1971-06-08

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Derek Blackburn, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brant.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Derek Blackburn, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brant, introduced by Mr. David Lewis and Mr. Max Saltsman.


Mr. Victor Forget (Saint-Michel) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House on Thursday, June 3, 1971, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Victor Forget: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House on Thursday, June 3, 1971, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: If I understand correctly, the hon.
member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. We have already completed consideration of motions but, with the consent of the House, we might revert to motions so as to enable the hon. member for Bellechasse to move this motion. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursu ant to Standing Order 43, I should like to move a motion concerning a case of urgent necessity.
In fact, the President of Chemcell Limited has announced that they will be closing down their Mont-magny plant in the autumn of 1971, due to market requirements and primarily to foreign competition. This will result in the lay-off of more than 300 workers and will affect 2,000 persons, thus worsening the already acute economic situation in the city of Montmagny.
Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Kamou-raska (Mr. Dionne), I move:
That the House give unanimous consent that this important matter be deferred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in order that this committee may study ways and means to prevent closing down of the plant and report to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It cannot be put without the unanimous consent of hon. members. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move a motion under Standing Order 26, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the large and unexpected increase in rates charged on ferry services operated by the Canadian National Railways, connecting the provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island with the mainland of Canada.
On a question of privilege, perhaps I might be allowed to add that since notice of this motion was given I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has issued a statement to the effect that the increase on the

June 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Newfoundland service will be partially disallowed. However, the principle to which I object still stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Malpeque has given the Chair the notice required under the terms of Standing Order 26 and I have given the matter serious consideration.
As hon. members know, the Chair is bound by the Standing Order to take into consideration not only the importance and urgency of the matter but also the opportunity for debate in the foreseeable future. As hon. members know, in the days ahead there will be many opportunities to discuss matters as important as this one.
The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Malpeque, that is, the point he made that having given notice of this motion an announcement has come from the office of the Minister of Transport, takes some of the urgency out of the proposal submitted by the hon. member for Malpeque. The hon. member says that he still objects to the prmciple. I suggest to him and to the House that, if it is the principle that is suggested for discussion, the circumstances to which I have alluded assume special importance in that there will be many occasions in the days ahead to discuss the substance of the motion raised by the hon. member for Malpeque, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: 1
should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has agreed to or proposed for consideration the possibility of any province opting out of the Canada Assistance Plan and adopting in lieu thereof a program such as a guaranteed annual income and receiving from the government of Canada the fiscal equivalent of what it would have received had it continued to operate under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. As the question has been asked, especially in the context of fiscal equivalents, there has been no suggestion by the government of Canada to that effect or agreement thereto-no suggestion by us or agreement to any suggestion of that nature.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government of Canada proposed, or agreed to, a province opting out of the Canada Assistance Plan and receiving any form of alternative fiscal reimbursement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. But as I said in reply to questions yesterday, this matter, like others, is being
discussed and the position of the federal government on these various matters, particularly with regard to shared-cost programs such as the Canada Assistance Plan, has been made known in our papers to former constitutional conferences, and we continue to take that position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the federal government proposed, in the course of the conference now being held between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the corresponding provincial ministers, any increase in the contribution of the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan and, if so, what increase?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am being prompted, but I am afraid-


Mr. Bell:: Watch it!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I will watch it. Thank you very much.


Thomas Miller Bell: Watch the source.


Mr. Hees:: Don't get all fuddle-duddle.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question of great importance to the members of the House and I would ask the Prime Minister not to be too sensitive but to try to give us an answer.



AIDE-MEMOIRE PRESENTED TO CONFERENCE OF WELFARE MINISTERS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare presented an aide-memoire or a memorandum to the conference of health ministers which began yesterday, and whether such aide-memoire was a statement of government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. It has been presented with the authority of the government though we do not know what agreement will flow from it. It has been made quite clear by the minister that any suggestions along the lines of the aide-memoire or along lines that might be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition were conditional upon agreement on the over-all package that we will be discussing in Victoria.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of interest to the Leader of the Opposition but it is also of interest to the people of Canada and to all members of the House. Would the Prime Minister undertake to table or to have the Minister of National Health table the aide-memoire and in the meantime inform the House of the proposals that the federal government made to the provincial ministers in relation to sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan, to use its formal name, and would he also inform the House whether the question of a guaranteed annual income will be a federal or provincial matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot undertake to table such aide-memoire because agreement was reached between the provinces and the federal government that neither side would make public documents relating to the

June 8, 1971

conference which is now going on. We have exchanged points of view. They are conditional upon reaching a further and final agreement in Victoria. There has been no unconditional suggestion for change by the federal government nor, as far as I know, by any of the provincial governments. Therefore these documents are purely for purposes of discussion. They do represent the position of the government of Canada if agreement is reached. As I say, they are not unconditional suggestions for change by the government of Canada, and therefore it would not be in the public interest to put them forth as such.


David Lewis: In view of the crucial importance of all these discussions not only to those who happen to be leaders of governments at this time but to all the people of Canada and to future generations, would the Prime Minister undertake at some point to inform Parliament and the people of Canada as to the suggestions made and accepted or rejected, so that we may fully understand the discussions that are taking place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at a point following the Victoria conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can justify operating in such an aura of secrecy in matters of such importance to the people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is argument.



TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF JURISDICTION OVER SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering the different views held by the Quebec Health Minister on the powers of the provinces with regard to social services, would the Prime Minister tell the House if the responsible federal minister, who is presently taking part in the conference, has been authorized by the government to negotiate the transfer to Quebec of some jurisdiction over social services, and if that province was assured that it would get fiscal equivalence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, according to the federal government, the conference now in progress is not a constitutional conference but one where the health ministers are trying to improve the general situation of the people of Canada within the framework of their respective social legislation.
I know that Quebec as well as other provinces have submitted some proposals. Furthermore, as I said in reply to a previous question, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is mainly involved in expounding the position of the federal government, which is derived from proposals included in the white paper which the minister tabled a few months ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As regards constitutional matters, I hope they will be decided upon in Victoria, but we do not intend to settle them at the conference now under way.



MANITOBA SUGGESTION THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SHARE UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN BE INCREASED

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to the suggestion made by Manitoba, as reported in the press, that the federal government's share under the Canada Assistance Plan be increased to 65 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure we will consider all suggestions made by any province, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot say more than that. This particular suggestion has not been made by the federal minister to the cabinet. Therefore he is not authorized to agree to it.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since the ministers which are now gathered in Ottawa are discussing the problem of social security or social services, I would like to ask him whether a report on this meeting will be tabled at the conference of first ministers which will be held in Victoria next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The conference which began yesterday and will continue today has been convened following the suggestion of the first ministers who thought in February that the conference should be held and that indeed a report be submitