing was done to bring down the bill and nothing was done to implement the idea despite promises contained in throne speeches and in the speeches of men like Hon. Walter Gordon, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), former Prime Minister Lester Pearson and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As I say, nothing was done to implement the idea, for reasons that are fairly obvious to anyone who has thought about the question. Nothing was done because the Liberal party and the Liberal government did not believe that such a corporation was necessary.
The Liberal party has indicated in speeches, in its policies for development and in its tax programs that it believes in the principle of the continental development of Canadian resources. If the objective is a policy involving the continental development of resources, be they oil, gas, copper, zinc, nickel or asbestos-the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) referred to asbestos- it does not matter whether the companies developing these resources are owned by Canadian, American, German or Japanese corporations. It does not matter whether these products are taken out of the ground and shipped in their unrefined state to some other country or whether the processing of the copper, nickel, zinc or iron ore, or of gas and oil through the establishment of a petrochemical industry, is undertaken in Canada. As I say, that does not matter, and that is why there was a

hiatus of almost ten years between the idea of a corporation and the implementation in this form of that idea.
We of the New Democratic Party first proposed the establishment of such a corporation or of such a fund, if you like, at the founding convention of our party in 1961. We did not propose the establishment of such an organization simply because we wanted another mutual fund- and I will talk about that later. There are already some very successful mutual funds in the country. We thought of this organization in terms of it using Canadian money to develop the resources of Canada in such a way as to provide jobs for Canadians. We wanted it to develop Canadian resources, particularly in traditional slow-growth areas such as the Maritimes, parts of western Canada and eastern Quebec where, for a variety of reasons, the people have not benefited from the substantial and rapid development of Canadian resources and Canadian industries. We proposed the establishment of such an organization because we believed that only a publicly-owned corporation could bring the benefits of such developments to all the people of Canada.
All our reasons for proposing this kind of development are being consciously or unconsciously ignored in the proposals made by the government. From reading the bill and listening to the government spokesmen, all that is really proposed is another massive giveaway to Canadian and, more important, foreign corporations that have benefited so much from the wealth of Canada which ought to belong to all Canadians.
The Canada Development Corporation, as proposed by the government, will not accomplish any of the ends it ought to accomplish. The minister has repeated ad nauseam that it will be required by law to invest in companies which make a profit. That being the case, it will not be able to invest in the establishment of industries in slow growth areas where the chances of making a profit are smaller than in the area from Windsor to Hamilton and Toronto. By government direction, there will be a further infusion of funds into those areas which have had the highest and fastest rate of growth in the past 25 years. As these companies are required to make a profit, the corporation will not help the slow-growth provinces. I am not too critical of what the slow-growth provinces have done. In their desire to improve employment opportunities, these provinces have invested large sums of money in companies which are likely never to make a profit. As they are not likely to make a profit, the Canada Development Corporation will not be able to invest in them.
I wish to give one example in my own province. Under the aegis of the former Conservative government of Manitoba, there was a proposal to establish a pulp and paper mill at The Pas, Manitoba. The corporation, Churchill Forest Industries, was established. To date more than $100 million has been invested in that company. In order to induce that company to come to Manitoba, tremendous concessions were made. The company was given the right to cut timber in a very large percentage of the
June 7, 1971

total area of Manitoba. They were given this right with the condition that the fees they would pay for cutting timber would be substantially less than those which any other company in the province has had or will have to pay.
This company is not yet fully in operation. The bulk of the $100 million which the company has received has come from the people of Manitoba, through the government of that province, by direct grants and loans at subsidized rates of interest. Hon. members who question my judgment should read the book recently published by the associate editor of the Financial Post, certainly not a very radical organization, which deals with the ramifications of this development and others. It is likely that this company will never make a profit. The losses will be carried by the people of Manitoba who have put up all the real capital which has gone into the corporation. If, on the other hand, there are profits, and this is very unlikely, these will go to the promoters who, according to the associate editor of the Financial Post, have not put much, if any, cash into this project.
This is one of half a dozen illustrations which the associate editor of the Financial Post deals with in his book. I have used it to show that the prospect of this company making any profits is so small that, by the terms of the bill, the Canada Development Corporation will be precluded from investing any money in it. Despite the social benefits to be derived by the people of Manitoba, particularly the native people of northern Manitoba of whom there are a large number in the vicinity of The Pas, the government and the people of Manitoba will not be able to get any money from the Canada Development Corporation because it is not likely that this will be a profitable corporation.
When speaking during the debate on second reading of this bill I used the example of the steel mill at Sydney. This mill consistently lost money when it was privately owned. It was taken over by the government of Nova Scotia. With a high rate of unemployment in Nova Scotia, the government could not contemplate closing the mill with the consequent loss of several thousand jobs. There has been a fantastic change since the government of Nova Scotia took over this mill. The steel mill is making money. It is manufacturing products for which there is a ready market in Canada and other countries. The company is now employing more people than when the Conservative government of Nova Scotia took it over. However, the provision in this bill, which requires that a company in which the Canada Development Corporation invests must either be making a profit or show that it can make a profit, would preclude the Canada Development Corporation from investing in this steel mill which was taken over from Dosco and is being operated as a publicly-owned corporation.
There is another serious defect in this bill. We now have a large number of profitable Crown corporations which are very important to this country. I wish to mention some of them: Polymer Corporation, Eldorado
Canada Development Corporation Nuclear Corporation, Northern Transportation Corporation, Air Canada and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. These corporations which belong to the people of Canada earn profits that accrue to the benefit of all the people of Canada, and what the minister is proposing, what is implicit in the bill before us is that some or all of them should be turned over to the Canada Development Corporation.
The government also proposes that the corporation shall be a joint enterprise carried on between it and private enterprise. To the extent that private capital is invested in the corporation and to the extent that private investors will derive benefits in the form of dividends or earnings which are plowed back into the corporation, the benefits derived from existing Crown corporations or others which may be taken over in the future are removed from the people of Canada as a whole. In other words, a gift is made of them to that very small number of Canadian citizens, estimated at 7 per cent, who will be able to invest in the Canada Development Corporation. Again, what the government proposes to do is to help those who have already profited most from the development and expansion of this country.
Not only does the bill discriminate against the people of Canada generally in the way I have shown, but it discriminates specifically and directly against the small businessman, against the new, aggressive, young entrepreneur who has an idea for developing an industry which might provide employment. It discriminates directly against that kind of person because it provides that the corporation shall not invest in companies which possess assets amounting to less than $1 million. Surely the kind of person to whom I have referred is the man we should be seeking to encourage by providing capital where necessary and where such a course is justifiable. Surely we should help to get him established. But what the government says in this bill is that people who really need help may not be helped. What this bill sets out to do is to assist the giant corporations, Canadian and foreign, which have already benefited so greatly from our policies in terms of investment and in terms of tax concessions.
I hope the government will give fresh consideration to what it is proposing to do even at this late date in light of the speech made to the Canadian Economics Association by the former Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). I refer to the speech he made last week in St. John's, Newfoundland. The Toronto Star reported that when the hon. member for Duvernay concluded his speech to some 300 or more of the top economists in the country something almost unheard of happened-he was greeted with a standing ovation, something which economists do not usually accord to speakers. I assume that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his parliamentary secretary have had an opportunity to read that speech. I do not believe I was the only Member of Parliament who received a copy of the speech in his mail box. The subject which the hon. member raised concerned taxation and the manner in which our tax system works. I realize this is not a budget
6418

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation debate, Mr. Speaker, but the conclusions which are drawn-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member, his time having expired. He may continue his remarks with the agreement of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not have time in which to put on record all the many important points the hon. member for Duvernay made in his speech, but I should like to draw attention to some of the figures he cited which were derived from government publications, from reports made annually under one of our laws which requires both labour unions and corporations to file with the government detailed information on their financial operations.
The hon. member for Duvernay pointed out that in the years between 1965 and 1968 inclusive the metal mining industry in this country recorded book profits of $1,707 million while the income on which it paid taxes was only $222 million. In other words, it paid taxes on only 13 per cent of its profit. I would remind hon. members that these figures relating to profits were submitted to the government by the industry itself, so they are certainly not exaggerated in a way which would bring shame on it. The mineral fuels industry recorded a book profit of $775 million and the income upon which it paid taxes was only $45 million. It paid taxes on 5.7 per cent of its profits. Other mining concerns showed book profits of $374 million and paid tax on a taxable income of only $120 million, 32 per cent of their profits. Manufacturing industry as a whole showed book profits of $12,745 million and paid taxes on $8,052 million, or 63 per cent. Look at the difference-only 13 per cent for metal mining and 63 per cent for manufacturing. The retail trade recorded profits of $1,620 million and paid taxes on 90 per cent amounting to $1,445 million.
If we look at book profits and taxable income by size of corporation we notice some very significant things. Companies that had profits of less than $1 million in 1968 had book profits of $809 million and paid taxes on 76 per cent of those profits, namely on $612 million. Companies that had profits of $5 million to $25 million had average book profits of $1,265 million and paid taxes on only 64 per cent of those profits, namely on $810 million. Companies that had over $475 million profits had book profits of $4,145 million and paid taxes on only 47 per cent of their taxable income, namely $1,960 million. In other words, our taxation system is already designed to benefit the larger corporations which more and more are foreign owned.
What do the Minister of Finance and the government of Canada propose to do with the Canada Development Corporation? This is a bill which again benefits in the main the large corporations since corporations with assets of less than $1 million are excluded from its provisions. Once more money invested by the people of Canada will in the initial stages, as a result of deliberate
government policy decision, go to those corporations that already have benefited so markedly from Canadian taxation policy.
It seems to me that this cannot be justified on the basis of equity, on the basis of justice, or on the basis that it is an attempt to deal with large-scale unemployment in this country. Surely we ought to be trying to encourage the smaller companies in Canada which, as the hon. member for Duvernay pointed out in his speech, are much more labour-intensive rather than the larger companies that are so markedly capital-intensive. We should be helping the smaller companies who need help the most. For the money they receive they will employ more people than the large companies, which already have the money that they need, are largely capital-intensive, and as a result do not employ as many people.
I suggest that we should reverse our direction and direct, either by law or by regulation, that the bulk of this money should go to public investment, either in co-operation with the provinces or the municipalities, or with co-operatives or small private companies. If we adopt the proposals of the government we are doing the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing. Our amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are designed to reverse the order of priority and to put the emphasis where it ought to be put, namely, in the public sector, with small businesses rather than large businesses. I therefore urge hon. members regardless of party to vote for the amendment proposed by this party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words regarding the Canada Development Corporation and the amendments that are before the House. Never before have we seen a bill about which so many people have so many different ideas and concepts regarding what the bill will and could do. Some people see this legislation as the way to buy back Canada. Some feel it is a way for Canadians to invest in Canada, as if there were now no other way available. Others feel it is a way for the Canadian government to help some of the small industries and smaller corporations. Still others feel it is a way in which we can further develop our mining industry and the secondary manufacturing industry that springs from the mining industry.
We have had on the books for a long time now the legislation setting up the Industrial Development Bank which is prepared to lend money to industry anywhere in Canada at the going rate of interest in order to help and encourage development of industries within Canada. There has been in operation now for the last three or four years the Regional Development Incentives Act under which grants are given to encourage industry in various regions of Canada. Significantly the Department of Regional Economic Expansion does not draw the line regarding who will get these grants; it makes grants to any company that feasibly can apply, be it an American, Belgian or French corporation, and in some cases it may be a small Canadian concern. However, in most cases the money is lent to foreign concerns who wish to develop manufacturing industry in one form or another in Canada.

June 7, 1971

If we as Canadians really want to see Canadians take a greater part in the development and ownership of Canada, the onus is on the government to direct all its energies to this end instead of presenting legislation that encompasses the idea and concept of ownership but very little else. For Canadians wishing to invest there is CPI, Canadian Pacific Investments, which is encouraging investment by Canadians in Canada. I am sure there are many other large firms that are, in essence, conglomerates spreading their investment portfolios over many aspects and sectors of the Canadian economy.
We are told that the Canadian government wants to ensure there will be resource development. The government wants to see a strong manufacturing sector and Canadian identity connected with our communications industry. How will the Canada Development Corporation establish and maintain these objectives? As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the Canada Development Corporation idea and concept is not a new one. In 1963, in his budget speech to the House, the then Minister of Finance proposed the idea. It was soundly thumped, one could almost say, by the investment corporations throughout Canada and the then Minister of Finance dropped the idea. I think he dropped it at that time because at the same time he also brought in some penalty clauses regarding investment in foreign companies and in foreign companies operating in Canada. These he had to withdraw, so at the same time he dropped the idea of a Canada Development Corporation, feeling, I suppose, that Canadians would be reluctant to invest in a company designed, perhaps, to buy Canada back, to be a buyer of last resort. Or perhaps he felt it might be taken as being a buyer of last resort.
We are told that the Canada Development Corporation will not be a buyer of last resort, that it could hardly have helped out in the case of Dosco in Sydney, Nova Scotia. In that case the provincial government, with the help of the federal government, stepped in as a buyer of last resort and took over a failing steel industry. The takeover, according to latest reports, has been quite successful. But the Canada Development Corporation would not have done this because its main objective will be, we are told, to make a profit. It is actually well understood that if it does not make a profit it will not induce or encourage very many Canadians to invest. In the initial stages the Canadian government is to be the major shareholder, and we are told will no doubt remain the major shareholder throughout the life of the corporation. It may reduce its percentage of investment to 10 per cent, but it will not likely reduce it further.
The idea or concept is for the Canada Development Corporation to create a pool of capital and of entrepreneurial skill to encourage Canadian interest. How successful will this be? Will it be influenced by national interests to purchase Canada back and maintain a place for Canadians to invest in Canada, or will it really be guided by its interest in making a profit at the expense perhaps of not being a buyer of last resort?
24107-56J
Canada Development Corporation
It is interesting to debate this question with people across the country who have great hopes and aspirations for the CDC. Many of them actually view it as a buyer of last resort and as a corporation which will allow Canadians to invest in Canada, thus maintaining a high degree of Canadian content in our industries. It is interesting to note what the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance said as recorded at page 6391 of Hansard for June 4. He was referring to shareholders and directors who will be appointed from the public sector. He said, meaning the government:
Thus, it will always be in a position to exercise the degree of influence on the over-all policies of the corporation-
What will be the government's wish? Let us suppose this corporation does not get off the ground too efficiently and the directors find they must invest in an enterprise that is not wholly Canadian. Let us suppose they want to invest in some other area which is not readily going to maintain Canadian content, or that they would not buy a company which in essence was failing. Canadians across the country might well get into the field of politics and apply this particular question to these great hopes. Then the government would have to exercise its influence on the Canada Development Corporation. The corporation would then have to invest in a failing company, whether it be McClelland and Stewart of the publishing industry or a manufacturing company in another part of Canada.
We can foresee a great deal of difficulty keeping the Canada Development Corporation out of the political sphere and solely in the investment sphere. If it is not kept out of the political sphere, shrewd Canadians will be reluctant to invest in the Canada Development Corporation which may have to bend to the wishes of the people prior to an election and use Canadian investors' money in an area which will not show a satisfactory profit.
I should like to think Canadians are shrewd investors and want to place their money where it will bring the highest return. The Canada Development Corporation does not lend itself that readily to fulfilling every aspect of that idea. It will be tied down by a heavy investment influenced by the Canadian government through directors. It will then be driven out of the private sector. As the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance said, the government will always be in a position to occupy a degree of influence over the policies of the corporation. This will make the corporation inoperative in the sense that it will really never have the opportunity to make Canadian investments. The government will always maintain dominance in respect of investment capital in the corporation.
There is another aspect of the bill which is distasteful in many respects. The corporation is to invest in companies which already have $1 million in capital investment. This is a young country with great potential. If one looks at the corporation registries across Canada one will see that approximately 82 per cent of our corporations have a net taxable income of less than $35,000. This gives some idea of the large number of small corporations in Canada. Some of them are very sound and could use a great deal more capital investment.

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
I do not know why, when the sponsors of the bill were so anxious that the Canada Development Corporation should invest in and encourage investment in Canada they should limit investment to corporations with $1 million or more in capital. We must remember that our manufacturing industries, our communications industries and, for that matter, resource industries started out with a lot less than $1 million in capital investment. It is beyond me why this corporation should be so limited. If the directors possess sound investment knowledge and use as their sole measure the amount of profit to be made, the corporation should be in a position to invest in smaller companies. Many Canadians feel that the corporation will in fact be a buyer of last resort. If the corporation is to be geared to create Canadian content, it should be able to invest in companies no matter what their financial size.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment at one o'clock, I was dealing with some of my fears about the Canada Development Corporation which Bill C-219 would set up. I should like to deal with one more point before I conclude. The Canada Development Corporation, as I understand it, will be a Crown corporation which will be in competition with private industry. Yet, it will be run and managed by directors appointed from the private sector who will be knowledgeable, I would assume, about investments within Canada. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or his parliamentary secretary could inform the House where they will find unbiased, neutral and knowledgeable people in the industrial world who will direct the Canada Development Corporation without any tendency to slant the direction toward their own particular interests.
Such people may be directors of half a dozen other companies. If one studies the directorship stratosphere within our society, one can readily see that a director of a chartered bank in Canada can also become a director of Canada Packers, one of the largest meat packing companies in Canada, and half a dozen other companies. Naturally, a bank has a tendency to lend in the direction in which its directors would perhaps encourage it to lend. How will the Canada Development Corporation be run in competition with private enterprise when its directors are appointed from the private sector and are more than likely men who either directly or indirectly have investments in large corporations which are operating in Canada? It is obvious that not only will the Canada
Development Corporation be prohibited by the act from investing in small corporations but will also tend to make investments along the lines suggested by its directors and along the lines of investments with which they may personally be directly or indirectly involved. I say that without doubt, for this reason, the CDC will be enticed into investing in large corporations, not small corporations, which may not be in dire need of additional investment capital. When I say "dire need", I mean need which could not be met by other means.
Under the Income Tax Act, 82 per cent of the corporations operating in Canada are classed as small corporations. Many of them are in need of investment capital but will be prohibited from receiving any investment by the CDC. Will a Crown corporation operate more efficiently in a conglomerate field than a private concern? I doubt whether it can. This will be nothing more than a Canadian mutual development fund, and sometimes such funds run into heavy costs hiring professional and entrepreneurial skill.
For these and other reasons, I believe many Canadians will be sadly disappointed at the over-all effect of the corporation in attempting to promote a strong manufacturing sector and encouraging strong resource development. They will even be sadly disappointed at the lack of success in setting up a truly Canadian communications industry. I believe all these things could be much more readily and easily accomplished through better taxation policies which would encourage Canadians to invest in Canada and which would leave Canadians with some surplus profit to invest in Canada.
The taxation and economic policies of today and yesterday have deprived many Canadians of the resources they otherwise might have had to invest in their country. They have resulted in large scale unemployment. People have little money to invest in the manufacturing sector. This is a cause of much of the unemployment. This legislation, and the proposed CDC will do little to rectify it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment because one must assume that if the CDC is to do an effective job and contribute to the real growth of the Canadian economy, this clause as it stands inhibits any real choice of action on the part of the corporation. One factor which we should consider with respect to such a corporation is the importance of research and development.
Recently, I talked to an engineer who is also a scientist. I have no reason to doubt what he told me when he said that the reason for the lack of employment opportunities for many university graduates is that we do not have research and development establishments in Canada to give scope to their knowledge and training, incidentally training in which we have invested a great deal of the taxpayers' money. Unless we have trained people who spend their time on new developments and innovations, we will not share properly in the technological advance which is part and parcel of the developing societies of

June 7, 1971

the world. Who is to say that all of these innovations, all of the action will take place in corporations which have, let us say, $1 million or more invested in them? I recall that Canadian Co-operative Implements in Winnipeg started with a great deal less money than that. It developed a farm machinery industry which was peculiar to Canada, in fact peculiar to western Canada. It developed machines that were suitable for use in western agriculture. 1 could name other such firms in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, in Calgary and in Regina.
Recently we spent a lot of money on the Barber Commission investigating what could or should be done to lower farm machinery costs, and as a result lower production costs. One of the recommendations made by the commission was that we should import farm machinery that had been manufactured more cheaply in countries outside Canada, indeed in countries outside the North American continent. In Canada, we have a grain production area which, on occasion, has been labelled the breadbasket of the world. Does it not give one pause to wonder why we have to import machines to do the cultivation and the harvesting of the crops in that area? Ever since the Prairies came into production at the turn of the century, we have been producing food in that area. Does it not tell us something about the lack of capital, the lack of development and of research in that area when today we are told we should import the machinery to produce that food? If the people in charge of this development corporation are to do something about this situation, they must be willing to assist small businesses that are prepared to go ahead and develop farm machinery manufacturing within Canada.
I expect there is some reason for this clause, but surely this government agency must be prepared to take the same risks as are taken by individual businesses. In the development of a new product or new methods, nothing is certain; sometimes you succeed and sometimes you fail, but if we are to develop this kind of corporation we must take the risk of success as well as failure because both attend upon the endeavours of human beings.
We can look beyond the farm machinery question to developments in other parts of the country and, I am sure, find the same need for innovation. New concepts can be carried to completion giving Canadians a larger share in the ownership of the manufacturing industries and in the development of the country. This should surely be the prime objective of a Canadian development corporation, to increase the productivity of Canada and the share of ownership of these companies by Canadians. If it is to be a corporation to gather together what is already here without providing initiative, its success is questionable; we could even ask whether it should be done at all. We do not need to spend time and effort gathering everything we have already developed into one package so that those in charge can say, "Look how much we have done." It is in the area of new projects and new ideas of development that the Canada Develop-
Canada Development Corp ration ment Corporation would be able to . lake an important contribution to the economy.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have my doubts about the suggestion that we in this Parliament should form a Canada Development Corporation. I have doubts for five specific reasons which I shall now state. Since I do not propose to make another intervention in this debate, I hope that if my argument takes me a little past the time allotted my colleagues will be kind enough to remember that I am not really long-winded but would like to state my argument in one piece.
My first reason for being against the concept of the Canada Development Corporation as set forth in the bill before us-I want to make it plain that I am not against another bill that might accomplish the Canadianization of our development-is that conglomerates are not likely to be profitable. We have been told over and over again that profitability is one of the objectives of the Canada Development Corporation. It is not going to prop up ailing industries or take cripples under its wing; it is going to plow ahead with those Crown corporations that have proved successful, not those that have proved over the years that they need money to keep going. I shall advert to this point later.
I think we should consider the successes and failures of conglomerates in our times. When Professor Edward D. Maher of the University of New Brunswick appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs he made reference to an article in the May 9, 1970 issue of Business Week which reads in part:
Conglomerate managers are now obliged to produce earnings growth from existing operations, and it has become quite obvious that the shrewdness, imagination and gall that make a man an empire builder do not necessarily make him a skilled manager.
I refer anyone who is interested in this question to the longer expose in Business Week. It simply proves how many disparate things one can gather under the same roof in order to try and run a successful and viable conglomerate, but this may not prosper as much as if the parts were run separately. This leads me to suspect that managerial ability might be found if you can find managers of things in which they have expertise, but that ability is not likely to be found if you suggest that they administer the whole world. My point is that conglomerates are not likely to be as profitable as industries broken down into individual segments.
One of the purposes of this bill is to lump three or four industries under the Canada Development Corporation right from the start. Experience alone should suggest that we in this Parliament exercise great care in voting on this bill. Interesting studies are being carried out by professors and other learned people in universities-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. He is making a very useful contribution to the debate, but it seems to the Chair that he may be going a bit further than he is entitled to under the particular amendments that are before the House. The hon. member knows that we are at the report stage

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
of the bill and at the present time there are three motions before us for consideration. I might refer to them very quickly. The effect of motion No. 3 would be to change the objectives of the company in the respect that it:
shall be carried out in anticipation of profit and in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole.
The amended clause would read: and shall be carried out in the best interests of the people of Canada.
The next motion would delete the subclause setting out the objectives of the company which as it stands now has the effect of requiring an investment of at least $1 million or more. The third motion before the House would change the word "company" to "Canadian nation". While the latitude allowed is fairly wide, I know the hon. member will keep this in mind.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I thought that my remarks were directed toward the question of whether the objective of the Canada Development Corporation should be profitability and I was dealing with that particular point. If I have misread the three amendments, I have no recourse but to halt my speech right on the spot but it is the one speech I had planned on making. This speech will seek to deal with the question of whether this particular conglomerate Crown corporation, if I may use that expression, is to be profitable or not. I invite Your Honour's direction. If I am not to question the profitability of the corporation or the motives that will lead people to invest in the corporation, I will not say anymore. I am trying to do what I gather my friends to the left were trying to do, question the matter of the profitability of the corporation. That is not the point that should be relevant when considering a corporation of this type. If I am wrong in that, then my speech is over. If I am not wrong, may I quickly come to my first point. Studies suggest that merely because you become larger as a corporation does not mean that you are apt to become more successful.
My second point concerns voting privileges attaching to private shareholders who will venture with the government of Canada and Canada Development Corporation. In this regard, may I quote from the evidence given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on May 4, to be found at page 29 of Issue No. 38 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) asked him whether a 10 per cent government holding would result in effective control. The minister replied:
That is a matter of how one mobilizes the votes. One is in a fairly tenuous position controlling a corporation on 10%, if there really is dissatisfaction with the way the corporation is running. So long as a corporation is running well it might be possible to control a corporation as vast as this on 10%, but if the corporation is messing things up then it is much more difficult, because the other shareholders will mobilize or somebody will mobilize them.
Paragraph (2)(i) of Schedule I of the amended bill as reported by the Standing on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs reads:
both shareholders are parties to an agreement or arrangement, a purpose of which, in the opinion of the Board of Directors, is to require the shareholders to act in concert with respect to their interests in the company;
The preamble to that subparagraph reads:
For the purposes of these statutory conditions, a shareholder is, except as provided by section 5 of these statutory conditions, deemed to be associated with another shareholder-
I am saying, Sir, since we could not get satisfactory evidence about what the words "act in concert" mean when we were dealing with the problem before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that we were left up in the air, so to speak. I am afraid, and I think other members of the committee are also afraid, that if shares are sold to the public and any two major shareholders were to go to a meeting and suggest that they were going to question the appointment of directors, the appointment of a president, the appointment of a managing director or of anybody who is really supposed to make the corporation work, they could be met with the objection from the very person they were trying to judge that they were acting in concert. He could say to them, "Aha, you people are acting in concert. You have come here with one particular purpose in mind, and therefore you are out." They would be out of order according to the wording of the schedule.
I do not think anybody would want to associate himself with an enterprise into which he had put money if it were possible for him to be met with that kind of objection. It would not do for people who might raise any objection at all, whether it is valid or not is not material to this argument, to be told that they are out of order because they are acting in concert. For instance, people might raise objections in three specific areas: that they do not like the colour of the chairman's eyes, that they do not like the balance sheet and that they do not like the choice of office boy. Then, because they would be acting in concert on those particular points they would be out of order. I am making that point simply and humbly. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce emphasized it even more, as is indicated by a reference to page 3 of their submission.
Under the heading "Marketability Of Shares" the Canadian Chamber of Commerce submission reads:
Successful public distribution of CDC shares, in the Chamber's view, will depend largely on minimizing the special provisions and restrictions that relate to these shares. It is maintained that provisions of the Bill relating to the acquisition, holding, voting,-
And that word ought to be spelled in capital letters.
-transfer and redemption of shares may constitute insurmountable impediments to satisfactory marketability.
That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what I think will happen. There will not be so much an abhorence as a great reluctance on the part of the public to invest in CDC shares, especially when they realize that the government has weighted everything in its favour in this bill. I think

June 7, 1971

that I have made my case as strongly as I can with regard to that particular point.
I now come to point No. 3. In his submissions to the committee, the Minister of Finance referred to the taking of chances, he precluded the likelihood of chances being taken, I suggest, by saying:
Finally, I would like to say a tew words about the objective of profitability. Clearly the CDC must operate in a way that will make it an attractive investment vehicle for Canadians. A major objective for the corporation is that its shares should eventually be widely held by Canadians. This objective would soon be undermined if the CDC were expected, in the national interest, to subsidize certain activities for the achievement of essentially social goals.
In a way, I agree with him and in a way I disagree. Suppose, for example, CDC were considering whether to take over Air Canada or Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CDC would then have to decide whether the objectives of those orgniza-tions to be taken over would put the corporation into a non-profit position. For instance, that position might be brought about because it was necessary to develop an airport at Yellowknife, or to develop a radio or television service to Labrador, or the like. You can see the awkward position in which the CDC would be put if it were tied forever and a day to the concept of profitability. In this regard, I am sure that I am giving my friends to my left all the comfort in the world. The minister says that, no, the corporation cannot do that because it must make profits. That statement may have hamstrung Canada Development Corporation forever and a day. It may suit the objectives of the corporation to do certain things in one half of a decade, and not to do them in another half of a decade, the consideration being how the economic winds blow. Sir, for that reason I do not think that CDC, under its present set-up, will succeed.
May I put the objections that will preclude the taking of chances in another way. May I quote from the brief which the Toronto and District Liberal Association submitted. That submission, surely, should be gospel to those on the government side of the House, despite the defection of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who at one time was Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) who was Minister of Communications. I quote from page 4 of the original submission:
What government can go into an election with shares in the national corporation biting the dust?
-The financial community is inherently skeptical-perhaps with justification-of the concept of a $5.00 widow-and- orphans stock. The CDC should most emphatically not be a pseudo mutual fund. There are already many good Canadian based mutual funds, for the private investor.
The rest of the brief deals with points of esoteric Liberalism that I am sure would be dear to your heart, Sir, and to the hearts of many people in this chamber. Point number three, precluding the taking of chances, means that the corporation would never be able to operate as a viable entity, that is to take chances over a short period in the hope that in the long run it would be able to operate.
Canada Development Corporation
I said earlier that I had five objections. I will now deal with objection number four, that is that the aims of the corporation are not really established in the legislation. In this regard, I will quote several witnesses. The first quotation will be from a brief submitted from Mr. D. P. Thomas of Collier Norris and Quinlan Limited. This firm is a member of the Toronto, Montreal and Canadian Stock Exchanges. Their address is 800 Dorchester Boulevard West, Montreal. I quote from the brief submitted by Mr. Thomas:
It is probably fair to assume that the Government should have at least average success in attracting people of competence. But if the Corporation is to be something of real consequence in Canadian life, then those who are anxious for its creation should establish its philosophy and policies, and not just hope that good managers will do something good with it. Certainly Bill C-219 leaves the whole operation wide open not only in the briefly stated purpose, but also in the statutory powers. Even the best of managers, reading through the Bill would be hard pressed to say exactly what it is he should be doing.
The same point is made, although in a different way, namely, what are we trying to cure, in a brief submitted by Brown Farris and Jefferson Ltd., financial counsellors.
I quote from the brief:
We therefore believe there are opportunities for the CDC to fill now lacking gaps in the Canadian financial scene by
(a)	being a source of large-scale capital for new ventures and expansion purposes as is not presently available in this country other than from foreign sources,
(b)	improve the availability of venture and expansion capital for smaller projects

That, of course, is ruled out by the clause which deals with the $100 million floor.
-for which the present sources are either inadequate or are located such that they are unaware of many of the good opportunities outside Eastern Canada or do not have the means of ready contact.
(c)	perform functions often associated with merchant banks, such as the fostering of public issues and providing a non-conflicting underwriting source, and take the lead in providing Canadian financing in an attempt to persuade other Canadian and foreign venture capital institutions to take substantial positions.
One could say "amen" to all of these suggestions. That brief comes close to illustrating one of the problems which we have in Canada, the development of a truly merchant banking system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired. The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. My speech will not be half completed, thus necessitating continuing at a future time. I will not abuse the privilege afforded to me.
The point to which I have just referred is contained in a brief submitted by D. Wm. Carr & Associates Ltd.

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
They suggest that there should be recommended fields of study to determine what should be done and what is being done at the present time. In the six points which they make, they deal with the gaps in the financial structure. I quote:
(i)	Study the preconditions for sustained and successful use of venture capital in the structural development of an economy.
(ii)	Possible extension of the foregoing study to cover the role of venture capital in capital export for aid and development (precluded by CDC legislation as now drafted).
That refers to the CDC legislation as it was then drafted.
(iii)	Study of the present role of the investment company in the Canadian economy; the achievements and problems of Argus, Power Corporation, GIC, Charterhouse, etc.
(iv)	Assessment of the present gaps in financing and developmental enterprise which a CDC can fill.
(v)	Assessment of the potential impact of a CDC upon the magnitudes and patterns of savings and investment flows within the Canadian capital market.
(vi)	Extension of the foregoing study to cover flows of capital into and out of Canada.
Essentially, we are dealing with the problem placed before us by Canadians and Canadian institutions, namely, to determine whether or not we are dealing successfully with the situation by having the CDC.
I wish to read two more quotations from people whose views bolster the point which I have just made. The first is from Ervin John Doak, Ph.D., of the department of economics at Saint Mary's University, Halifax. This is a quotation from comments made on the program "Viewpoint":
-I suggest that the bill presented to Parliament last month to establish the CDC is far too vague to come into law, that it should be improved, first, by establishing explicit goals for the institution, second, by developing explicit criteria for appraising its operations and, third, by establishing procedures that will lead to constant appraisal of its operations.
My fifth and final point is whether Parliament and the public servants of Canada will be able to run an operation as diverse as the CDC should be. In this respect, I quote from the brief submitted by Lafferty, Harwood & Partners Ltd., members of the Montreal and Phila-delphia-Baltimore-Washington Stock Exchanges, 110 Beaver Hall Hill, Montreal. This is one of the most interesting submissions which the committee received. This brief quotes from the book "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises, published by the Yale University Press. The role of the entrepreneur is discussed at page 867 of his treatise. I quote:
Entrepreneurial judgment is one of those things that cannot be bought on the market. The entrepreneurial idea that carries on and brings profit is precisely that idea which did not occur to the majority. It is not correct foresight as such that yields profits, but foresight better than that of the rest. The prize goes only to those dissenters who do not let themselves be misled by the errors accepted by the multitude. What makes profits emerge is the provision for future needs for which others have neglected to make adequate provision.
Before I read the final quotation, I suggest if one looked at the figures of history he would see how well that sort of concept would fit all of them. I quote:
There are no true entrepreneurs in the civil service because they would be frustrated by an environment that necessarily has to respond to a regulated pattern and system.

We surmise there are not true entrepreneurs in the House of
Commons-
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker.
-because the entrepreneur does not have the temperament or attitude to work collectively on legislation or matters of broad public interest.
The concept of the Canada Development Corporation on paper is very rational in terms of engineering and planning concepts. However, if you examine carefully the different organizations which have been set up by provincial governments to directly intervene in the economy to foster industrial development, you will see that the entrepreneur has moved against these organizations because it is a natural action for him to take. He knows that they cannot respond to the changing environment and therefore they provide him with a means of offsetting his risks. Once he recognizes the motivating characteristics he will anticipate their future moves and derive the benefits from so doing.
So, Mr. Speaker, for these five reasons I must say I shall have to oppose the philosophical concept of the Canada Development Corporation as it is now presented to us, and I shall vote against the bill accordingly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the special order made on Friday, I will put the third motion, that which stands in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman).
All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 a recorded division on the proposed motions, group 2, stands deferred. Motions Nos. 4 and 5 stand deferred with motion No. 3.
In accordance with the special order to which I have referred I will now put together, for the purpose of debate, motions Nos. 6 and 7.


Mrs. Maclnnis (for Mr. Burton) moved:: That Bill C-219, An Act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by adding subclause (2) to Clause 12 as follows;
"(2) Directors shall be appointed with regard to providing an adequate representation of different interests in Canadian society including labour and consumers."


Donald MacInnis: That Bill C-219, An Act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by deleting from subclause (3) of Clause 12 line 12 and substituting the following;
''AH members of"
June 7, 1971

She said: In order to avoid confusion I might explain that our proposal for a new clause 12, would leave the first part where it is, so that the entire clause would read:
(1)	Subject to section 86 of the Canada Corporations Act any Canadian citizen is qualified to be a director of the company if he otherwise qualifies under such bylaws as may be made in that regard.
And we propose to add:
(2)	Directors shall be appointed with regard to providing an adequate representation of different interests in Canadian society including labour and consumers.
The immediate purpose of that clause is to make sure that there would be on the Corporation a much fairer representation of the different interests in society than this bill would provide. The intent of this bill would be to have such a corporation represent all the economic interests which have been accustomed to deal with these matters in the past. It is our strong feeling that a wide spectrum of Canadian interests should be represented in the Corporation because our long-range aim would be to change the direction of such a Corporation from that which the present bill envisages. We believe that as long as the terms of the present bill are left as they are there would be no change in the direction the Corporation would take.
Our interest in this bill goes back to the occasion on which we introduced the idea at our founding convention ten years ago, the idea of a Canada development fund which later became the Canada Development Corporation. We had definite objectives in mind and it is in line with these objectives that we are putting forward amendments today. We want to see a Corporation definitely planning for the economic and soc'al development of the under-developed parts of Canada. People who live in the Province of Ontario are not unduly worried about development in the rest of the country because they feel that as Ontario goes so goes the rest of Canada. But if you live in parts of Canada other than Ontario, you realize there is uneven economic development in this country and the greater development of Ontario makes for an imbalance not only in trade, in income, and opportunities of various kinds but in our whole social fabric. This results in a lop-sided development which is causing increasing concern as time goes on. We want to see a development corporation planning the development of the economic life across this country because we know this would mean a much more even opportunity for Canadians no matter where they happen to live.
In the second place we want to see a Canada Development Corporation in which the federal government would join with private enterprise in helping to develop industries in the undeveloped parts of this nation in a planned way. We do not hold with the system which the government has carried on for some time of making large subsidies and concessions to large private corporations and hoping for the best. I do not think the best will result. The best may result from the point of view of the corporations but certainly not from the view of the Canadian people surrounding them or the growth of the Canadian people from coast to coast. This is another
Canada Development Corporation reason we propose this amendment. We want to see a much better balance in the make-up of the directorate of this corporation.
Another reason we had for advancing our proposition was to help manufacturing. We want a corporation which can help manufacturing industries introduce specialization and help make up for the greater economies in volume which other places in the world have, and particularly some of the large corporate enterprises in the country to the south of us. Instead of this Canada Development Corporation, which we visualized ten years ago when it was not even a glint in the eye of the government, we find that the government, as they so often have done, took the label "Canada Development Corporation" that was on the package and threw away the contents, substituting something very much more to the taste of corporate business in this country. The government is now finding that even corporate business is a little dubious whether this legislation will work to their advantage, but at all events the government is trying to tailor the legislation to the taste of corporate business in this country. Instead of planning to redress the inequalities in this country, we find the government proposing to set up an organization, not a Crown corporation or a public corporation but one under the aegis of private business and which is assisted by the federal government.
We find that the same old narrow motivation of profit making by private shareholders remains intact. In spite of all the changes that are sweeping across the country and causing concern to people in all walks of life, the government is going ahead with the outmoded and increasingly unworkable proposition that the sale motive should be profit making by private shareholders in this country. Worse than that, we find the government, through this bill, throwing in Crown companies under the collective ownership of the Canadian people as an initial nest egg for the Canada Development Corporation. Corporations such as Polymer and others that have been helping the taxpayers of the country are being stolen from the Canadian people and placed within this wholly private company, the Canada Development Corporation.
We are very much opposed to that, Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of the fact that over 90 per cent of the Canadian people have no money at all to invest. I think to be accurate 7 per cent of the Canadian population only will be able to invest in this Canada Development Corporation. For a government that alleges to be looking after the welfare of the Canadian people and which should be planning not only for the immediate period but should be redressing the balance across the country in order properly to develop the underdeveloped areas of the country, and the unequal opportunities which are provided in these underdeveloped areas, we do not consider this legislation good enough.
Other people are also concerned about leaving the CDC entirely in the hands of big business concerns. My leader said the other day he had calculated that the government is paying out in the form of tax concessions to large private companies about $1 billion a year by way of

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation incentive grants, capital grants, research grants, development grants and so on. Once the people in this country get it through their heads what this arrangement means, they will not be happy about it.
I should like to quote the former Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), who made a speech in reference to these tax concessions. I see you are rising to your feet, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure you it is quite relevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member says this quotation is relevant, but I should like her to indicate how it is relevant to the two motions under debate. I ask only because I interrupted an equally excellent speech of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), which was really not relevant to the motions under debate. If the hon. member can find relevancy here, I shall be pleased to hear her.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to explain the relevancy. I am trying to give reasons for my support of this amendment which proposes that the board of directors shall be composed of people who are representative not merely of the corporate sections of Canadian life but also of consumers, farmers, labour unions and so on. I do not see how I can explain my reasons unless I indicate why we want this amendment. The reason we include other sections of the Canadian economy is to indicate that under the present arrangement the return to the Canadian people from such a corporation would be very lopsided.
I trust I have explained the relevancy to your satisfaction. I think it is of the highest importance to explain why we feel this amendment should be accepted so that sectors of the Canadian economy other than just the business community are included. I shall give my quotation and Your Honour will be the judge of its relevance. The hon. member for Duvernay said:
Tax exemptions are not easily given up. Large and powerful lobbying groups exist precisely to maintain and expand tax privileges and immunity. But we are not living in 1799 when Pitt introduced the income tax and listed mining and quarries as second on the list of those qualifying for exemptions, after the stipends of ecclessiastics. Nor are we living in 1927 when the U.S. Congress authorized a depletion allowance against a corporate tax rate that was very low. At today's rates, such privileges are grossly discriminatory and lead to overinvestment in the favoured industries and misallocation of resources, as Carter noted.
If Your Honour does not think that relevant, I should like to read something that I know you will regard as completely relevant. This is the very marrow in the bones, as it were, of the argument why we want to change the composition of the board of directors of the CDC. The hon. member for Duvernay went on:
If the quality of living in Canada is to improve, an increasing proportion of total income should be used to satisfy the social and private needs of Canadians as consumers, not as investors. This expanding demand, with a money supply growing more evenly than in the past, will provide all the incentive that private investment needs.
If we leave this board of directors strictly in the hands of the business community, what hope is there of making sure that an increasing proportion of total income is used
to satisfy the social and private needs of Canadians as consumers and not as investors? According to the government's proposal, the board will be composed of people who know how to make sure that the operations of the CDC are conducted in a way to give a return to the investors as such, and that is all. If we are to bring about a result different from this we must see to it that there are other people on the board besides those who represent the investors' point of view. I believe I have proven relevance to the hilt; in fact, I should be very pleased to be shown where I have not been relevant, but it would not be fair to draw Your Honour into a procedural argument at this stage.
The hon. member for Duvernay is not the only one who accepts the motion that we need to plan now for the future as well as the present needs of the people of this country. We need planning to be done by more than the narrow sector of the business community. If we leave it strictly to the business section of the community to do the planning across the country, we will get nothing more than what we have had. We will have little economic development in areas where unemployment is extremely serious, and in which opportunities are very unevenly divided now.
I would point out that the Economic Council, which years ago would have been composed only of economists with perhaps a few government people thrown in, has begun to realize the necessity of including other groups of people in the community. The Economic Council now includes people from organized labour. It includes representatives of organized farmers, of organized consumers and a good many representatives of other sectors in addition to those from the business community or from the academic world.
It has already been shown to this government that in planning, it is a good idea to consider economic measures for Canada by including people in addition to businessmen and those merely interested in bigger dividends for their shareholders. This is true of other sections of our government at the present time. In the Department of National Health and Welfare, you have a minister who has set up a National Council of Welfare. I give him credit for wisdom in this regard. He has seen fit to include representatives not only from the business community but social workers and other representatives from sections of the country who are concerned with low incomes. You might ask what people on low income have to do with welfare. They are the recipients of welfare and probably in the very best position to know something about it. The people who give out welfare and make the legislation, very rarely, if ever, have been on the receiving end of welfare or know anything about it from a practical standpoint.
If the Department of National Health and Welfare has reached the point of actually including people from the low income groups on the council, perhaps it is time we started thinking in terms of including representatives from the relevant sections of the community in every

June 7, 1971

government enterprise. We are still working on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has included representatives from the business community on his consumer council. There is no danger of ever forgetting these people. They are the first appointed. I understand this consumer Council also includes, consumers and representatives of small businesses. One of these days I hope we will persuade the minister to include someone from the low income group. The minister indicates he has one on the council now, but as far as I am aware this is a fairly well paid salaried civil servant. In no way is he a representative of the low income group.
I am not very much in favour of the Senate as such, but even it amended our packaging and labelling bill so that the minister must, before making changes in the regulations, consult with representatives of both the business side of packaging and labelling and the consumer side. If the Senate can see fit to counsel the Commons to put that sort of provision in legislation, it is time to take another look at a bill as important as this which sets up the Canada Development Corporation. I am sure this is one of the important points in this bill. We want to see this provision in order that directors can and shall be appointed who will give adequate representation to the different interests in Canadian society. We would have included a good many more people than representatives of labour and consumers, but we do not wish to burden the House with those details at this stage.
The government would do very well to consider this point because, whether it likes it or not, sooner or later it will have to recognize the fact that in the whole of this operation, not just the Economic Council, National Health and Welfare, Consumer Affairs and one or two other of its many working operations, it will have to include representatives from every single sector of the Canadian society. If Canada is to be a viable country, and this is more important than whether this government is successful, we will have to appoint representatives from the business community, the commercial sector, consumers, farmers and other groups. They must have their share of the say in planning every piece of legislation that goes through this House.
In respect of the Canada Development Corporation, the least the government can do to give some confidence to the Canadian people that it is considering something besides the business community is to accept this amendment. This would provide for the inclusion of the broad spectrum of other Canadian interests and would indicate that the corporation is to be the servant of Canadians at large, rather than merely another pasturage for the business community in this country.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waierloo):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
points we have been trying to make throughout this debate is that the bulk of the commercial activity in this country will probably remain in private hands. Perhaps a great deal of it should remain there, but there is a growing and important role for the government as well. We also argue that the government's role should be distinctive and different. There is not much point in the government merely trying to duplicate what the private
Canada Development Corporation sector is doing, and if it is doing it well it should be left alone.
The role of the government lies in those areas where the private sector is not able to perform or where innovation is called for and the private sector is not prepared to take the risk. We can point to a number of examples of this type of area where the government should lead the way. It should be the pathfinder and the trail blazer. This has been the case in respect of minimum wages and in various other forms of legislation adopted by this House of Commons.
In moving the two amendments that have been combined, we are really arguing that if the CDC is to be something different from what exists now in the private sector it should take into account not only this economic role but also its administrative role and, perhaps in some ways, its social role. It should play a different kind of part than that played by ordinary business corporations. The government itself recognized that the CDC should be somewhat different. We do not believe the government is going far enough, but it does claim that the CDC, although it is profit-oriented, has additional terms of reference relevant to public interest. In this way it has indicated it envisages this corporation as being somewhat different. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is challenged that this is merely another investment corporation or the establishment of a mutual fund, he recoils in horror and says it is really something different.
What we are asking the government is whether, in fact, it does believe the CDC is different. If it does, then the CDC should behave in a somewhat different fashion than that manifested by ordinary corporations. Let us first of all refer to ordinary corporations. They are totally profit-oriented and have in the past been very loathe to become democratic or to take into consideration other factors in the consumer or national interest. They have always argued that they cannot operate that way. Surely, the CDC cannot accept this point of view. Surely, we can be assured that although the CDC intends to be somewhat profit-orientated, it will follow some precedence for having representatives from different industries in the Canadian society, including labour, consumers, farmers and other organizations, as members of the board. It may be that the government will not have to reach outside those who hold dividends or stock in the Canada Development Corporation.
But we are saying that when it comes to appointing a board, some additional criteria should be established because generally a board is appointed on the basis of who holds the most shares. It is quite obvious who will hold the most shares. It will be the banks, the trust companies and finance companies in Canada who hold the most shares in everything else. So, the CDC board will look like any other board in this country. That is not what we want. We feel that farmers should be represented if the CDC finds that a wide proportion of such people hold shares or perhaps workers. We believe some regard should be shown for this kind of representation and that,

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
if necessary, the CDC should go outside the shareholders of its own stock in order to find representation.
I think it might be an admirable idea to have a representative from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the board because increasingly- and I am glad to see this-the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is starting to have some effect on the economy. People are beginning to see that this department means business in some areas, such as the area of misleading advertising, corporate disclosures and so on, and is colliding in many instances with business corporations. I believe it would be unthinkable to have the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs place an injunction against the Canada Development Corporation simply because it pursued the profit motive. This, from the public point of view, could be very bad in my opinion. A lot of difficulty could be headed off at this time if in fact there were some representation from the department or some representation from some consumer groups. The time surely must have passed when we say that corporations are responsible only for profit, and I include corporations outside the CDC in the private sector. I think many business corporations have begun to realize they have a role beyond the simple imperative of making profit. They know that business survives only by public consent, and that business has to justify itself in the eyes of the public interest and the national interest.
The day is over when the private business sector can take the attitude, the public be damned. They know now they must have other objectives. We say to the government that it can assist the business community by writing into the Canada Development Corporation legislation the need for the corporation to be representative and the need for it to respond to these various interests in our society rather than the profit motive alone. As I read the amendments so ably discussed and defended by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), it seems to me there should not be any objection to including this kind of directive in the Canada Develonment Corporation legislation. It can only help to strengthen the CDC. It cannot weaken it. It may give it a little of the lustre it so badly needs, and which is so utterly lacking in the bill which has been presented to this House.
I shall leave my comments on that point because there is another motion to which I wish to refer briefly, No. 7 which reads:
That Bill C-219, An Act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by deleting from subclause (3) of Clause 12 line 12 and substituting the following:
"AH members of"
As a result of this amendment, rather than containing the words "the majority of the members of", the subclause would read as follows:
All members of the Board referred to in section 11 shall at all times be residents of Canada.
I can see no reason for the government objecting to this particular amendment. Again, it would seem that it would considerably strengthen the position of the Canada Development Corporation. As the bill stands without this amendment, the reference to a majority of the members
leaves it open to very wide abuse. We have had experience in Canada in respect of industrialists who, for one reason or another, have retained Canadian citizenship but have been domiciled elsewhere. Usually, the reason was related to tax laws. In my view such a situation would be unthinkable in this connection and I would hope it would be unthinkable in the view of the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), namely, that this corporation would have a number of directors who would reside outside Canada.
It surely is not too much to ask that the directors be residents of Canada. First of all, they would be much better attuned to Canadian problems. They would certainly be more able to assess the proper decisions of the CDC if they were residents of Canada rather than of some other country. I believe they would exert a greater influence on the board if they lived in this country, and were tuned in to our activities. After all, you cannot find out what is happening in Canada on the golf courses of Bermuda. You may be able to find out on the golf courses in Canada. I see very little reason for any government opposition to Motion No. 7. I would sincerely hope the parliamentary secretary would give it some thought and listen to some of the arguments we have put forward, then say that this particular motion and the one preceding it, No. 6, are acceptable to his government.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 6 is one of a group of amendments presented by particular members opposite with a view to amending the Canada Development Corporation bill to create a Canada Development Corporation in the image they wish to see it rather than as the government wishes to see it. I spoke at length on this on Friday in connection with the debate on the previous package of amendments, I believe amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. I do not intend to reiterate my comments. Motion No. 7, however, stands on its own. The purpose the government had in mind in permitting some of the directors to be non-residents of Canada was that, hopefully, it might take advantage of Canadian managerial and other business skills which might be available, even though the particular person might not be a resident of Canada. The government also envisaged the situation, with the mobility of top management today, of a director who had through his other business connections been required to give up his Canadian residence for a period of time but fully expected to be back again.
Other provisions in this bill do, of course, require by implication that all directors be Canadian citizens. Subclause (2) of Clause 12 specifically provides that a person ceases to be a director if he ceases to be a Canadian citizen. However, the government feels there is some positive advantage in the CDC being able to avail itself of the services of non-resident directors. Perhaps the provision in the bill that a majority be residents is arbitrarily chosen. Perhaps some other proportion would be as acceptable, but the government cannot accept the amendment as proposed which would require that all members of the board be Canadian residents.

June 7. 1971


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will put the question on motion No. 6 in accordance with the special order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion No. 6 stands deferred.
Motion No. 7 will also stand, pursuant to the order made on Friday last. The Chair will now put Motion No. 8, and, as hon. members will remember, this motion is to be put by itself.


Max Saltsman: That Bill C-219, An Act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by deleting Clause 18 and substituting the following:
"18. Except for those common shares of the company issued and allotted to the government which shall entitle the government to one vote for each share held, each shareholder who holds common shares of the company is entitled to one vote without regard to the number of shares held."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is one further attempt by my colleagues and myself to persuade the government to handle the Canada Development Corporation in a somewhat more progressive and forward-looking way than has been indicated up until now. The purpose of the amendment is to inject an element of corporate democracy into what is something other than that at the moment.
Through this particular amendment, we are trying to change the corporate structure in much the same way as democratic and political structures were changed a few centuries ago. As hon. members know, at one time in order to qualify as a voter one had to have property qualifications, and very often the amount of property owned permitted one to cast a larger stone into the political pool than would otherwise have been the case. As a matter of fact, in some cases if a person had enough property he could buy himself a rotten borough, and in effect be the only stone in the pool. Our society has progressed a long way from that.
We realize that this is not the way in which a democracy can function, and that the right to vote should not
Canada Development Corporation
be dependent on the wealth of the individual. We realize that the opinion of each individual is worthwhile and important. So we have developed a democratic political system with this idea as its cornerstone. Now, we think that we should be moving in that same direction so far as corporations are concerned. We believe that when a new corporation like the CDC is being formed, when what is essentially a new experiment in corporate life is taking place, some thought should be given to the reorganization of the voting pattern within the corporation.
We have excluded the government from our proposed pattern because probably at the very best the corporation will have fewer than 10 per cent of 15 per cent of the Canadian population participating directly in it. Therefore, the government should have more say than individual investors because it represents the remainder of those Canadians, who are not members of the corporation by direct investment means. With respect to the other investors, the effect of our amendment would be that where an investor holds a block of shares that give him a 3 per cent financial interest in the corporation, and where another investor holds one single share which may represent an infinitesimal percentage of the financial interest of the corporation, each should have equal voting rights. This is a radical and sharp departure from what has been the "norm" in voting in corporations, but we believe it is something the House should consider, and of course it is something that we commend to hon. members.
We have expressed our concern that the CDC rather than becoming, as the government claims, an instrument whereby the small Canadian investor could have a considerable say in the development of his country, will fall under the control of the large financial and other corporations of Canada. This situation must be avoided at all costs. If this amendment is accepted, we can make a substantial stride in that direction. We can insure that no matter what the financial involvement of a single investor may be, or of a large group of investors may be, when it comes to voting on corporation business that person or group will have no more power, no more votes than any shareholder who holds only one share. This is really democratic corporate control. At least it is a step in that direction, and I think it is a step the government and the House should endorse. With these few comments, may I commend the amendment that stands in the name of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and which I have the honour to move on his behalf.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation


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):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Max Saltsman: That Bill C-219, An Act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by deleting from clause 36 (1) paragraphs (a) and (b) and by substituting the word "condition'' for the word "conditions" in line 3 on page 25.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion No. 9 is to strike out paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the word "condition" for the word "conditions". In effect, it would leave paragraph (c), and take out certain language.
If I might read clause 36(l)(a):
(a)	the aggregate amount that the government of Canada may at any one time have invested in the company or be committed to invest in the company by way of investment in the shares of the company shall not exceed two hundred and fifty million dollars at the purchase price thereof plus the amount of any shares or securities of the company acquired pursuant to a sale under section 39;
And then it goes on:
(b)	if the total number of voting shares of the company held by Her Majesty in right of Canada, any agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada and any persons associated with such agent, within the meaning of the statutory conditions, exceed in number ten per cent of the total number of issued and outstanding voting shares of the company, the company may at its sole option redeem for cancellation such number of common shares of the company as equals the number of voting shares held by Her Majesty in right of Canada in excess of ten per cent of the total number of issued and outstanding voting shares or any lesser number thereof, at the net asset value of the common shares so redeemed;
To the extent that my ability to comprehend permits me to understand them, I believe that those are limiting paragraphs. The one paragraph limits the amount that the government can invest to $250 million, while the other paragraph limits the government to holding 10 per cent of the total number of the outstanding voting shares. We think these are bad clauses to have in legislation governing an organization as important as the Canada Development Corporation. We see no reason why such limitations should be imposed upon the Crown and we have, therefore, moved this amendment in order to have that change effected.
We live in an era, Mr. Speaker, in which everything is gigantic. International corporations, mostly American, have been able to conquer many countries in a way which would have been unthinkable even to Genghis Khan. They have done it without military forces and they have done it because of the power and size of their
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
corporate organizations. In a world where technology is expensive and is highly dependent on large organizations, only the large organization can survive and can profit. Canada suffers from the presence of international corporations more than any other country. Except in a few areas, there has been no real attempt made to exclude their influence. It could be argued that in some cases they provide benefit but on the whole we have seen Canada being virtually taken over, its policies dominated and its culture subverted by the need to satisfy the organizational requirements and the profit requirements of this new phenomenon, the giant corporation.
How are we to tackle the situation? One of the ways, not the only one, in which we hope the situation can be met is by making the CDC into an organization large enough to combat this particular new form of imperialism. I call it imperialism which is a harsh word, but unpleasant as it may be this is what is happening whether it is done with kindness or not. We need our own giant, if you will, to combat the influence and distortion of the international corporation. For that reason, the Canada Development Corporation will have to become the largest corporation in Canada and will have to operate in a manner which we can hardly conceive at the moment, but its size should not be limited. It should have the flexibility to move and expand and accomplish those things required now and in the future as this trend toward "giantism" continues.
We think it is a grave error to place any limitation upon the CDC. For that reason we have submitted the amendment presently before the House, and amendment that we commend to all hon. members.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on motion No. 9 (Mr. Burton).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour
will 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):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
June 7, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-219, an act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by deleting clause 39.
He said: In the absence of the hon. member for Regina East it becomes my pleasure to move this motion No. 10 which asks that clause 39 of Bill C-219 be deleted. Clause 39 of this bill is the one that would permit the sale to the Canada Development Corporation of four corporations already in existence which are government owned. The four are: Polymer Corporation Limited, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Panarctic Oils Limited and Northern Transportation Company Limited. I referred to the four as being government owned; there is of course the qualification that in the case of Panarctic Oils Limited there is a consortium of which the government is a member.
We feel very strongly that this clause should be omitted from the bill because this very provision brings into focus the thing that we regard as essentially wrong with Bill C-219. Polymer Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear Limited are very successful corporations wholly owned by the people of Canada. They are not run for the purpose of private profit but because of a need for the products they produce. If they were sold to the Canada Development Corporation we would regard it as a regressive step; instead of being publicly owned in their entirety they would be owned in part by the public and in part privately. That would bring them within the general purpose of the Canada Development Corporation which is to make a profit rather than to serve the interests of the people of Canada as a whole. That is why we do not like this provision in Bill C-219. We pointed this out in the debate on second reading and we have pointed it out repeatedly throughout discussions on Bill C-219. As I have already said, we feel that this clause brings into sharp relief the difference between our view of a Canada development corporation and the view that the government has placed before us in this legislation.
I am well aware of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has not felt that he had to reply to two or three of the debates that have taken place today on amendments, but I hope he realizes that this one is very important. He has an obligation to demonstrate any reason, if there is one, why clause 39 should remain in the bill. From our point of view it should not be there and that is why this amendment is before the House.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in some remarks I have made about public corporations in Canada I have noted that the Liberal government seems to harbour a death wish with regard to almost every public corporation it has established. That party is so ideologically bent-twisted perhaps is more appropriate-to the idea of free enterprise that when they operate as a government they operate most inefficiently. It seems almost as if they want the entities they create to fail. After all, their ideology is that only the free enterprise
Canada Development Corporation system and only the profit motive have merit, so everything government does is bad. It almost seems as if they want this scheme to fail in order that they can say, "See, we told you everything governments do is bad. Whatever governments touch does not work out." Actually, almost everything this government has touched has not worked out for the above reason. I do not say that the government does this consciously, but the effect is the same. They seem to set out to destroy the very things they create in the public sector.
The Liberals have sought, from the beginning, to dismantle certain entities. I am talking about entities like Polymer Corporation, Eldorado, Northern Transportation Company, and so on. This does not hold true so much for Panarctic Oils, which has been a recent development. The Liberals tried to get rid of Polymer, but there was such a public uproar that they abandoned the attempt. Why in the world would you want to get rid of organizations like that which have more than proved the point that public enterprise can be successful and which have more than demonstrated how valuable government intervention in the economy can be. It almost seems as if the existence of such organizations is a condemnation of the particular liberal philosophy the Liberal party espouses. The organizations stand there as symbols of success. They show what government can do, and that is more than the Liberal party can stand.
If the Canada Development Corporation idea is good in itself, why must the government take successful Crown corporations and throw them into the CDC pot? The suspicion inevitably arises that without these public corporations CDC will not be successful and will not be attractive to investors, that the government hopes to induce people to invest in CDC by taking corporations which are now the common property of all Canadians and turning them over to a small group of private investors. That idea, Mr. Speaker, is shameful. There is no evidence to support the notion that Polymer cannot function well and effectively on its own, without the CDC. This is equally true of Eldorado and the Northern Transportation Company. Look at the financial statements of these corporations. You will find that Polymer has consistently returned a profit to the Canadian public, that it has built up a substantial reserve and that it has been of great benefit to everyone in Canada. The corporation now has sufficient money to enable it to acquire other businesses, which it is in the course of doing. There is no evidence that Polymer needs the CDC but there is considerable evidence to indicate that the "nonsense" corporation this government calls the CDC needs Polymer very badly.
I am very interested in Polymer. I admire the company. It has served Canada well. In terms of its relationships with its employees, it has tended to perform better than other corporations in our society. Recently Polymer had to lay off employees and it handled those lay-offs in a way that was infinitely better than the way other corporations handled that problem. There was a genuine attempt to ease the plight of employees. They were provided with severance pay and there were attempts to

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation provide other employment opportunities for those the corporation was letting go. I suggest that the corporation has been so responsible partly because it knew that its behaviour was under public scrutiny; and although hon. members could not question Polymer directly, they could question the minister responsible for the corporation who would have to answer in the House of Commons for the behaviour of the corporation in the market place. Polymer will be less responsive to the public need if it ceases to be a Crown corporation and becomes part of Canada Development Corporation, which is to be governed by the idea of profit making alone. It would be a mistake to transfer Polymer to CDC. The suggestion that that be done makes us very suspicious of the entire concept behind CDC.
The history of the Northern Transportation Company is interesting. It was begun to provide service in the north that could not be provided in any other way. The company has proven its value in the sense that it has not been a burden to the taxpayer and everyone acknowledges that it has more than adequately met the needs of northern transportation. The same could be said about Eldorado. Are we now to take these corporations of proven merit, corporations that have proven how valuable they are to the Canadian people, that have given the lie to those who suggest that public enterprises cannot operate efficiently and turn them over to CDC so that Liberals need not be reminded of the imperfections and paucity of their own philosophy?
It is for this reason and for the reasons given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we have moved this amendment. If the amendment is not accepted, the suspicion will inevitably arise that the government's chief reason in setting up CDC was finally to liquidate the corporations which have served the Canadian people so well.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quite correctly observed that I have not commented on some of the motions before the House because, as I indicated earlier, I regard them as a package designed to convert CDC to the type of CDC the New Democratic Party would create if it were in the position to form the government.


An hon. Member:: That is impossible.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It is not in that position and this party is; therefore, the bill we are considering is a bill to create a Canada Development Corporation that is in accord with the approach and philosophy of the party forming the government. Nevertheless, the specific provisions of Clause 39, which this amendment would seek to delete from the bill, are an equally profound demonstration of our differences in approach and philosophy. That is unquestionably so. It is fundamental to the bill. The government cannot agree to or accept the amendment.
It should be noted that that clause gives the government the authority to initiate the sale of these specified Crown corporations, and, in the case of Panarctic Oils, a Crown investment, to the Canada Development Corporation. Whether or not such a sale will actually occur will depend on the willingness of CDC to purchase the Crown investments and the payment of a fair and reasonable price as a result of negotiations between the government and the management of CDC. In these negotiations, the federal government will be representing the taxpayers who currently own the Crown corporations or investment. The federal government will fully protect the taxpayers' interests in these Crown corporations and in the Panarctic investment by ensuring that a fair and reasonable price is obtained for them.
The investments listed in the bill are ones that seem to be possible candidates for sale to the CDC at the present time. It is possible that at a later date other corporations or Crown investments will be added to the list or, in a future review, circumstances might change and dictate that it is undesirable to conclude the sale that would be permitted under the authority of this clause. These were selected because they are Crown investments that are operating in the private sector and are or have the potential of earning competitive rates of return on investor capital. They are corporations which will provide the Canada Development Corporation with ready access to expert knowledge and management in certain key sectors of the economy.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the enabling of the government to attempt to negotiate this sale is central to the CDC act as conceived by the government and this amendment is not acceptable.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief reply to the parliamentary secretary. He is entirely correct in saying that clause 39 represents a profound difference in philosophy between that adopted by this party and that adopted by his party. What I failed to hear in his remarks was any justification, in terms of any sort of philosophy, for having a publicly owned corporation which has operated with a great deal of success for the benefit of the people of Canada, the general shareholders, handed over to some still untried aggregation of capital. We do not know what it is going to do or why that should be done. This is clearly a retrograde step. We will continue to oppose it.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on this amendment. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has just said, the philosophy of our party certainly is not that which the parliamentary secretary has indicated is the philosophy of the Liberal party.
The four crown corporations which the government intends to take over have certainly been paying propositions and the future prospects are extremely bright. Up to 1969, the government investment in the Polymer Corporation has been approximately $30 million. In the past 10 years, Polymer Corporation has paid $39 million in dividends to the government of Canada. It has certainly served the purpose for which it was established. It has done a tremendous job. It has expanded and now has

June 7, 1971

plants in other countries. There is no doubt that the financial picture of Polymer Corporation is one of which any government could be proud. For example, in 1969, Polymer Corporation paid a $6 million dividend. At no time in the past decade has the profit of Polymer Corporation dropped below the $3 million mark.
As has already been indicated, Polymer Corporation is 100 per cent Canadian owned and controlled. Let us keep it that way. Let us keep it under the present administration which is doing a top-notch job of handling it and let the CDC expand into other areas where expansion is needed. The CDC should invest its money in some other resource industries. This is the kind of expansion that Canada needs now. Why start picking on corporations that are already Canadian owned and controlled and, more important, returning a profit to the Canadian people?
I now want to deal with another of these corporations. They are all very important. Eldorado Nuclear was created in 1944. The objects of creating it were to look for, mine and refine uranium. The picture of Eldorado Nuclear has been excellent as far as returns to the Canadian people are concerned. From the time it was created, up to the end of 1969, it has paid over $30 million in dividends to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: What about taxes?


Randolph Harding: Over the same period, it has paid $30 million in taxes. What more do we want? That is an excellent record. The main objects of establishing this corporation were to look for, m ne and refine uranium, one of the key sources of energy in this country. 1 submit that it has certainly done an excellent job.
In 1969, Eldorado Nuclear had a loss of just over $1 million. It will probably have another loss this year because of the depressed market for uranium. We must not kid ourselves or the Canadian people into believing that the future of uranium is not bright. We need only look at the potential energy resources of this country to see the desperate need for uranium in the future. For this reason, Eldorado Nuclear which controls this key energy source should be retained as a Crown corporation, 100 per cent owned and controlled by the Canadian people. I see absolutely no validity in the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary that we do not need to amend this bill, but throw this Crown corporation into the pot so that it can be controlled by a corporation which certainly will not be entirely Canadian.
I am not going to deal with all the corporations listed here. There are two more. Everyone of these is paying a profit to the Canadian people. Even more important, they are now Canadian controlled. What is the Liberal party going to do? We now have 100 per cent control. What more do we want? Let us start by having the CDC go into other aspects of the economy which we have lost. This is the objective of Canadians today and this is the objective of our party. We are urging members of the House to accept this amendment, and to give direction and thrust toward gaining control of the Canadian economy for Canadians by retaining these corporations as they
Canada Development Corporation are now and using the CDC to get into other aspects of the economy where Canadian control is desperately needed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to say a word on this amendment. The last two speakers from the New Democratic Party used arguments with considerable merit when they criticized the government's attempt to bring under the jurisdiction of the CDC four Crown corporations, a move which, if successful, would have the effect of changing the management of these Crown corporations as well as government policy with regard to them. The CDC is, in essence, to be a Crown corporation, yet other Crown corporations are to be placed under its directorship. It is true the major shareholder will be the government, but the directors are to be chosen from the private sector. Polymer, Northern Transportation, Eldorado and Panarctic will be directed by people from the private sector, not necessarily those who are at the present time directing the management of these four successful Crown corporations.
Why is the government so set on the idea that these Crown corporations should be handed over to the Canada Development Corporation? Is it an attempt to entice the unsuspecting Canadian investor, to lure him into investing money in the CDC? If he does so and these ventures turn out to be less profitable from here on, the management not so dedicated or not as capable, then the difficulties of those Crown corporations will begin. Within the last few years, Polymer has invested in a large plant in Europe. If it were placed under the CDC would it continue to possess the independence it has enjoyed up to now, and would it be able to invest in the tire business as it has done recently by investing in a tire manufacturing plant in Europe. One cannot be certain, particularly when one reads the words of the parliamentary secretary as reported at page 6391 of Hansard to the effect that the directors will be chosen from the private sector but that the government would remain the largest shareholder and thus would always be in a position to exercise a degree of influence over the policies of the corporation. Will this in fact have the effect of limiting the freedom which these Crown corporations have enjoyed? Every one of them is in competition with similar industries within the private sector, except perhaps for Northern Transportation which some time ago bought out its competitor.
In any case, Eldorado, Panarctic and Polymer are all successfully competing with the private sector. In order to continue to do so they must remain flexible; they must be allowed a degree of freedom so as to meet the demands which competition places upon them. This House and the country need a better explanation than they have been given so far as to why the CDC should be permitted to start off with four such corporations. Why is the CNR not being brought within its scope, if the concept is that Crown companies should be allocated to the CDC? Are only the successful ones to be handed over? Surely, we could take a look at Air Canada, the CBC and a number of others with a view to letting the CDC look

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation after them, too. All in all, the House should be given better reasons than it has been given so far in favour of placing the four corporations I have mentioned under the control of the proposed development corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
The hon. member for Waterloo.


Max Saltsman: I was just getting to my seat, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Max Saltsman: The only point of order is that I was getting to my seat rather than rising with the intention to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can't we ever win?
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the motion will stand deferred.
I will proceed to motion No. 11 stating in the name of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), but first I should ascertain from the hon. member who is to be the seconder of the motion.
To be fair to the hon. member, perhaps, while he is looking for a seconder, or waiting for the return of a seconder, I might remind hon. members that the Chair has expressed some reservations as to the acceptability of the proposed motion. Is the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) rising to second the motion?


Mr. Francis:: I was rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I was in the process of saying that a point of order had been raised by the Chair to the effect, there was a possibility that the motion might not be in order. I would be prepared to hear argument in support of the acceptability of the motion or against it before we proceed further.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: On Friday, Your Honour suggested the proposed amendment might go beyond the scope of the bill and I intend to confine my remarks strictly to that point. I do not believe the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill. In fact, it does not really add substantially to its provisions because it merely says that Members of Parliament shall not be excluded from appointment to the board of the proposed corporation.
Clause 40 (1) merely states that the Governor in Council shall appoint not more than four of the members of the Board of Directors. It could be argued that among the persons so appointed could be Members of Parliament. They are not excluded by the terms of that clause. My amendment merely adds a subclause which will make it clear that Members of Parliament are not to be excluded. It does not go as far as the provision in other bills which stated categorically that Members of Parliament might be appointed to certain boards. The amendment would simply call to the mind of the government the fact that it would be possible for them to appoint Members of Parliament as directors.
The whole question of providing for some degree of accountability to the people of Canada is one of great importance and one which should in my opinion be considered even more seriously than my amendments suggests it ought to be. The people of Canada do not seem to have any say about what goes on in government, particularly in the conduct of Crown corporations. In the following clause those who drafted the bill, the bureaucrats, made certain that they were included even as ex-officio directors. The power that lies in the bureaucracy is far too great now, and the people of Canada do not have enough say in this regard. I suggest there has to be more of an input on the part of those of us who represent the people of Canada, who through their taxes are paying for these corporations.
I should like to cite a provision in the International Development Research Centre Act which, in my opinion, provides a precedent in this regard. When the House passed this legislation establishing the centre on February 20, 1970, clause 10 (3) provided as follows:
Two of the governors, who are Canadian citizens, other than the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, may be appointed from among the members of the Senate or the House of Commons; a member so appointed shall not be paid remuneration but shall be eligible for expenses and, if he is a member of the House of Commons, shall not, by reason of his being the holder of the office or place in respect of which such expenses are payable, be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a member of that House.
I suggest that this is a precedent that goes further than my amendment would go. Therefore, I submit my amendment should be found in order and should be voted upon accordingly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the mover of this amendment has argued his case, as he has previously, for Members of Parliament to be allowed to sit on the boards of directors of Crown corporations. The issue is not the

June 7, 1971

merits of such a step; the issue is whether the particular amendment before us is in order. I do not dispute the general claim that the hon. member has put forward. Indeed, on previous occasions I have supported the merits of what he is now endeavouring to accomplish by this particular amendment. As the hon. member pointed out, he has previously moved a whole series of amendments to bills before this House which you, Sir, in consultation with various authorities, ruled out of order and which the hon. member withdrew following discussion.
The issue today is very simple: Does the matter before us place a burden on the treasury and violate the prerogative of the Crown with regard to expenditure of funds? With all respect, I do not think that the wording of the clause the hon. member seeks to amend is as direct as previous wordings that we have considered. I think the clause is either unnecessary or attempts to do indirectly that which cannot be done directly. The wording of the amendment appears to provide that Members of Parliament shall not be excluded from appointment which, presumably, means that they shall be considered for appointment. If Members of Parliament are to be considered for appointment to boards of directors under clause 40(l)(a), then we have to face the problem whether or not the bill is contemplating two classes of directors, one paid and the other unpaid. Certainly, there is nothing before the House to suggest that that type of provision is implied or should be implied.
The precedent quoted by the hon. member is very interesting. It speaks very clearly of how members could be appointed to the board of an international agency of the sort to which reference has been made. It very clearly provides that they may not receive remuneration, and obviously there has been care with the wording. But the wording before us is not the wording the hon. member cited a few moments ago but very different wording. As I read it, it attempts to place Members of Parliament in the position of being eligible for appointment on the same terms and conditions as other directors contemplated by this legislation. If that is the case, then I think it clearly violates the terms of the Senate and House of Commons Act and would be subject to all of the strictures previously referred to by Your Honour in other circumstances in connection with previous amendments moved by the hon. member. I submit the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Cochrane for his enlightening remarks, and I also thank the hon. member for Ottawa West for his comments for the guidance of the Chair. I had indicated previously when this motion was first put to the House that I had serious doubts about the procedural aspect of the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Cochrane. I was under the impression that this amendment was rather in the form of a substantive proposition that went substantially beyond the terms of the bill that is now before us.
That is still the objection which I have to the hon. member's amendment. Somehow, I have the impression that the argument he has submitted in support of his claim that the motion should be accepted and put to the
Canada Development Corporation House strengthens my view that what he has proposed for our consideration is a substantive motion that goes beyond the terms of the bill before the House.
The hon. member's proposed motion would provide that in making appointments to the board of directors, the governor in council may appoint Members of Parliament to the board. While the motion does not use that specific language, the appointments the motion proposes could be made notwithstanding the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. That is the point that was made by the hon. member for Ottawa West.
I suggest to the hon. member for Cochrane that his proposed motion is either a nullity, in the sense that it would produce nothing in practice, or, in effect, it is an amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act, which is not now before the House. I suggest to hon. members that it is not open to them to propose a motion, following the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Cochrane, that amends an act that is in no way before the House and which bears very little relationship to the bill that is before the House at the present time.
Section 10 of the Senate and House of Commons Act provides that:
- (a) no person accepting or holding any office, commission or employment.. .to which any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument, or profit of any kind is attached... is eligible as a member of the House of Commons-
To my way of thinking, the argument is not whether public money might accrue to a member; rather the question is whether any member can be nominated by the Crown, or by an officer of the Crown, to an office to which an emolument or financial benefit attaches. In effect, the proposed motion removes the provision in the act that excludes members from such an office when the nomination is made by the Crown.
I recognize that the hon. member for Cochrane has a very strong point when he says that the International Development Research Centre Act was amended in terms very similar to those now proposed in the amendment of the hon. member. I must say that, in my view, if that amendment had been submitted to the Chair for consideration it would in all likelihood have been declared out of order. As the hon. member knows, this amendment was introduced at the committee stage and came before the House as part of the bill that was reported by the committee and was adopted with the other clauses of the bill. Therefore the point was not submitted to the Chair for consideration. In looking at the bill at the time the amendment was proposed, I had very serious doubts as to whether it was in order and whether the act could be reconciled with the other statute it in effect amended without saying so. For those reasons, I must conclude that the motion proposed by the hon. member should not be put to the House.
I have reservations also in that the whole matter to which this amendment refers is now still before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. In any event, there has been no report as far as I know on that reference to the committee. The hon. member was kind

June 7, 1971
Canada Development Corporation enough to agree to a suggestion made by the Chair some time ago that the bill he proposed be withdrawn and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That matter is still before the committee and I doubt very much whether there should be an attempt made at this time to settle the matter through an amendment to an act while the matter is still under consideration by a committee of this House.
For all those reasons I regret very much having to conclude and rule that the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time. We now go to motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).


Francis Andrew Brewin: That Bill C-219, an act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by substituting the words "five per cent" for the words "three per cent" in subclause (3) of Clause 2 of Schedule 1.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the schedule is to enable the provincial governments or the legislatures of the provinces on behalf of the provincial governments or the Crown or Her Majesty in the right of the provinces to acquire in the case of each province 5 per cent of the number of voting shares of the corporation rather than the present figure which appears in the schedule. The schedule provides that the holdings in the right of Her Majesty, in the right of the province or agents of Her Majesty shall not exceed three per cent of the total number of the issued and outstanding voting shares. The legislation recognizes, I think quite rightly so, that Her Majesty in the right of the various provinces may well be and should well be interested in being participant shareholders, participants therefore in the direction and control of the Canada Development Corporation. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the restriction which is fixed at 3 per cent, increasing this to 5 per cent.
We in this party have tried to make it very clear that we believe in government equity in publicly financed projects, and we believe in direct control by Parliament. The proposal made here is to encourage a partial approach toward that objective. We think as much as possible of the financing of a corporation such as this should be out of public funds so Canadians can benefit. In this way, any interested province can invest in this development corporation. Thus, Canadians who happen to be in those provinces are investing in this fund.
We believe this is a form of co-operative federalism that makes sense. Provincial governments are deeply concerned in the development of Canadian resources. They have the planning machinery to advise the corporation and assist it in determining what investments it shall make in the resources of Canada. They have responsibilities in that particular field. The more the provinces can be induced to step into the field of developing Canadian resources through this Canada Development Corporation the better.
Our leaders, and I mean the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the country and the other prime ministers and premiers of the provinces, have made it perfectly clear
that in their view one of the basic purposes of Confederation is to iron out the regional disparities which exist in this country, and to remove regional disparities by whatever means are available. It seems to me that the existence of this corporation, participated in by the various provinces, can and should be used as a major tool in ironing out these regional disparities.
To attempt to do this without the co-operation and participation of the provinces might well turn out to be a great mistake. Someone has suggested there is a danger if all ten provinces take up their five per cent in that 50 per cent of the capital would be owned by the provinces. First of all, I think it highly unlikely that all ten provinces would join together to become participants to that extent in this corporation. If they did, I think it would be an excellent thing that such a result was brought about. If all ten provinces, in a sense, were partners with the Canadian government through a Canada corporation for the development of the resources of this country, that would be highly beneficial to the country. I have no fear that this result will actually happen, but if it did I have no fear that it would be anything but beneficial.
I do not know the rationale behind the three per cent limitation. Why put a limit on provincial participation? The purpose of the measure is to establish a corporation that will help develop and maintain strong Canadian controlled and managed corporations in the private sector of the economy which will give Canadians bigger opportunities to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada. Why should not provincial governments be encouraged to participate as fully as they are willing in this effort? They would be participating on behalf of the citizens of their province. I think it would make it a much greater and more effective Canadian venture if this amendment were accepted.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, we do indeed hope and feel that provincial governments will find investment in the Canada Development Corporation a desirable objective for their own purposes. However, the basic concept of the measure is that majority ownership in the CDC should ultimately rest with the private sector. There is a provision in the bill that federal participation may be reduced to 10 per cent, and that is as low as it can go. There is another provision under clause 3 of schedule II that an agent of Her Majesty in the right of Canada and the associates of that agent can own another 3 per cent, so there is provision in the bill for 13 per cent of the voting shares being owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the federal government. In order to retain the basic concept that majority ownership shall ultimately rest with the private sector, the 3 per cent for each provincial government is necessary.
Four per cent times ten provinces would be 40 per cent, which would mean the public sector might own 53 per cent. The suggested amendment here could raise the number of voting shares owned in the public sector by both federal and provincial governments to 63 per cent. That is the rationale of the three per cent figure; it relates directly to the basic concept that the majority

June 7, 1971

control of the voting shares of the CDC, as envisaged by the government, should rest with the private sector. For that reason, the amendment is not acceptable to the government.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the words of the parliamentary secretary as he stated the government's position respecting some of the amendments we have presented to the House. The only conclusion one can come to is that there is no debate. We are asking why the government has done these things in the hope that we might have some explanation, perhaps receive some explanation with which we might agree, or acquire some understanding of the government's motivation. Instead, all we get is a reiteration of the government's position and a statement that there is a difference in philosophy. We know there is a difference in philosophy. This is one of the things this House is all about. This is not good enough. It is not good enough for the parliamentary secretary to say the government feels one way and we feel another way, and that this is the reason it is being done in this way. We want genuine debate on the matter. We want the government to defend its position and explain why it places its reliance on the private sector by insisting on a majority interest being maintained for the private sector.
We received no information except a statement that this is what the government has decided. In a matter as important as the Canada Development Corporation, one would have thought the government at least would have had the courtesy to explain to the House its reasons. My friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has given a most lucid explanation and argument concerning why there should be greater provincial involvement. I would have thought the merits of his case were obvious, and that the amendment as described and presented by the hon. member for Greenwood would have commended itself to the government which would have seen this as an opportunity to have participation by the provincial and federal governments. Instead of replying to the arguments which have been presented, the parliamentary secretary has simply restated the government's position. The government has decided to do it their way. At no time has there been any explanation from him of the reasons. We can do little more than express our great disappointment that the government has not been able or willing to either make a case or present it to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion now before us? It is motion No. 12 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Mr. Speaker:: Again, pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion will stand deferred. Since discussion on all motions has now been completed and all votes have been deferred, I should like to inquire of hon. members whether it is proposed that the vote be taken now or be held over until later.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement in the House to defer the recorded votes on all these amendments until eight o'clock tomorrow evening. As I understand it, tomorrow is to be an allotted day and under the special order government business will commence at eight o'clock tomorrow evening. Accordingly, I believe there is agreement that the votes be taken at eight o'clock tomorrow evening, at which time we may be able to proceed immediately to third reading.


Mr. MacLean:: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that has been agreed. I refer to both suggestions, that the vote be deferred until eight o'clock tomorrow evening and that if the government wishes to do so it may call the bill for third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: There is apparently unanimous consent to the procedure suggested by the parliamentary secretary. As it is agreed that the votes will be taken at eight o'clock tomorrow evening and following the voting there will be consideration of third reading of the bill, is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has studied the motions proposed under Bill C-239 to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and I should like to suggest for consideration of hon. members the following procedure which might well be followed. I would suggest, first, that motion No. 1 should be put and disposed of separately. Then, motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 might be grouped for purposes of debate and a vote on motion No. 2 would dispose of all the said motions. Motion No. 6 might be considered and disposed of separately. Motion No. 7 might create procedural difficulties because at least at first blush there would appear to be financial implications. The Chair, however, would hear argument when motion No. 7 is called. If hon. members are in agreement

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act with the suggestions I am making now, these motions will be put and considered as now suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about motions Nos. 8 and 9?


Mr. Speaker:: It is brought to my attention that motions 8 and 9 should also be referred to at this time. The suggestion I should like to make to the House is that they be considered and disposed of separately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, subject to any procedural discussion we might have on motion No. 7, the proposal you make regarding these amendments is satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now consider motion No. 1.


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"grain of any kind to the Board in a crop year under"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this amendment is to restore the cash advance legislation, as we will hope to see it after passing the current amendment, to the basic pattern which has existed since the inception of prairie grain advance payments some ten years ago; that is to say, when an advance has been taken upon grain, all grains upon which an advance can be taken, when it is delivered by a farmer, will be subject to deductions in respect of repayment. The bill, as it stands at the moment, after having been referred back from the committee would have the difficulty of seriously impeding or interfering with the security of the cash advance system by possibly limiting the recovery of money for advances to that portion of the grain upon which the advance itself was taken when that portion of the grain cannot, in the ordinary course, be identified. It would, therefore, have the effect of virtually destroying the cash advances system if the bill stood as it was reported back.
A question of principle is also involved, namely, whether when an advance is taken on wheat, the barley and oats grains delivered by the same producer should be taken into consideration with respect to deductions for the advance. It is the feeling of the Wheat Board that to do otherwise might interfere with the delivery of grain, and lead to some choices by farmers not to deliver certain grain at certain times. Accordingly, the amendment to restore the situation to the pattern that has existed since the law was first enacted is proposed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I find it strange that all of a sudden the minister should say this change must be made in the bill or the cash advances system will be ruined. Actually, Mr. Speaker, this clause was changed in the committee, and the ministers' amendment would merely restore it to its original wording. I think there is a very neat point here with regard to the worth of committee work.
The purpose of referring legislation to committees is to allow the committees to call knowledgeable witnesses to discuss the intent of the legislation, and whether or not the wording is sufficiently clear to carry out that intent. If this committee in its wisdom, following the advice of the experts, agreed that certain words should be deleted and others added to a particular clause of the bill, I would like to know how the minister, out of the blue, can come forward with the suggestion that the amended version of the bill is incorrect, and that the original wording should be restored.
The amendment proposes the restoration of the words "grain of any kind." The amendment moved in committee by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) suggested that those words be struck out and that the words "grain to the Board on which an advance has been taken" be added. As recorded at page 41 of Committee Proceedings No. 53, the minister had this to say:
Frankly, I do not know that the words "of any kind" have any additional significance. I presume the draftsman introduced them to make absolutely clear that wheat, oats and barley were all involved in the repayment...
At the bottom of the same page, the minister is recorded as saying:
My opinion is that the removal of those words would not change in any way the legal effect of the clause.
At that time, the committee had the power to call the draftsman before it. It had the power to call witnesses from the Wheat Board. It had the power to inquire from them whether the change really meant anything. I repeat that the minister said:
My opinion is that the removal of those words would not change in any way the legal effect of the clause.
If the minister felt the way he does now, he should have requested representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board to appear before the Agriculture Committee. Mr. Speaker, I think it is shocking that the full contingent of members of the Canadian Wheat Board has not appeared before the Agriculture Committee, even though recently we have been dealing with three major pieces of farm legislation, all related to wheat and other grains. On one particularly short day of committee hearings one spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board appeared. On three different occasions he replied that questions were not pertinent to the legislation and therefore he would not answer, or that he did not have the figures with him.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie was accepted by a vote of 13 to nine in the committee. It is a well known fact that the combined forces of the opposition muster only 13 votes in that committee, and that on that particular occasion a number of government supporters voted for the amendment.
Further, as recorded at page 41 of Committee Proceedings No. 53, the minister said:
With the words in I think the draftsman thought the clause was clearer than with the words out, but I believe that the same effect would hold true, because the words "of any kind"-
This is the important point I want to make. Just a few minutes ago the minister told us that without his amend-

June 7, 1971

ment being accepted, the cash advance system would be destroyed, but on that occasion he said in the committee:
-I believe that the same effect would hold true, because the words "of any kind" did not apear in the previous act...
Cash advance legislation has been on the statute books since 1957. The words "of any kind" did not appear in the original act. Now, the minister says, and we are supposed to believe him, that we should use the working he suggests. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I see it is five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-External Affairs-Solution for problem of refugees from East Pakistan now in India; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Unemployment-Effectiveness of Manitoba deficit financing program in decreasing unemployment-Suggested consultation; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-The Budget-Request for consideration of circumstances of elderly retired people.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Thomas Miller Bell: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of giving immediate consideration to Investigating, surveying, planning and constructing a new regional airport complex in New Brunswick which would take into account new transportation patterns and provide (a) national and international jumbo jet facility, (b) transit for export and import air freight (c) a link with the new containerization services at Saint John and (d) for the full development of the agricultural and fisheries potential of the entire Province.
He said: I will be brief in introducing this motion, Mr. Speaker. Last year it had moved into position for debate but I avoided moving it because we were waiting for a report on air transport in the Atlantic provinces and we also thought there was a chance that the regional air policy of this government might be clarified. Since then we have the report referred to. It is inconclusive, to say the least, and as everybody in the House knows, regional air policy is still indefinite.
I make no bones about raising this matter even though it is of a local and regional nature. There is no other avenue for bringing it forward. It is not a matter that could be tackled by a committee of the House. It is not
Suggested New Brunswick Airport Complex
like Montreal and Toronto: when they want an airport, the government jumps. The question involves many divided responsibilities at different levels and sections of government.
I hope the motion will provoke discussion, and not only in the narrow context of the resolution which advocates a regional airport for southern New Brunswick. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, no location is mentioned. I hope it will also provoke discussion on the matter of regional air carrier policy which, because it has drifted, is causing serious deterioration in all airports of Atlantic Canada.
I shall deal briefly with the problem and the history, and my proposal to help solve it. Saint John airport, which is my main consideration, has a very difficult weather problem for four months of the year, as everyone knows, which diminishes its usefulness. I feel it should be tied into a southern New Brunswick proposition. Air Canada has been involved in the service there for many years and would be able to provide a much better service. Other regional carriers, such as Eastern Provincial, could be included. I have no complaint with Air Canada's past record of service, but due to their unsettled policy and the fact that we are moving into larger planes and all the other problems, the service has seriously deteriorated. Each year is bringing a further reduction in service to Fredericton and Moncton as well as to Saint John.
The history of the Saint John airport is interesting. It was not taken over by the federal government until about three years ago. We always hoped that by remaining independent we could fit into the Canadian Pacific or some other route that would have shown us consideration such as we have with rail and sea, but that was not to be. The next event of significance was the Atlantic Provinces Air Transportation Study-APATS-of 1969. This report was released just a few months ago.
I quarrel with two of the propositions in this report which, incidentally, advocated that the New Brunswick airports of Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton remain as they are. I quarrel with the report that deals with the mileage, the service and the time taken between the various cities. I do not agree with the proposition that if there were a central airport, even though passengers would increase threefold there would not be three times better service. It is stated that there probably would not be any more flights out of the central airport because Air Canada might use larger planes. If there is any merit in this proposition, Air Canada should be jumping up and down with glee. These are two weak spots in the report. If we hoped for a broad, bold move into the future, this report is most pessimistic.
Recently, Mr. Baldwin, president, and Mr. Pratte, chairman of the board of Air Canada have made public statements. In Saint John, Mr. Baldwin promised that Air Canada would participate in a survey of that city to determine the future of Air Canada. We welcome this but feel that not only Air Canada should be included. I have confidence in John Baldwin-he had a good record as Deputy Minister of Transport-and I feel that in the profit and loss statement of Air Canada the almighty dollar might not be his main consideration. Mr. Pratte

June 7, 1971
Suggested New Brunswick Airport Complex has quarrelled recently with the regional air policy of this government and has said there should be greater clarification.
Another question is whether STOL aircraft might be used in intercity communication, considering the unique problem we have between these three major cities. Cutbacks have been severe. In the last three years the Air Canada service has deteriorated. They are bringing larger flights and there is no intercity communication. I do not know what the future of Air Canada is or should be. The larger planes have a different load factor for air cargo and this is seriously hampering the air cargo business in Saint John. These are the questions raised.
My proposal is that in view of the different studies, information and reports available there should be a fully co-ordinated review conducted by the Department of Transport. This should take into consideration the future of the Saint John airport in relation to the whole air picture of southern New Brunswick. It should include an assessment of the regional air carrier policy at all levels of government, provincial and federal. It should take into account the responsibilities of Air Canada and EPA and any other individual regional air carriers in existence.
These are my ideas, Mr. Speaker, and I do not apologize for bringing this matter forward. I hope it will at least provoke discussion about regional air policy. I have mentioned the history of the matter and our problems in southern New Brunswick, but I have not mentioned a particular location. I feel this is the only way we will take a step into the future of the fast-moving, jet age. There must be a need for specialized service and the other propositions outlined in my resolution.
I hope hon. members will show interest in this question and that there will be a favourable reply from the government indicating their interest and an assurance to the House that they will move on this problem that is adversely affecting our airports which do not have all the ingredients of some of our larger cities.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like in the first place to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) for having introduced a motion providing that the government should consider the advisability of setting up a new regional airport in New Brunswick.
It is quite difficult to speak about transportation in New Brunswick without referring to the Gaspe peninsula, eastern Quebec area, including the area north of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Several committees have made studies in the past and presented reports on the means of transport in the Mari-times and have always referred to the needs of eastern Quebec and the Gaspe peninsula.
During the few minutes at my disposal, it would be quite difficult for me to consider all the aspects of the problem of air transport.
Transport plays a quite important role in the economic development of a remote area and for New Brunswick as for the Gaspe peninsula, the air transport system will have very important direct effects on regional economic expansion.
Any investment in or any improvement of the air transport system in eastern Canada would certainly and necessarily result in an increase of regional production and creation of new industries.
The infrastructure is the basic element of the system, for without it, most, if not all, of the means of the transport cannot operate. Whether certain means of transport exist or not, regional producers and consumers will be more or less capable of having their goods carried.
The lack of modern air transport may result in a producer or manufacturer being forced to use an inadequate means of transport. Furthermore, when a monopolistic situation exists, this can incite the carrier to profit by the market that he controls, and to increase the rates that he charges his customers.
It is with this in mind that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) must see to it that a regional airport system is developed in New Brunswick and in the whole of eastern Canada, including the Gaspe region.
It would be useful to know to what extent the presence or absence of infrastructure affects the cost of transportation and, eventually, the economic development of a region.
When roads are bad, truckers may be tempted to raise their prices, either because the upkeep of their vehicles becomes more costly or because they use other routes which makes their trips longer and more expensive.
There is a relation between traffic density and the conditions of the infrastructure.
Not only should the existing airports be improved but the possibility of building new regional and local airports should be considered.
Because of its relation to all economic activity and the real part it can play in the economic development of a region, air transport constitutes one of the sectors that governments may readily use within the framework of their regional development and economic expansion policy.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why I am suggesting to the Minister of Transport that those policies should have positive effects both on the organization of the transportation system and the economy of the region.
Should an illustration of the benefits a region can derive from an airport be needed, the following should be sufficient. Ten years ago, an industrial complex was set up near the airport in Manchester, New Hampshire. It is almost 100 per cent occupied. They are now looking for other available land. There has been investments of $10 million, and hundreds of jobs were created for the city because of the availability of a regional airport flanked by an adjacent industrial complex.
And if New Brunswick, like the Gaspe peninsula, lacks adequate airports, what then?

June 7, 1971

Obviously, those regions will finally fall into oblivion, and be passed up by industry in favour of other cities in Canada and North America in general to which planes have easier access.
Why? Because industry relies increasingly on air transportation and tends to locate in areas served by airports. The same is true of tourists traveling by air, who will first visit areas immediately surrounding airports.
The establishment of industries in the vicinity of airports should be encouraged because the use of the land for building airports and contiguous industrial parks is highly practical from a physical, social and economic point of view.
The integration of a well-planned and well-organized industrial area close to an airport can in the long run be most beneficial to the area by solving some difficult zoning problems and allowing compatible uses of the land close to the airport.
Mr. Speaker, this House knows that businessmen rely increasingly on air transportation because of the timesaving element and because of its readiness in serving remote centres.
Airplanes travel faster and faster and the industrial empire of a corporation may expand in proportion provided its plants are located in the vicinity of an airport and if possible a regional airport.
In an area as vast as the Gaspe region, a regional airport should be established, such as the one which will be established in New Brunswick, as well as "subregional" and intermediary airports, in order to provide an adequate air transport service around this peninsula.
In his motion the hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter mentions the establishment of a regional airport in New Brunswick. I wish to inform the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that if Parliament acts on this request, the Gaspe area is part of a vast region bounded in the north by the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the south by the Freder-icton-Moncton-Charlottetown axis. These two limits which converge toward the Montreal-Quebec complex are two much frequented air corridors.
The survey requested by the hon. member on air transportation and a new regional airport in New Brunswick should also cover the whole airlines network in eastern Canada.
It is necessary to make a survey of the airlines' system on a regional basis, and to group all ^he needs of an area such as that of Fredericton, but that unit must be fitted into the present structure, as built on the axes I have just mentioned.
That is why I congratulate the new member for having moved this motion.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I note that other hon. members wish to say a few words and therefore I shall not be very long. I commend the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Suggested New Brunswick Airport Complex Bell) for introducing this motion. I know he is interested in proper transportation facilities for New Brunswick. As was explained earlier, this motion was placed on the order paper last year but was not discussed because the hon. member felt that the report on air policy, made public a few months ago, probably served his purpose. Since that report was not complete inasmuch as it did not deal with the subject raised by the hon. member's motion, the hon. member felt that this question ought to be discussed.


Thomas Miller Bell: The report dealt with it a bit, so to speak.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member informs me that the report did deal somewhat with the subject matter of his motion.


Thomas Miller Bell: But not exclusively.


Louis-Roland Comeau: But not exclusively, as the hon. member says. The whole problem is that all kinds of studies have been made concerning Atlantic transportation policies. Prior to my coming here-and I have been here for three years-many such studies were made, but none of them have been to the satisfaction of the general public in the Atlantic provinces. The motion deals with transportation policies for air carriers, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member specifically mentioned New Brunswick, but this is the type of study that should be carried out once and for all draw up an effective transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces.
Since I have been here questions have been asked and representations made by the Atlantic provinces transportation committee, boards of trade of various cities and towns, and many organizations. As a matter of fact, there is no transportation policy for any region in this country. The air transportation policies which we now have only satisfy the main centres of this country. They do not take into consideration regions such as the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario and some parts of western Canada. There is no effective, sound transportation policy for Canada.
Approximately six months ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) when a regional transportation policy might be established. For two years I have been trying to determine the policy with regard to air transportation, particularly for the maritime provinces. The minister stated that we do not have a regional air policy. He said that if someone makes an application, it is looked at and ruled upon. This is not the way to run air transportation in this country. It is all the more reason for accepting this type of motion which calls for an investigation into and establishment of an air transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces, particularly New Brunswick.
The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster stated that some of the recommendations contained in the report
released a few weeks ago, are somewhat pessimistic. I

June 7, 1971
Suggested New Brunswick Airport Complex
agree, because the report does not take into account all the factors dealing with air transportation in the Atlantic provinces. For example, recommendations were contained in the report with regard to Yarmouth airport. This points up the fact that there is a need for more study of this matter. The report which was issued two, three or four months ago touched upon several centres in the Atlantic provinces. In one instance it dealt with Yarmouth, which I know well. The members of the committee did not even visit Yarmouth to make a proper assessment. This is how policies in this country have been drafted. A serious study has not even been made of situations, particularly in the Atlantic provinces.
Regional carriers such as Eastern Provincial Airways do not know what their role is in the development of transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces. They do not know what they are supposed to do. We do not know the plans for Air Canada. The motion calls for a study, particularly in the province of New Brunswick. Such a study could be expanded, because when we talk about an airport in New Brunswick we must take into account what is happening in Halifax, Charlottetown and St. John's, Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: And Bathurst.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member says Bathurst. I say Yarmouth. These matters must all be taken into account. A study must be made of our airports and the way that airlines are operating in the Atlantic provinces. Such a study should determine once and for all what our policy will be, the direction in which we are going and how the airlines, Air Canada and the regional carriers, fit into the picture. It is time the government made a decision in this regard. If this type of study does not commend itself to the House and if the motion is not accepted this afternoon, I hope the government will make such a decision. Perhaps they already have enough expertise and have made a study of the problem. I hope the government will tell us what areas the carriers in the Atlantic provinces are to serve.
I listened carefully to the deliberations in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications when the estimates of Air Canada were being considered. This deliberation has not yet been completed; I gather that Air Canada officials are still to appear before the committee. Many members complained about the deterioration of service and unco-ordinated efforts by the carriers. It is up to the government to tell the carriers what is in store for them and what areas they are to service.
The chairman of the board of Air Canada said he was not happy with the policies which have been established for the Atlantic provinces. In particular, he was not happy with the policies of the government with regard to regional air transportation. I presume that he is not completely happy with the relationship between Air Canada and EPA. He does not know exactly what will happen in the future; he does not know what to do about Yarmouth. Nobody knows anything. The people in that area do not know what is in store for them. Service has deteriorated and there is lack of proper planning.
A study should be made to determine international patterns for exports and movement of freight into and out of the Atlantic provinces. The flight schedules are getting worse. In many cases there is no co-ordination. It is my hope that a study will be made to determine a transportation policy not only for New Brunswick but for all the Atlantic provinces. I hope the government will accept this motion and determine proper air transportation policies for the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate, particularly since I was preceded by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) who somewhat found fault with the regional air transportation policy of the government.
The hon. member said at the outset that he would deal with the report of the technical study submitted to the minister two or three months ago. However I am not surprised to hear that he is not satisfied with the report because, after all, it was prepared by experts such as himself whose work is always criticized. Perhaps he will be able to go back to his riding and tell his constituents: If you are not happy with the report, you may say so. Besides, I have read the report myself with a great deal of interest and I will come back to it later.
However, I think it is my duty to straighten out the facts because the hon. member for South Western Nova mentioned certain things which lead me to believe that he was not serious or that he only wanted to please his friends in the opposition. For instance, he said that the government had given no reply and had not acted on the representations made by Maritime associations concerning the transport policy in the Maritime provinces.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I never said that.


Herb Breau: Either the hon. member was not serious.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I never said that.


Herb Breau: I can even quote what he said in English. [English]
Nothing was done to respond.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Read Hansard tomorrow.


Herb Breau: Very well, we will wait and read Hansard tomorrow.
I am glad to hear the hon. member acknowledge that the government has done much in the field of transportation-


Louis-Roland Comeau: I did not say that either.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should make up his mind and tell us what he said.
I am glad to hear the hon. member agree with me that the government has taken a great deal of initiatives relating to transportation in the Maritimes. I can mention a few which will make my hon. friends from St. John's
[Mr. Comeau.1
June 7, 1971

East and Saint John-Lancaster (Messrs. McGrath and Bell) happy.
For instance, I will mention the case of an operation subsidy granted to certain regional air lines, among which Eastern Provincial Airways, in the Maritimes. Some highways have been subsidized from this grant.
In New Brunswick, a particular highway which serves part of my constituency has also benefited from that subsidy. I can mention for instance the extraordinary development of EPA in the Maritimes for the past two years. It certainly has been the result of the air transport policy of the government.


An hon. Member:: It was EPA's.


Herb Breau: I hear an hon. member say that it was EPA's. Members of the opposition are always ready to blame the government when things go badly, but when all is well, they never give the government credit.
The hon. member mentioned a few moments ago that the government took no initiatives on the matter of air transport in the Maritimes. How can he substantiate this statement when in Charlottetown only, for instance, the government started from scratch to establish a twice-daily jet service during the summer. Such is the concrete result of the air transport policy of the federal government. This policy provides that the Maritime provinces will be protected for Eastern Provincial Airways, Quebec for Quebecair and central and western Canada for other companies.
So, as a direct result of such a policy, EPA, for instance, was able to get jets and provide a much better service to the Maritimes, especially to Newfoundland, so that my friend from St. John's East is quite proud of the federal government's air policy. In fact, his province is enjoying a better service.
Now, to get back to the study that my friend criticized earlier, I must say that I have read it with a great deal of interest, since I had hoped that it would give the federal government and to the minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), a much larger and much more accurate view of transportation problems.
And once again, as many experts and teachers do, they suggested another study, if not two. For example, they hardly paid any attention to the northern part of New Brunswick, which means that in future it may have to be served by a highway connecting it with Moncton, Bathurst, Chatham, Charlottetown, Quebec City and Montreal.
Without making too many recommendations, they simply said: It will be necessary to conduct a study about it. So, once again, I must tell my hon. friend that they are academic experts like him, and this is how they claim that they will solve problems. They say: This is one of the suggestions, it will be necessary to find others and to make another study.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Your minister is like that.


Herb Breau: June 7, 1971
Suggested New Brunswick Airport Complex
Furthermore, the Commission report shows that the Saint John airport is far from being unprofitable.
The report also shows that the Federicton Airport, on account of its location near the capital, is a necessity.
It seems to be that the reasoning behind the report findings is sound. It is good reasoning. The philosophy that a central airport would be preferable to three small ones is not necessarily true. It also struck me when I heard of it a few years ago. I thought we could close certain small airports and have a bigger one. But if we consider the figures quoted in the report, it is very interesting to note that the service provided by Air Canada at Saint John, for instance, as well as at Fredericton and Moncton, was not at a loss. Perhaps it is not as efficient as it should be, as the hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster put it, but at least it justifies itself.
Being in the centre of the Maritimes, Moncton airport is used by many private aircraft. The same applies to Fredericton. If this airport's importance and traffic were reduced, it would not be beneficial to either the people or the government because there might perhaps be a loss in revenues.
Moreover, as to whether there should be an international airport in New Brunswick, it seems to me that the factors to consider are clear and obvious. It is a matter of determining whether international traffic would justify it, and members of the opposition who have participated in this debate have not indicated any study which would justify it. I would like to know, because I am sure that members are responsible enough not to suggest the construction of international airports without making sure that there is a sufficient demand.
Consequently, Halifax is setting up an international air service. It seems to operate well enough. There is at least one flight from Halifax to London three or four times per week. Now, traffic and demand would have to be determined and thereafter a decision on the opportunity of building an airport would have to be taken. I am sure, as I stated a moment ago, that members are too responsible to suggest the construction of airports merely for the sake of building them, because if it is so, the northern area of New Brunswick would need some.
The citizens of Bathurst and of the Campbellton area maintain that the Charlo airport should be further developed.
Now, before making expenditures for the establishment of such infrastructures in New Brunswick, they should be justified.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the resolution which is an annual one put forward by my colleague from Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). I am not as well acquainted with transportation difficulties in that province as is the hon. member and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but no one who travels to the maritime provinces and has occasion to pass through the
province of New Brunswick could come away without being impressed with the need for a new airport, especially one that would serve the cities of Moncton and Saint John and the population in between. Airports in the province of New Brunswick, like most of the airports in the Atlantic provinces, are small, inefficient, have inadequate terminal space to cope with the present traffic and do not come near meeting the demand that will be placed upon their facilities by the traffic anticipated in the future.
The resolution also avails me of the opportunity to say something about air transportation problems with which we in Newfoundland have to cope. In my own city of St. John's, which has a population of 100,000, we are almost totally dependent on air transportation. The airport in St. John's serves a population in excess of 150,000 people. We rank second in the list of major airports in the Atlantic provinces in terms of number of passengers handled per year, but rather interestingly we rank a very poor third in the amount of terminal space available to handle that passenger traffic.
Perhaps a few vital statistics would illustrate this problem. I should like to quote from a parliamentary return to a question that I placed on the order paper in February of this year. This question asked for the total number of passengers handled in each of the major airports in the Atlantic provinces for the past five years. The figures for St. John's, Newfoundland, indicate that the traffic has risen from 145,000 passengers handled in 1965 to 189,500 in 1969. This figure compares with over 500,000 at Halifax airport, which is by far the largest airport in the Atlantic provinces since it is also an international airport in terms of international and transAtlantic flights. The number of passengers handled at Moncton has been rather stable for the past five years and this traffic in 1969 stood at 133,600. Passengers handled at Saint John, New Brunswick, in the same year amounted to 123,000.
I should like to apply these statistics to the situation at St. John's, Newfoundland. The airport there has a record which shows that an increasing number of people are using air transportation as a means of travelling and an increased demand is being placed on its very limited facilities. The 189,000 passengers handled in 1969 had a passenger terminal space of 9,320 square feet, compared with 39,000 square feet at Gander which has the lowest number of passengers of the major airports in the Atlantic provinces-69,000 in 1969. There are 43,000 square feet at Halifax airport, which makes St. John's, as I say, the second busiest airport in terms of number of passengers handled, through it has the third smallest amount of terminal space available. This is an indication that the facilities at the airport at St. John's are taxed to the limit, especially during the peak travel months of June, July and August when tourist traffic is at its height and people are travelling to and from the mainland and other points in the world for vacation purposes.
The airport terminal at St. John's was one of the first new terminals to be built. It was built in 1958 and very few modifications or changes have been made since it

June 7, 1971

was opened to traffic, with the exception of a minor addition to provide increased restaurant space and additional service accommodation. The accommodation available at St. John's for passenger traffic is virtually the same today as it was ten years ago, notwithstanding the fact that passenger traffic has shown an annual increase over the last 15 years. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, a case can be made for additional terminal space. Indeed, I think the time has come when the Department of Transport should take a long, hard look at the whole situation of terminal passenger accommodation in the Atlantic provinces with a view to meeting the demands of the travelling public in New Brunswick as set out in the resolution put forward by my hon. friend and with a view to building new facilities to replace the old, outmoded ones which exist in St. John's, Newfoundland. Certainly a case can be made for a new terminal in St. John's. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who uses the airport probably more than any other person I know, should be very much aware of this situation. I hope when he is planning for the next fiscal year he will take this fact into account.
If we are to participate in the advances of air transportation by the use of jumbo jets and air buses we will need additional terminal space. This brings another point to mind, and that is the tendency on the part of Air Canada to reduce the frequency of service by the use of larger aircraft. Of course, the use of larger aircraft such as the stretched DC-8, which is now operating out of St. John's, taxes the limited terminal facilities to the point where it is difficult if not impossible to get out of that terminal in one piece. It would be far more practical on the part of Air Canada to make more use of smaller aircraft such as the DC-9. Instead of two stretched DC-8s going into St. John's, which is the case now, they could increase the number of direct flights from Montreal and Toronto; then instead of having two direct flights we would have four. In addition to those direct flights we still have the Vanguard service which is a local shuttle service operating from St. John's to Toronto. We now have a limited DC-9 service to Boston with connections in Halifax for western Canadian points. I feel a case can be made for increasing the frequency of service.
The statistics I have placed on the record, measured next to the existing frequency, would indicate that we are not getting our share of the service or the service that is available to other airports in the Atlantic provinces. I suggest there is greater frequency of service, for example, into the city of Saint John and greater frequency of service into Halifax, yet Saint John and Halifax are not as totally dependent upon aircraft as is eastern Newfoundland. There is no other way to get out of Newfoundland unless you take the CN bus across the province and run the risk of being crippled for life as a consequence of being seated in a seat that is much too small, being made for small people, for a period of 14 hours. Anyone who wants to risk that unpleasant journey has my sympathy. You will find that very few people do
Suggested New Brunswick Airport Complex
so. Consequently, the only way out of Newfoundland is by air transportation and hence it is much more important to Newfoundland than the other maritime provinces. Accordingly, I believe a case can be made for improving the frequency of service beyond that which now exists, by the use of small aircraft and through additional terminal facilities. The latter can only be accomplished, in my view, by building new terminals because present facilities are totally inadequate.
A word should be said about regional air carriers. I am one of those members who is convinced that Eastern Provincial Airways is perhaps one of the finest regional carriers in North America. Certainly the service it provides to Atlantic Canada and parts of Labrador is unexcelled anywhere on the continent. Its in-flight service could stand as an example for Air Canada. The type of equipment used is superior to any of the equipment presently being used by Air Canada, in that EPA uses the Boeing 737 which is much better, in my humble view, than the DC-9. EPA is performing a tremendous service. In order to fulfil its long-term projection and adequately plan for the future, it should be told exactly what the situation is in Canada in respect of the government's regional air policy.
I have just been reminded by my colleague that I am running the risk of talking-out the resolution. I would be the last one in the House to do that, so I will resume my seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members wish the Chair to call it six o'clock, or shall I put the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all congratulate the hon. member for St. John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) who presented the motion now under study.
Listening to the member very carefully, I learned far more about the need for a regional transport policy, the problems caused by the weather in the Maritime provinces, and the report of the Air Transport Commission in those provinces than about the purposes of the motion.
The hon. member suggested very few solutions, and he said he would give other members the opportunity to take part in the debate. I listened to those who did, amongst others, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), who gave us an account of the economic results, the implementation of a regional policy could have in that area. I agree with him that there should be a regional policy that would facilitate air transportation, mostly in the eastern part of the country.
The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) asked quite vigorously that studies begin.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before private members' hour at five o'clock I was dealing with the minister's amendment and the effect it has in directly
reversing the wishes of the committee. I want to make abundantly clear that the bill, before it was amended and after receiving second reading in the House, was sent to committee and clause 4 subclause 2, line 34, at that time read r.s follows:
-the applicant delivers and sells grain of any kind to the board in a crop year under the permit book specified in the application or any permit book-
The committee did two things to that particular sent-encs. First, it struck out the words "of any kind"; second, it added the words "on which an advance has been taken". In other words, the application shall be verified by affidavit and shall include an authorization by the applicant stating that the applicant delivers and sells grain to the board on which an advance has been taken ir. a crop year under the permit book specified in the application or any permit book issued. The applicant now applies for and receives an advance and must deliver grain of the kind specified in his application. What does this all mean? I spelled out clearly before supper that the removal of the three words "of any kind" makes no difference whatsoever. The minister, as recorded at the bottom of page 41 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 53 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, said:
My opinion is that the removal of those words would not change in any way the legal effect of the clause.
So let us do away with the concept of the removal of the words "of any kind" being detrimental to the operation of the cash advance legislation. Let us consider the addition of the words "on which an advance has been taken". What is the true meaning of the addition of those words? As recorded at page 38 of the committee's proceedings, the mover of the amendment said:
I move that clause 4(2) be amended by striking out the words "to the board" and substituting therefor "on which an advance has been taken".
In the final drafting of the clause the words "to the board" were left in and the words "on which an advance
was taken" were the only words added. The mover went on to say, as recorded at the top of page 39:
I feel that since an advance can only be taken on wheat, oats and barley, that this particular proposed subsection should apply only to those grains.
The mover, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski), said that he believed if someone takes out an advance, the form provided for the elevator agent should specify on what grains the advance can be taken and on what grains it can be repaid. In other words, if a farmer took out an advance on wheat, oats or barley he would have to repay it on wheat, oats or barley. As long as the affidavit the farmer signs states that the advance will be repaid in essence on those three grains, the hon. member for Mackenzie has no objection, as can be clearly seen from his comment as recorded at page 39 of committee proceedings No. 53 as follows:
I feel that since an advance can only be taken on wheat, oats and barley, that this particular proposed subsection should apply only to those grains. What I have therefore done is to confine your advance to those grains on which an advance can be taken, and worded the subsection in such a way that we remove "delivers and sells grain of any kind to the board," and substitute "on which an advance can be taken".
In the committee the minister acknowledged that to do away with "of any kind" makes no difference to the legal interpretation of the clause and the concept of adding the words "on which an advance can be taken" means that the act remains as it was in the past-in other words, that the advance could be taken on wheat, oats and barley. "Of any kind" was not included in the original act, and as recorded at the bottom of page 41 of the committee proceedings the minister stated clearly:
-I believe that the same effect would hold true, because the words "of any kind" did not appear in the previous act-
The words "of any kind" have not appeared in the legislation since it was enacted in 1957. Then why was the hon. member for Mackenzie concerned about the addition of "of any kind"? It was because this bill includes provisions covering rye, rapeseed and flax, and grains "of any kind" would include those three grains. The minister has assured the country that in no way will these three grains be taken into consideration by the Wheat Board except according to the expressed wishes of the producers of those grains. In respect of this amendment will he assure the House that the cash advance legislation will in no way be affected by the inclusion of the words "rye, flaxseed and rapeseed" in the bill? "Of any kind" does not imply those grains which are not under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What I am really saying is that the cash advance legislation will not be affected by rye, rapeseed and flaxseed until the majority of the producers of those grains have indicated that they want them brought under the Canadian Wheat Board. When they have indicated that they want them brought under the board then, and only then, will the cash advance legislation be drawn up or amended to apply to them. I am not sure of the number of the clause but I believe it is stipulated in

June 7, 1971

clause 7 that rye, flaxeed and rapeseed may be brought under the cash advance legislation but will only be brought under it when they are included in the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
By his amendment which trying to undo the committee's work the minister is endeavouring to allow the elevator companies, or the Wheat Board, to claim money from deliveries of rye, flaxseed and rapeseed on a cash advance taken from oats, wheat and barley. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, is this really what he is trying to do? If it is, he should at least acknowledge the fact. He never acknowledged it in the committee; in fact, he went out of his way to assure the committee that the opposite was correct. If the opposite is true, then the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie in the committee is correct in every way. This is what that hon. member said in the committee, as recorded at page 40 of committee proceedings No. 53:
All right, if this is the point of friction, then perhaps we can leave in "to the board". But "of any kind" simply implies that I have to commit all grain that I sell to the board when in fact I may have taken an advance on one or two specific grains.
The hon. member for Mackenzie is directly on the point. He is saying that if we leave in "of any kind" we are including all grains, but all grains are not available for a cash advance; under this act the cash advance is concerned only with wheat, oats and barley.


An hon. Member:: Keep on reading.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Somebody suggests that I keep on reading. I suggest that he get up and make his own speech. He will have ample time, but my time is limited. The hon. member for Mackenzie is pointing out that under the legislation cash advances are available with respect to wheat, oats and barley and not with respect to other grains, but the inclusion of the words "of any kind" means that repayment might be claimed on other grains with respect to advances taken on those three grains.
Through this amendment the minister seeks to replace the original words in the bill and undo all the good work of the committee. I emphasize that the committee called experts before it. One of the strong arguments for sending bills to committee is that in committee experts can be called and examined and the examination of experts can guide the committee to the correct interpretation of legislation and to correct amendments to move. But here the minister is saying that the experts are wrong, that the hon. member for Mackenzie is wrong, and he wants the bill returned to its original wording.
If that is the case, the minister has to answer this crucial question: Will sales of rye, rapeseed and flaxseed be used to repay cash advances made on wheat, oats and barley? If the minister replies, "no, under no circumstances," that is fine and the correct interpretation of "of any kind" is immediately understood.
In the committee discussion the hon. member for Mackenzie went on the state clearly that he had no objection to wheat, oats and barley being used to repay a cash advance that had been made, but that he did worry about some of the other all-inclusive clauses of the bill. I
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
think these questions must be answered before we blindly do away with all the good work of the committee.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie was passed in the committee by a vote of 13 to 9. It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the government has 17 supporters on the agricultural committee. That vote was taken on Thursday, May 27, a day when the House did not sit. Hon. members were not occupied in this chamber; They were supposed to be dutifully occupied in committees which were sitting, so there was no real excuse for government supporters being shorthanded in the agricultural committee. I can only conclude that after close examination of the witnesses who were before the committee at that time the majority of the committee members wished clause 4(2) to be amended. Members of the committee did not vote on party lines on this particular issue; they voted according to common sense.
When the minister rose to introduce his amendment he was allowed 40 minutes in which to speak, according to the rules of the House. He spoke for about seven minutes and gave no real reason for undoing the good work of the committee. If that is the way committees are to be treated, if they are merely to occupy the time of hon. members, if the work of committees is held in such low regard, and if the government thinks committees do no good perhaps it would be better if we reverted to the old system and considered bills in committee of the whole. Then at least deputy ministers and those involved with different aspects of the department would come to the House, hon. members could direct questions to the government and elicit answers and bills would not pass until satisfactory answers were given. Silence in many respects may be golden, but in dealing with legislation silence on the part of the government is not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) interjecting. The hon. member and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board have remained silent while I have been making my point. The minister has failed in any way to defend his reversal of the committee's work. The committee worked for long hours-


An hon. Member:: Be careful now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -in hearing the testimony of experts who appeared before it.


Mr. Boulanger;: I hope the hon. member is not being carried away.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If that is the way the work of the committees is to be treated, let me make this point. I notice the House leader is in the chamber. This happened on May 27, when the House was not sitting in order to allow committees to do their work. Hon. members dutifully attended committees instead of attending this House. The vote on the amendment in committee was 13 to 9. There

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was no reason for the shortage of government supporters; it was not their duty at that time to be in the House. The House did not meet on that day for the express reason of allowing committees to be manned so that bills and other matters before them could be dealt with. Apparently the committee did not deal with this particular clause in the way the minister wanted it dealt with.


Some hon. Members:: Now, now.


Mr.   Kcrner@: I only regret that the minister, who appeared before the committee, could not be more influential with his colleagues. On page 41 of the committee proceedings the minister is reported as having said:
-I do not know that the words "of any kind" have any additional significance.
He went on to say:
My opinion is that the removal of those words would not change in any way the legal effect of the clause.
What has happened to the minister since that time? Did he not know the legislation when he presented it to the House? Was he neglectful of his duty? Was he not aware of what was in the bill?


An hon. Member:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Or was he attempting to hoodwink the committee into accepting his word that although flax, rapeseed and rye are included in the bill they will not be specifically affected until an Order in Council specifically brings them under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope we obtain an answer. It is not good enough for committee members who have dealt with facts and examined witnesses to be presented with this situation.


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


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the purpose of the amendment and cannot understand the minister's reasons for bringing it forward. Clause 4(2) of the bill as amended in committee provides:
An application shall be verified by affidavit and shall include an authorization by the applicant stating that, where the applicant delivers and sells grain to the board on which an advance has been taken in a crop year under the permit book specified in the application or any permit book issued-
One would think this was sufficient security for the grain on which an advance had been taken. It is, of course, open to the Canadian Wheat Board to specify the kinds of grain on which an advance can be made. It can be clearly stated in the permit book on what grains an advance can be made. Once they are specified and set out, surely when the grower delivers the specified grain on which an advance has been made the elevator agent can proceed to collect whatever is set out in the act. He can collect the amount than properly can be deducted.
Why substitute for that idea the words, "grain of any kind to the board in a crop year"? I cannot understand it. It sems evident in the bill as amended in committee that the Canadian Wheat Board can say: Wheat, oats and
barley are grains delivered to the board. If subsequently the act is changed to include rye, flaxseed or rapeseed as grains delivered to the board, then those will become grains on which an advance could be taken.
If the committee had been remiss in its responsibility there would be reason to correct what the committee did through an amendment in the House. The previous speaker said that witnesses were called before the committee. One witness from the Canadian Wheat Board testified briefly. Nevertheless, there existed the opportunity to obtain the evidence of such witnesses. I do not think enough explanation has been given to this House to justify the rejection of the committee's position. If decisions which committees make are to be so easily set aside, perhaps it is not worth the committee's while to go to all this work and trouble.
I think that the bill as amended sets out more specifically the obligations of the producer and the rights of the board. It sets out the obligation of the producer to pay and the right of the board to collect. That obligation is set out in a more specific way than is set out in the amendment. This type of obligation should be spelled out in detail. A cash advance is a contract between the producer and the Canadian Wheat Board, and the more explicit it is the better will be the relationship between the grower and the Wheat Board.
I do not think the proposed wording, "grain of any kind to the board in a crop year," and so on, makes for a clear and precise definition. The way the act was amended and reported to this House does this much better than the proposed amendment.


Mr. R. R. Soufham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to let this opportunity pass without taking advantage of a few moments to express some of the concerns already expressed so eloquently by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) with respect to the amendment introduced by the minister to Bill C-239.
I am not going to cover ground already on the record of the committee proceedings during study of this bill or the amendment which the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) introduced in the first place. What concerns me is what the minister is doing to the committee system. It seems to me that if we spend time reviewing legislation and bring in an amendment in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and a vote is taken, after thorough debate, which indicates that the majority support it, the minister is then reversing the process if he seeks a further amendment. This undermines the whole political fabric of the committee system. We should ponder what we are doing here. It confuses members of the committee and will confuse people who read the committee proceedings. They must wonder what we accomplish.
The hon. member for Crowfoot has elaborated on the concern felt by western members in. particular with respect to this bill and the amendment introduced by the minister. Surely it is using the back door to bring into

June 7, 1971

effect the enabling legislation in Bill C-238 and the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This would make it possible at a future date, by Order in Council, to bring rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the bill. It seems to me to be a back door approach to the implementation of a supposedly longterm plan which exists in the mind of the minister. If that is so, why does he not say what he has in mind?
I am sure this situation must leave questions in the minds of members of this House so far as the committee system is concerned. We have had other examples of how it can break down. There was the unanimous report brought in by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to declaring sovereignty in the north. Only after a motion was brought before the House to adopt this report was it finally brought to our attention and by a ruling of the Speaker a vote was allowed. There was a similar situation in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. That committee came to certain conclusions regarding the defence policies of this country, and before the report was considered the government had gone off on a tangent and established its own policy.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that I think the minister is doing a great disservice to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the members of this House and the whole parliamentary system.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: Listening to today's debate on this subject, Mr. Speaker, confirms my belief that the government does not care for committees unless it is to use them as working housewives use day-care centres-it is a nice place to send the boys while the executive runs the country; it will keep the boys out of trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: As far as Parliament is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the committees as presently structured and administered by this government is to act as day-care centres chiefly for government members who might be a little restive. The reason is clear. For instance, in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence 27 members voted to remain in NATO, three Socialists voted to leave but before the report was even considered the government had made its decision and was withdrawing troops from NATO. So I say again that the government has no intention at all of listening to committees; they are just daycare centres.
Another example is the committee which considered the Canada Water Act, which obviously meant to do the best job it could for the country. Clause 20, I think it was, was accepted by the committee, but their opinion was reversed by the government. Apparently it just depends on whose ox is being gored. If the committee report does not follow the lines laid down by the executive, this government almost acts like a crocodile-it would eat its young.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that basically and fundamentally the Canadian Wheat Board just wants to take
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
three more products under its mantle. What we are about to witness is more control over the poor old farmer; three more of his products are to come under a socialist-controlled marketing scheme. If the Wheat Board could claim to improve marketing there might be some excuse, but I recall that the minister said this would not be necessarily the case. What we are discussing tonight is just another case of the arrogance of the executive of this government and complete lack of consideration for hard working committee members, while the agricultural industry of western Canada is burdened with more bureaucracy.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I spoke on Bill C-238 and indeed begged that rapeseed not come under the control of the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board has not had a good record in securing sales in the markets of the world despite the assurances we had the other day about the large sale of wheat to Russia. It should not be necessary to exaggerate the benefits of that sale. I notice that it has been very cleverly hedged. The people of Canada think we have a new, $235 million wheat sale when in fact, if we are dealing with honourable people in Russia, the sale was made over a period of some years. What they are doing is picking up the backlog of at least one-third of that total sale.
While on that subject, perhaps I did not make it clear when I said that the Prime Minister visited northern Alberta. I was referring to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince-Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), not the present Prime Minister. Only a short time ago it was considered a great crime to sell wheat to the Communist bloc. It was a very strong plank in the platform of the Liberal party, at least in my district, to say that a man who was broad minded enough to deal with the Communist bloc should not be elected. I am consistent; I have always considered it honourable to deal with anyone who wants to buy grain.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the hon. member a question.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I would be delighted to answer it.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder if the hon. member is conscious of the fact-it does not seem so from his remarks-that the first sale to any country in the Communist bloc must surely be the sale to Russia which was made in 1956 by a previous Liberal administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may answer the question but I suggest to the minister
6450

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
and the member that we are getting away from the amendment under discussion. When the hon. member has answered the minister, the Chair requests that he confine his remarks to the amendment under debate.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am delighted that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is taking his job seriously.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Only momentarily.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I assure the minister that I have followed the sale of wheat for nearly 60 years. I am not casting any political aspersions. I tried to make it abundantly clear that sales of wheat are a virtue at any time in western Canada. I am merely saying that I hope sales of wheat to anywhere in the world will never become a political football. The more wheat sales which the minister, the Wheat Board or the administration make, the more delighted we are in western Canada. I merely remind the minister to be consistent in this matter and not to make political hay when we sell wheat. I am not casting aspersions on the government, the minister or any former administration for doing that.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are doing just what Jack told you to do. He is the leader.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Unless the hon. member, who has sat in this chamber for 13 years, wants to advertise himself as an idiot, he will realize that I have never taken orders from anyone or anything except my own conscience. I represented the will of the people of Athabaska for 10 years, now the district of Pembina. I am not a little dog running at the tail of anyone. I will not lower myself to accuse those who have interjected from their seats that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is rising to ask a question. He may do so only with the permission of the hon. member.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member just made the statement that he does not take orders from anyone. Does this also apply to the leader of his party?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I plead with the hon. member who has the floor and with hon. members on my right. We are not doing justice to the debate. We have a particular amendment before us for consideration. I do not want to prejudice the hon. member who has the floor because he has been asked a question. He is entitled to make a reply. Following his reply, I ask him to please return to the amendment before the House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is exactly why I asked the question. I feel that opposition members have not been speaking to the bill. If they would obey the order, we would also.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has asked hon. members for order. With regard to the point
of order raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface, it does not help the Chair if hon. members to my right ask questions which are out of order. If the hon. member who has the floor is out of order, I suppose he is inviting questions which are out of order. I make no decision on the matter but I plead with hon. members for order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will answer questions which are directed to me, although that was not my purpose in rising. I am not responsible for the actions of my leader. I am sure he accepts suggestions from members of this party and from people in his constituency. Although my remarks may not impress the hon. member who just spoke, I ask him to bear with me for a few moments. I am making these remarks in sincerity. I am talking about Bill C-238-


An hon. Member:: 


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -because this matter intimately concerns me. Both bills are connected with orderliness in agriculture. In my opening remarks I want to show the relevance between the two bills. Unless these bills improve the situation in agriculture, particularly as they relate to sales of not only wheat, oats and barley but rye, flaxseed and rapeseed, there is not much point arguing about this bill. I raised the matter of Bill C-238 because it is definitely connected with Bill C-239.
I said that rapeseed in particular is one of the few remaining cash crops for western farmers. If this commodity and the other two commodities which are closely connected are brought under the control of the Wheat Board, it will be much more difficult for farmers to earn a living. That is why I am here; my constituency is mostly rural. I want to try to make it possible for farmers to pay their bills and repay the government for any cash advances which they receive. I do not see how Bill C-239 can be passed by rural members until it has been properly explained.
The committee has been probing for answers to this question. At present I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. This is largely due to the fact that we are somewhat limited in number. However, I follow the proceedings of that committee very carefully and I am worried about what I hear. I presume that this amendment to have the principle behind clause 4(2) of the bill clarified is important or it would not have been introduced by the minister and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).
If the phrase "of any kind" does not mean anything, why is it necessary to amend the bill by including it? I think this point is very relevant. In the past we have been too prone to pass bills which have not been completely understood. I think we are displaying far too much innocence by signing blank cheques for everything. We have signed enough blank cheques around here. We want to know, now, what the small print means. If the expression, "grain of any kind" means nothing, why does the minister not cause to be written into the bill exactly what he does mean? Let him tell us precisely on what grains the government proposes to place a lien when a farmer goes into debt for a few thousand dollars in order to carry on his expensive operations.

June 7, 1971

o (8:50 p.m.)
We would be delinquent if we did not insist that this important question be straightened out. The hon. gentleman should be consistent. When his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was faced with just such a problem as this, why did he not move an amendment to Bill C-176 excepting cattle and calves from that socialistic, all-embracing piece of legislation? He faced exactly the same problem as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is facing today. If this is what should be done, why do not all ministers of the Crown act in the same way, particularly when they are all nicely tied together as members of a smoothly working administration, free of criticism of one another, loyal to the top and dedicated to the service of those at the bottom?
There is nothing partisan about this. We are all, I presume, on both sides of the House mindful of the welfare of the western farmer. The committee system is supposed to be an improvement upon our usual antagonistic procedure. We meet in small groups in the presence of expert witnesses. We are supposed to avoid acting like prima donnas and get down to the nitty-gritty in a situation where farmers hear from grain experts and members of the Wheat Board, where ministers talk man-to-man over the bargaining table so that it is not necessary for the prima donnas to get into the act. The committee system does not work unless there is frankness, and I must say that this evening I see no evidence of the frankness one would expect.
It should be extremely easy for a well-meaning minister to let us know exactly what grains are to be the subject of liens. There is no need for double-talk. If there are things to be assumed in the bill, there should be no necessity for assuming anything. Grains of all kinds means rye, rapeseed and flaxseed. They are to be included in the bill, otherwise I can see no reason for mentioning them. If there is to be no change, why talk as though there is to be a change, and if there is a change we have the right, nay, the duty, to find out what these changes are to be.
We keep in constant touch with the farm population. They ask various questions of us and we would look foolish if we were unable to explain to them or their representatives the legislation which purports to straighten out the problems of agriculture. Most of the members from western Canada have a working knowledge of agriculture and we should be able to explain to those who sent us here exactly what we are doing; and if we are not, we should be able to seek advice and assistance from the minister and from his 40 PhDs sitting in the ivory tower. They should be able to translate these proposals into simple, effective English, or French as the case might be, so that we could go back to our constituents and say that not only are we alert to their problems but that we have the benefit of assistance and advice from the vast civil service repository of wisdom which is to be found here in Ottawa.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I direct a question to the minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has already spoken, but he may direct a question for clarification.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister state clearly that a cash advance taken on wheat, oats or barley could in no way be paid off by deductions with respect to rye, rape-seed or flax?


Otto Emil Lang: I am glad to say again to the hon. member, as I did in committee, that rapeseed, rye and flax are in no way included in the operations of the agency at this stage although there is a possibility that at some later date, in certain circumstances, including the full support of the producers, they could be involved.
The legislation before the House would only require that if an advance were taken on wheat, repayment could be effected when wheat, barley and oats were delivered, and no other grain; and similarly for barley and oats, when wheat, oats and barley were delivered, but no other grain. The difficulty in the committee was not in relation to whether the words "grain of any kind" were in the amendment but, rather, in the words "upon which an advance has been taken" which, as I pointed out, might have restricted the advance to the very kernels of grain on which the advance had been taken and that would have required a totally different administrative procedure.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Lang) agreed to on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This might be an appropriate time for the Chair to advise hon. members of further reflections with respect to the procedural acceptability of the motions with which we are to deal later. I wish to do this now in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to reflect on those observations and in anticipation of a point of order which may be raised with respect to the motions which are to be proposed at the report stage.
After closer consideration of motion No. 6 in the name of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, I have misgivings as to the procedural acceptability of the motion. It seems to the Chair that it may go beyond the provisions of Bill C-239. The position of the Chair in regard to that motion might affect consideration of the comment made by the Chair earlier today with respect to motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). It seems to me-I make this observation so that hon. members will know that the Chair has these doubts-that motion No. 6 would amend the act rather than the bill now before us.
Having made these comments I would welcome any submissions which hon. members care to make on the point. In any event, if motion No. 6 is in fact defective from the procedural standpoint, this decision, as I have indicated, can only be made following argument if hon. members desire to assist the Chair. It seems to me that a consensus could be reached by hon. members on the
6452

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
matter: if it is in fact defective it could, of course, be cured by unanimous consent. Therefore, in accordance with the special order made earlier today the Chair will now put motions Nos, 2, 3, 4 and 5 which are grouped for the purpose of debate.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House would be agreeable to standing these at the moment and to proceeding with the one in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), No. 9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent that we now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 9? My notes indicate that earlier today there was a special order made regarding motions Nos. 8 and 9, which might be considered and disposed of separately; in my view that there is no conflict with other motions is confirmed. Does the House agree to consider motion No. 9?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you are prepared to give an opinion on No. 7 as well as No. 6? If I recall correctly, I believe that when the order of business was given to the House this afternoon the question was also raised as to whether motion No. 7 was acceptable to the Chair, and this would influence my attitude to the bill to a very great extent. I wonder whether you would be prepared to give an opinion at the present time on motion No. 7 as well as No. 6.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not make a ruling regard ng motion No. 6. I was anxious merely to indicate to hon. members that there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair as to the procedural acceptability of motion No. 6. As hon. members will recall, earlier today the Speaker indicated that there was some doubt in the mind of the Chair as to the procedural acceptability of motion No. 7. I think that the point taken by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar is a very good one. Although I have not made a decision in this regard, it does seem to me there is an interrelationship between motions Nos. 6 and 7. Without deciding the matter, it does seem to me that if motion No. 6 is defective it can be cured by unanimous consent, if hon. members so wish.
Without suggesting what hon. members might like to do, it seems to me that if motion No. 7 is defective it can be cured in the same way so that hon. members have the benefit of debating both motions and making a decision upon them. For the present the Chair does not take a position on either mot'on. The purpose of my remarks regarding motion No. 6 is that in view of further reflection on the remarks made this morning in relation to motion No. 7 it did appear to the Chair that motion No. 6 might also be defective. So I think they could be dealt with en bloc.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I trust Your Honour will excuse me if I do
not understand, but am I correct in saying that you are deferring your decision until a later time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the hon. member understands me correctly. I should like to defer a decision on
motions Nos. 6 and 7 till a later date. My remarks on motion No. 6 were only to put hon. members on notice that the Chair thought it might be defective procedurally, as it was indicated earlier today that motion No. 7 might also be defective procedurally. When those motions are reached, the Chair will invite suggestions and assistance on both motions from hon. members.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then may we take motion No. 9, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There was a very helpful intervention regarding motions Nos. 6 and 7. I will ask hon. members whether there is unanimous consent to proceed to the consideration of motion No. 9.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: motion No. 9:
That Bill C-239, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by adding the following words immediately after the word "interest" in line 34 at page 11:
"to be set at one per cent above the average rate paid by the Canadian Wheat Board on its borrowing, this rate"
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly not speak at all if I felt that the House were in a mood to accept this amendment. However, having had no such indication I should like to try and persuade the House that all hon. members should view this legislation in a non-partisan manner and be prepared to pass it with the farmers' interests at heart. Surely that was the initial purpose of this particular piece of legislation. No other piece of legislation had the farmers' interests more at heart than the cash advance legislation that was brought before Parliament in 1957. It was not put before Parliament at that t me as a grandiose scheme, as a cure-all for all the ills of agriculture in western Canada. It was brought forward for a specific reason, namely, to help the farmers out of the difficult position in which they found themselves at the time, with huge amounts of grain on hand and no cash.
There was a long debate on the application and feasibility of giving cash advances on grain stored on farms. Many members of the House at that time argued that it was not feasible to do this. Many members of the Liberal Party argued that it just could not be done, that it was an infeasible step, that chaos would develop, that the Canadian Wheat Board would be wrecked, and so on and so forth. History has proved them wrong, because the cash advance legislation has been on the statute books now for something like 14 to 15 years and has worked rather successfully. It was used in the years when large amounts of grain were in the hands of the farmers and deliveries were rather late. In such times farmers were in dire need of cash and they took their cash advances under this legislation. A couple of years ago the legislation was amended and this in essence put the farmer in a very difficult position so he could hardly repay his cash advances.
May I briefly summarize the point that I am attempting to make. The initial cash advance legislation was based in theory on the fact that a farmer could get 50 cents per

June 7, 1971

bushel of wheat, or 50 cents on the dollar. He got a cash advance that was repaid at the rate of half of the value of the wheat he sold, and such a scheme was quite feasible. The farmer did not sink himself further and further into debt and if grain deliveries were at their relatively normal position he was able to repay his cash advance at the end of the year.
However, three years ago we found great changes taking place in respect of cash advance legislation. The government was then warned this would drive farmers further into debt and they would find it very difficult to repay the cash advances they had taken on their grain. You might well ask why this was so. Two things were done three years ago. The amount loaned to the farmer on his grain as security was doubled, and the rate of repayment was left the same. One can readily understand how this would put the farmers in a position of being unable to repay unless deliveries doubled. This was the only thing which would give them a chance to repay cash advances: deliveries had to double, and that has not been the case. In fact, deliveries have been lower than normal in the last few years. I refer to wheat. What is the story? It can be found in committee proceedings No. 51, at page 17. I asked a question of the representative of the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. Earl replied:
In the current crop year which is perhaps not too good an example, Mr. Horner, there are 46,675 outstanding accounts.
I should like to emphasize that figure-46,675 outstanding accounts. I am not sure that members of this House are fully aware of the number of permit holders in the three prairie provinces. There are just less than 200,000. This gives you some concept of the number of outstanding accounts at the time of this committee hearing. This 46,000 represents something like 25 per cent of the farmers engaged in the growing of grain. Mr. Earl went on to say:
It was 46,675. A better example, perhaps, would be the last crop year, the one that ended on July 31, 1970. There were 40,044.
This gives one a concept of the importance of the legislation now before us. It involves 25 per cent of the permit holders who find it physically impossible to repay the cash advances they received. The initial concept of the cash advance legislation was to make cash available to farmers actively engaged in the growing of wheat, interest-free. I emphasize the words "interest-free". This was the concept in 1957 and again in 1968 when the act was amended. However, Bill C-239 changes all that. There will not be an interest charge on all accounts in default. We have 46,675 outstanding accounts at this moment, but they are not necessarily all in default. At page 17 the evidence continued, following my question:
When you say "outstanding", do you mean loans that have been made that maybe are not due yet or are due?


Mr.   Earl@: They are due, but as you mentioned a little earlier, the repayment schedule got out of whack-
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
That is a complete admission by the Canadian Wheat Board that a repayment schedule got out of whack with the rate of advance. Mr. Earl went on to say:
The effect of that was that it caused us a problem inasmuch as we had some difficulty putting the provisions in the statute into effect-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because the farmer could not deliver enough.


Mr.   Earl@: That is right and we did not have a sufficient quota level that would permit him to discharge his advance. However, within the authority under the statute we in essence waived the default proceedings and simply let the accounts run.
What I am saying is very pertinent, because we have 46,000 cash advance payments due and they have waived the default proceedings. The next question is: When do they cease to waive the default proceedings? The explanation in that regard can be found in committee proceedings No. 53, at page 78. This was after a long series of questions by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). The hon. member said:
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this at best is superfluous and I do not think it is legally very good, because with that amendment it would simply read that: "in the opinion of the board", that is, maybe I should read the whole thing:
"(a) within twenty days after the date on which the board mails or delivers or causes to be mailed or delivered a written notice to him-
That is the producer:
"-stating that he has, in the opinion of the board, had adequate opportunity to discharge his undertaking-and requesting him to discharge his undertaking by delivery of grain to the board or otherwise"-*
I could perhaps find a clearer passage in the committee proceedings, but it is clearly stated that within 20 days when the board feels the producer has had ample opportunity to discharge his undertaking these accounts are due and are then in default. That is when the interest rate applies. Now we get to the crux of my amendment. I pointed out vividly that when the legislation came into being it was intended to help farmers suffering a severe cash shortage but with grain on the farms. In the initial instance cash advances were made interest free. Through no fault of the farmers the government put the repayment schedule out of whack. That is admitted clearly and simply by Mr. Earl, a spokesman of the Canadian Wheat Board, when he stated on the page from which I quoted that the repayment schedule got out of whack.
We now have 46,675 accounts due. Within 20 days' notice by the Canadian Wheat Board every one of those accounts would be in default. I do not suggest they will be, but they could be. Then the government would immediately charge interest. What interest rate should be charged? Let me emphasize that when this legislation was brought in there was no interest but the farmer was driven into debt and put into a position where he could not repay, through no fault of his own. This occurred when the repayment schedule was changed with the adjustment in 1968.
What interest rate is the cruel, mean government going to levy? Is it going to levy all the market will bear? I would hope not. Section 13 of the act says that in pre-

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
scribing the rate of interest payable on cash advances made during the crop year for which the interest is required by this act, it has to be paid on the advance payments, so it does not spell out what the interest rate will be. No formula is given concerning how the interest rate is to be calculated. Is that fair in respect of legislation to help out the farmer, under which originally advances were interest free? The government, in its ill-advised wisdom, has introduced shameful legislation to drive the farmer into debt. Members on this side of the House advised the government that the net result would be that the farmer would be driven into debt. In respect of the repayment schedule, Mr. Earl, as recorded in committee proceedings No. 51, at page 7, said:
They are due, but as you mentioned a little earlier, the repayment schedule got out of whack with the rate of advance.
How could anything be more clear? Those are the words of the spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board before the agricultural committee. So the repayment schedule got out of whack through no fault of the farmers. Notice of 20 days is to be given before the 46,000 farmers may be charged interest. What has been in other agricultural legislation with regard to setting the interest rate? In almost every piece of agricultural legislation presented to this House the interest rate or the formula for arriving at the interest rate has been clearly spelled out. The Farm Credit Corporation is one example. The formula in respect of the interest rate is clearly spelled out as being one per cent above the prime government borrowing rate.
In the Farm Improvement Loans Act the formula in respect of the interest rate is clearly spelled out. In the initial concept cash advances were interest free, but now no attempt is made to spell out the formula under which interest will be arrived at. In essence, it will be all the market will bear. One becomes pretty leary about this government when it seeks the power and the right to charge farmers for whatever service they receive. I have long since come to the conclusion that this government is bent on trying to get back every dollar it has paid out in the field of agriculture. The government is trying to remove itself from every obligation which may cost it money.
Bearing that in mind, one might ask what motivates the government. One cay say the government is being abusive in charging interest because when this legislation was first devised and introduced cash advances were completely interest free and worked quite sucessfully until the government changed it and put the repayment schedule out of whack. Now there is to be an interest rate. One could readily say it should be no higher than 5 per cent, the rate charged under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a nominal fee for the use of money paid out on grain as security which is in the farmer's graneries. The feeling is that a rate of 5 per cent would be rejected out of hand because the government increased the 5 per cent rate on farm improvement loans by 2 per cent, which is about a 40 per cent increase.
It is no wonder Mr. Barber in his report on the cost of farm machinery commented on that matter. Let us look at other legislation. When the old farm loans organization was changed in 1958 to the farm credit set-up there was heated debate inside and outside this House concerning the interest rate that should be charged. Five per cent was the figure arrived at. The government changed that and it is now 7J per cent, or in that vicinity.
We wonder what the government would charge under clause 13 when no formula is given and no rate is prescribed. We are being asked to leave it to the government to set a rate when it declares a portion of the 46,000 loans to be in default and due. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for me. I would be less than honest with the people whom I represent in this House if I did not attempt to have written in an interest rate formula. Most of my constituents will accuse me of writing in a formula which is too high. I expect that accusation because I believe it is too high. However, I wrqte it in as one per cent above the average rate charged the Canadian Wheat Board on its borrowings because I wanted the government to accept this amendment.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few more comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the gracious attitude of the Chair and the House, but I believe the mover of an amendment has 40 minutes. I do not believe I have spoken for 40 minutes. In any event, I shall not ask the Chair for a ruling on that touchy subject.
I was saying I did not attempt to write in the lowest rate of interest I felt should be charged. I did not attempt to write in a rate of interest which I felt might result in my being accused of writing in one that was too low, because I felt in that case the government would callously disregard the amendment. I endeavoured to write an amendment which the government would find acceptable. In the committees, members of this House are supposed to be non-partisan. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you have found the authority in respect of my suggestion. I can assure you I shall not take my 40 minutes. As I was saying, I tried to bring in a formula in respect of an interest rate which would be adjustable with varying conditions and varying times in the Canadian grain industry, and not in an industry unrelated to cash advances.
Through this amendment I am attempting to write in a formula that is acceptable to the grain industry. I hope the farmers will forgive me for putting the rate so high, but at least if accepted the government could not put its

June 7, 1971

rate higher. Knowing the government's desire for putting interest rates higher. I felt that somewhere, somehow an amendment could be written in or a formula could be devised setting interest rates under this legislation, rates which would not penalize the farmer who is in default through no fault of his own but simply because the government made a mistake and put the repayment system out of whack.
I hope that my words have not fallen on deaf ears. I hope the government will come to understand the initial intent of the cash advance legislation. Cash advances were to be interest free. Now the government feels it must charge interest on loans that are in default. But surely it has enough feeling for the farmer who is in deep trouble that it will write in a formula so that the farmer will know exactly what the interest charge will be, so that he will know whether to borrow money from the bank under the Farm Improvement Loans Act or from the Farm Credt Corporation, instead of taking a cash advance on the grain that he has in storage.
Under the terms of this legislation he may take a cash advance in the fall and he will not know if he is in default until the following spring or summer and at that stage he will be charged the interest rate. This is not fair ball, considering the original intent of the act. I hope the government will give this amendment serious thought and will not callously reject it.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this or a similar amendment was discussed fairly fully in the committee. The interest rate, of course, will be fully known to any farmer before he takes his cash advance. Prior to the crop year the interest rate, in case of default, will be known.
I should like to point out again that this interest rate does not in any way change the basic principle that cash advances are interest free. Interest is charged only when a loan is in default and it should be borne in mind that placing a farmer in default is something that is exercised with great care by the Wheat Board. Only those farmers who did have repayment opportunities and did not take advantage of them are put in default, and only in respect of them is interest applicable. Last year we extended additional cash advances to farmers at a time when they were badly needed. Now as a result of other programs there will be less need for this type of assistance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All tnose opposed will please say nay.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


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):: According to Standing Order 75 (11), this vote stands deferred.


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it might suit hon. members better if rather than proceeding with motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, at this point we take motion No. 6 which stands in my name. In that connection I would like to observe that a few moments ago a point was made that there might be considered to be some procedural difficulty in connection with this motion. However, I think from the discussions in the committee there might be a general disposition to allow it to be put notwithstanding that observation, since it seemed to receive support on all hands. Therefore I would be glad to seek unanimous consent to put motion No. 6 at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The House
has heard the suggestion of the minister as to the possibility of the House, by unanimous consent, agreeing to study and examine motion No. 6. Unless hon. members have any comments to make on that suggestion I will ask the House if there is unanimous consent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to cemment on this matter. Mr. Speaker. The previous occupant of the Chair suggested that motion No. 6 was really an amendment to the act and not to the bill that is before the House. I think it would be remiss if the House spent some time dealing with an amendment which in essence is out of order. I would not want to be party to establishing the precedent that we spend an hour or half an hour debating an amendment which in essence is out of order. I think we should have a ruling whether it is in order or out of order. If it is in order, I would be perfectly agreeable to our dealing with it now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I must remind hon. members that the present occupant of the Chair was not in the House at the time that point was raised and it would be very difficult for me at this time to make a ruling on the acceptability of motion No. 6, not having heard the arguments that were made previously. I think it would be unfair for the House to expect me to make a ruling now. May I suggest that if the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) is ready, we might go back to motion No. 8.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: motion No. 8:
That Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by deleting the following words from subclause (1) of clause 11 in lines 35 to 38 at page 10:
"or has, otherwise than by delivery to the board, disposed of all or part of the grain in respect of which the advance was made,"
He said: Mr. Speaker, I moved this amendment in committee and I am moving it again now mainly because

June 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
I do not think it should be a part of the duty of the Canadian Wheat Board or the practice of the board to become a sort of snooping agent, to go around and see what a farmer had done with his grain. When this matter was discussed in the committee the minister, in answering a question that I asked, said:

the difficulty with this amendment is that it would hamstring the board in one very important type of case where it comes to its attention that the person has, in fact, disposed of his grain.
I then asked the minister:
In what manner does this, then, come to their attention? Does an elevator agent inform them that the farmer sold his grain or does somebody else tell them? How do they know?
The minister answered:
Any possible number of ways. The farming community is sometimes aware of what is going on in regard to the neighbouring situation and if it is concerned about it, it may very well draw it to the attention of the board.
Are we to assume that neighbours are watching each other and slipping around to the Canadian Wheat Board saying, "I think Joe Blow has sold the grain that he got his cash advance on"? Does the Wheat Board then send someone out to Joe Blow's place to see whether he still has any grain on his farm, and if they do must they have a search warrant or do they just go on a sort of snooping expedition?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Snoopocracy!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, snoopocracy. It seems to me altogether wrong to put this phrase in an act and to charge the Wheat Board with finding out what an individual did with a certain amount of grain. They probably have not the means of finding that out. Having made the cash advance, it seems to me the Wheat Board has a clear responsibility to recover the money by whatever means are open to it. If it doen't get it this year it will probably attempt to get it next year, and that is quite proper. After all, the farmer borrowed the money and gave an undertaking that some time in the future, as quotas opened, he would deliver grain and pay what he owed.
As the bill is now drawn, the Wheat Board is charged with responsibility to find out if the farmer, in the words of the clause-
-has, otherwise than by delivery to the board, disposed of all or part of the grain in respect of which the advance was made.
In most cases they cannot do this. At what point in time will they undertake to find this out? Will it be before the account is due? They have no right to inquire before it is due. Will it be after the account is due? If so, what does it avail them? Are they any better off after the account is due if they find out what has been done with grain which in effect they had a lien on by reason of the cash advance? When the bill was before committee I inquired about this but did not receive a satisfactory answer.
If there is to be a system of inspecting farms to find out where the grain has gone, it should be a regular
system. The minister or other witnesses should be able to tell the committee what machinery is to be set up for inspection, how it will operate and what its powers are. The limits of that power should also be known. Nothing could bring the Canadian Wheat Board into disrepute more quickly than for it to be generally understood that they had inspectors in the country snooping to find out what had happened to certain amounts of grain. This is just not a workable system. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I have moved this amendment. I sincerely hope the House will give it serious consideration and remove this objectionable phrase from the bill.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in committee the words in question are important because they relate to some instances where fraud may occur in connection with the cash advance system. While snooping is not intended, if fraud should come to the attention of the authorities it is appropriate that they should have the power to take immediate action. This seems to me to be quite legitimate. It is important to the maintenance of the cash advance system. I therefore urge hon. members to oppose the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to speak briefly on this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I well remember when the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) brought this aspect of the legislation before the committee. At that time I agreed that it was not clear how this clause should be interpreted. It reads as follows:
or has, otherwise than by delivery to the board, disposed of all or part of the grain In respect of which the advance was made.


Otto Emil Lang: That is the way it appears in the present bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are quite correct. I read it from the present bill.


Otto Emil Lang: It is in the present act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I remember that the minister also said that in committee, but prior to the present act we did not have 46,675 outstanding accounts, so one has to look at this matter in a different light. We did not have the interest rate.


Mr. Basford:: What was the dollar value?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it was in the neighbourhood of $51 million, but don't hold me to that. The point I am making is that it is a lot of money and represents a great many permit holders. We have to ascertain how the loans will be paid back.
It was learned in committee that from 300 to 600 cash advances were repaid in cash. In other words, when a loan or cash advance was taken on grain and the grain was not delivered it could be fed to livestock or sold to a feedmill or a feedlot at a higher price and the farmer could then repay the elevator man or the Canadian Wheat Board in cash. I wondered how many people did that, and in committee we were told from 300 to 600 and that is not surprising.

June 7, 1971

At the moment the average price for barley sold in my area through the Canadian Wheat Board is about 72 cents a bushel. Just the other day the minister stated that he did not think a final payment would be made on barley, but if one were calculated it would be so small that it would not be worth while attempting to pay it. So the farmer receives 72 cents for his barley in the elevator but he can take it down the road to a feed lot and get 80 cents, so naturally that is what he is going to do. Although he may have taken a cash advance he is not inclined to deliver it to the elevator and lose 8 cents a bushel. Instead, he attempts to repay the cash advance in cash because this is more beneficial to him.
Some farmers attempt to repay cash advances partly through sales of grain and partly by cash. According to evidence given to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, approximately 15,000 farmers repay their advances partly in cash. On page 49 of committee proceedings No. 53 the minister gave the exact figures. When dealing with agricultural legislation one must be careful to quote accurate figures to avoid being accused of using misleading figures. The minister said:
I am told that the figure of producers paying off their advances totally in cash has ranged between 300 and 600; paying off partly in cash has ranged between 13,000 and 15,000.
That answer clearly spells out the number of farmers who repay partly in cash as well as those who repay all their advances in cash. This amendment deals with another aspect of the matter. The Wheat Board may take it upon themselves to ascertain whether a farmer has actually sold the grain, against which he took the advance, to a feed mill or feed lot or whether he sold it to a neighbour for a seed grain. If the board's informants discover that the farmer no longer has the grain, the board can attempt to foreclose, declare the cash advance overdue and attempt to collect it-and interest may be charged. One witnesses under this government a creeping increase in the use of bureaucracy.


An hon. Member:: It is galloping, not creeping.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is a creeping extension of the use of bureaucratic power within the structure of government. The minister has said that the powers referred to were included in the old act. Certainly they are in the old act, but there were not 46,000 producers behind in payments and whose payments were due. Under the old act the government did not attempt to snoop into the lives of people engaged in various sectors of our economy. These powers may have been available to the bureaucracy but they were not used.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Now there is to be snoopocracy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear a new word, snoopocracy, in connection with this bill. The snoopocracy of an overzealous government will attempt to pry into the financial and economic affairs of individuals. When I said that we are witnessing a creeping extension of the powers of bureaucracy, an hon. member interjected by saying that the extension is galloping, not creeping. More and more
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act Canadians are becoming aware of this fact and are afraid of the trend.
Canadians recently returned their census forms. Most of them are hypersensitive to the idea of bureaucratic empires being built up and directed by the government. I am not criticizing the civil service and I hope that civil servants will not misinterpret my remarks. These powers have long been available to the civil service but have not been used. That is true of many other pieces of legislation. Now the civil service is being asked to use its power and to develop its talent for snooping into the private and economic affairs of farmers. I underline the phrase "econom-'c affairs". Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, it seems clear that it believes it has some business with the pocketbooks of people of this nation. It is concerned about the farmer's ability to repay. I see the minister nodding his head in the affirmative. I appreciate his being so co-operative and candid. Farmers are losing their ability to repay.
I would not mind if a farmer were placed in a difficult position through actions he himself took. But the farmer has been placed in this position as a result of government action. No matter how many wheat sales are made, the government has placed the farmer in this position against the advice the opposition gave at the time. They have placed him in this position by bringing the repayments under this legislation and by putting out of whack, to use Mr. Earl's words, the farmer's ability to repay. I regret, to see this happening in the field of agriculture. I regret that the minister seems to be taking this in his stride. He seems proud that he will be the big boss of the new snoopocracy which is to operate under the Canadian Wheat Board.
I regret that the government has resorted to this action in the field of agriculture, particularly since agriculture is encountering greater and greater complications with regard to the quota system and the delivery system. I regret that the snoopocracy and the threat of intervention by the snoopocracy will affect the qualify of life of the farmer and the freedom he has enjoyed until this time.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

['Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very well aware that questions regarding the content of the forthcoming budget cannot be answered at this time. Representations in this particular area have been received and the minister is aware of the various points of view and representations, including those expressed by the hon. member. I am afraid no further response is possible at this time.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.', 'Tuesday, June 8. 1971']
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on June 2 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what steps the government was taking to promote a long-range solution to the crisis in India and Pakistan. With the sardonic flippancy which so often characterizes his utterances about matters domestic or foreign, the Prime Minister sought to score points rather than convey informa-

June 7, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
tion. I hope that the tragic events since last Wednesday have convinced him that this is one of the grave international problems of our time and not the subject of smart aleck debating gambits.
It seems to me there are two aspects to which we should give our earnest attention and concern. The humanitarian problem is assuming massive proportions. The stories coming in daily of disease, suffering and death among the hopeless millions of refugees should move all of us to compassion and the government to greater action. I have commended the grant of $2 million; but surely in the face of such an immense tragedy it is time to look at the question again and to seek new avenues for translating the concern of the Canadian people into action by their government.
The United States has increased its financial contribution; it has sent large military transport aircraft. I asked the other day what this country planned. The director of Oxfam, Dr. Pierre Cournoyer, has been telling the people of this country some stirring things about the problems in Calcutta and the depth of the human tragedy being played out in the area.
I hope that the government will not delay or procrastinate on this matter but will assist all non-governmental organizations desirous of helping and able to help. I hope it will use its resources to ameliorate the suffering. I believe there will be a disposition in all corners of this House to support increased efforts to help in a case where it is so painfully obvious that much help is needed.
The other aspect of the case, and naturally it is related to and indeed antecedent to the other, is the political question. This is not now a domestic matter. One country, India, has received millions of citizens of another land. It cannot be assumed that India, with its own grave problems, can assume this burden. Some way must be found whereby the millions of East Pakistanian refugees will return to their homes. This will require from the Pakistan government some attitudes and adjustments which have not yet, so far as we know, been apparent.
The existing situation threatens not only the economy and poverty of India but the peace of the world. It is incumbent upon all friendly states to do their part to help further a solution. Canada is a member of the Commonwealth. India and Pakistan are fellow members. Can this body not be used?
The United Nations, of which we are charter member, has various organs and procedures for taking up matters which constitute a threat to world peace. Why does Canada not take some initiative in having the matter considered by the UN? Surely some kind of UN presence should be put into being to look carefully into the serious and threatening situation. The world cannot allow another large group of refugees to be cast adrift for years. Surely the experience of the Palestinian refugees should jolt us out of complacency and stir us into action. Something must be done soon. I ask the government not to hesitate in giving leadership. It is for such leadership that I call once more.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is as deeply concerned about this tragic situation as is the government.
The government is acutely aware of the problems created for India and for the stability of South Asia by the influx of refugees from East Pakistan. As we all know, the origins of this problem lie not in India itself but in East Pakistan and in the breakdown of discussions between the government of Pakistan and the Awami League. In common with other governments, Canada has urged on the government of Pakistan the need to resume the search for a political solution and to establish conditions which will permit refugees from East Pakistan to return to their homes. We have also offered relief assistance to East Pakistan. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there is little that outside governments, no matter how well disposed, can do in a situation of this kind where the contending parties would be understandably sensitive to any attempt to prescribe, much less impose, a solution.
Pending a political settlement, the problem of caring for the Pakistan refugees in India is one which is receiving the urgent attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Programme the League of Red Cross Societies and other international organizations. A number of countries have indicated their intention to share some of the burden thrust upon the government of India. It is clear that the amount of aid for relief purposes will depend not only on the number of refugees now in India but on the rate of influx, the length of time before a settlement is reached and the willingness of refugees to be repatriated at that time, together with a large number of additional factors which cannot be determined at this time. Every effort is being made to obtain the information on which an assessment of future requirements can be made and all appropriate governmental, intergovernmental and private organizations are being consulted in this process.
Having said this, I can assure the House that we are in close and constant touch with the United Nations family of organizations with a view to assisting, in so far as we can perform a useful and desired role, in bringing about an accommodation which will provide the greatest equity for those directly concerned. Canada is a member of the Aid to Pakistan consortium and is taking an active role in the consideration which that body is giving to the situation in Pakistan. Within the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development and within the International Monetary Fund we intend to explore with other interested groups the means whereby appropriate arrangements for the future well-being of all concerned can be assisted.
Officials of the Canadian government are in close contact with the government of Pakistan and other countries which share our interest in reaching an appropriate program. It is our view that through close collaboration with other countries we can contribute most effectively to creating conditions in which a political settlement will be possible. The ultimate responsibility for reaching that

June 7, 1971

political settlement necessarily rests with the contending parties.



David Orlikow: On May 13, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) whether in view of the fact that unemployment in the province of Manitoba was reduced steadily in the three months between February and April, in contrast with what happened in the rest of the country, he would give consideration to discussing with the Minister of Finance of Manitoba the process by which the government of Manitoba had been able to achieve that happy result.
In May of 1971 we were able to get the figures for unemployment in Canada during the month of April. They showed that 567,000 people were unemployed, 6.7 per cent of the labour force, calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis. This represented a sharp increase compared with the same month in 1970-the rate of increase had risen steadily up to the month of April. By contrast, in Manitoba unemployment in February amounted to 22,000; the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 6 per cent. In April, unemployment had dropped to 18,000 and the seasonally adjusted rate was only 4.8 per cent.
Manitoba is, I think, the only province in which such a decrease took place. It was not an accident. The provincial government realized as early as 1970 that unemployment would be serious in the winter of 1971. It felt the federal government was overreacting to inflation and that its policies of restraint would likely cause widespread high-level unemployment, as it has done, throughout the winter of last year and probably for the rest of this year.
More than a year ago, therefore, the government began to make plans to deal with unemployment to the extent that a provincial government can. It set aside $32 million in its capital supply estimates for special public works and construction projects which could be started quickly if, as they suspected and feared, unemployment became much more serious. In addition, they provided a further $70 million for public works and housing projects. Beginning as early as October last year a whole series of projects was undertaken. Construction of schools in 26 centres, costing $34 million, was announced in addition to six regional, vocational secondary schools costing $21 million. This cost was, of course, shared with the federal government. Norway House schools, where the population is almost entirely Indian, were begun. University construction amounted to $4 million and there was public housing amounting to almost $12 million, the cost of which was shared with the federal government.
This was in October, 1970, and in November the Manitoba government announced a greatly accelerated public housing program to be initiated by the provincial government and financed jointly, of course, with the government at Ottawa. However, the provincial government has taken the lead and this year there will be 2,200
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
public housing units built in Manitoba, an increase of more than 100 per cent over the number of public housing units built in 1970 and an increase of more than 1,000 per cent over the number of public housing units built by the former government.
In December the government of Manitoba announced an expanded public housing program which was not as large as they wanted because Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would not agree to share the cost to the extent proposed by the government of Manitoba. Nevertheless, the Premier made it clear that he was clearly dissatisfied with the fact that, during the period 1968 to 1970, of 25,000 new dwelling units built in the province of Manitoba only 1,000 provided accommodation for people with incomes of under $5,000.
The Premier made it clear that the government of Manitoba would do everything it could to change this situation and to provide, as I have said, for a much larger percentage of housing starts in the province being devoted to public housing accommodation for people in the low-income brackets. The government of Manitoba has set a goal for the years 1971-75 of building about 4,500 units for elderly persons' housing in view of the steadily increasing number of senior citizens in Manitoba, as in other provinces.
This is the kind of program that the goverment of Manitoba has implemented, not just because it is required but because the government felt very strongly that at a time when unemployment is so prevalent and growing so rapidly governments must take the lead in providing, through necessary and worth-while projects, increased employment opportunities for the people of Manitoba. I suggest that the federal government follow the same line in its policies.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Manitoba, as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, declined from the January peak of 6.5 per cent to 4.8 per cent in April. However, contrary to the information the hon. member has, these figures are not seasonally adjusted and therefore do not accurately show in the unemployment trend because the unadjusted rate usually falls by about 1.5 per cent over the first four months of the year. Also, the Manitoba unemployment rate is classified by DBS as an "f" statistic and according to DBS this category of statistics is their second least reliable.
The impetus to increasing employment and reducing unemployment in that province is coming from the housing sector and from new capital expenditure in primary industries and construction industries where 1971 investment intentions indicate that expectations regarding new capital outlays are for an increase of 15.5 per cent after a decline of 13.6 per cent in 1970. New capital outlay intentions for housing are up by 23.8 per cent in 1971 following the 5 per cent drop in 1970. Housing starts in the fourth quarter of 1970 rose by 54.2 per cent over the fourth quarter level of 1969, compared to the 45.2 per cent rise for Canada as a whole. The provincial government expenditures rose by approximately 25 per cent in the 1969-70 fiscal year. However, the 1970-71 expenditure

June 7, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
increase is not as expansionary and should increase by roughly 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the Prairie region of which Manitoba forms a part has been considerably less affected by unemployment than other regions of Canada. The seasonally adjusted rate for the Prairies for April was 4.3 per cent, compared to 6.7 per cent nationally, 8.1 per cent for the Atlantic region, 8.4 per cent for Quebec, 5.7 per cent for Ontario and 7.6 per cent for British Columbia.
While we would certainly not minimize the efforts of any provincial government toward the reduction of unemployment, we are constrained to note the very favourable trend existing in Manitoba which also pertains to the other provinces in the Prairie region where governments do not admit to the hon. member's political persuasion. All these governments are to be congratulated.


THE BUDGET-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF ELDERLY RETIRED PEOPLE
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 2, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) the following question:
Will he assure us that some regard will be had for the circumstances of the elderly retired on fixed incomes in his presentation to us on June 18?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, we always do our best to look after the old people.
Faced with an answer like that, any sensible person would be frightened to death. I could only do one thing and that was to go for the jugular, which happens to be this inspired part of the evening on the late, late show. Here we are, and I am rising to suggest-I hope this question will be received by the parliamentary secretary-that one is frightened about discrimination against elderly people. I have in mind those who are not able to tackle inflation by the sweat of their brow, so to speak, because they are no longer at the point where they can effectively work and earn that extra wherewithal to deal with inflation.
I know of a situation which is really only partly the fault of the Department of Finance. It involves an old gentleman in his mid-eighties who was receiving the old age guaranteed supplement and also war veterans allowance. Thanks to the computerized formula, he receives $5 less per month although he and his wife receive a little more income. This is how things work in the computer age. When you are in your mid-eighties you will find yourself taking home less pay to feed yourself and your wife even though the family income is greater. This is a blight on the human spirit. This gentleman is quite depressed about how the computer age has treated him. I just draw that matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary.
My main point this evening is an argument for higher exemptions in two different directions. The mail I get, like the mail which I believe is received by other hon. members, suggests that if there is one area of tax reform which we should look after it is higher exemptions for those on fixed incomes, particularly old age pensioners. I do not think there is any question about this. Out of every 10 letters I receive on the subject, nine are in that vein. The tenth usually deals with an esoteric subject such as capital gains.
If my experience is typical, and I have reason to think it is, this is the area in which the minister has to do his work well on June 18 or we will face some kind of a revolution by the aged of this country. There must be lower taxes for the fixed income, retired group. This can be done in several ways. There could be increased exemptions for all. I have argued previously-I note this in passing since my time is running short-that there should be correlation of a pretty relevant kind between increased exemptions and the poverty level, probably a double exemption for each individual.
The second point is that we should give an increased exemption to the elderly, say in the amount of $1,000 instead of the $500 they now enjoy, because they have expenses which most of us who are younger do not have. They have expenses in respect of medicines, diet, furniture and accommodation because some of them are in wheelchairs and cannot live in walk-up accommodation. I believe these two points should be borne in mind.
Finally, as my third point I would say it may be there should be a combination of an extra exemption for everybody and an additional exemption for old age pensioners. I place this upon the shoulders of the parliamentary secretary who I know will draw my point to the attention of the Minister of Finance. In brief, because I am dealing with the elderly since they have extra costs and are not able to fight against insidious inflation, I would hope the Minister of Finance on June 18, when he stands in his place in a House much more full than it is at the present time, would convey good news to our older citizens.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very well aware that questions regarding the content of the forthcoming budget cannot be answered at this time. Representations in this particular area have been received and the minister is aware of the various points of view and representations, including those expressed by the hon. member. I am afraid no further response is possible at this time.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, June 8. 1971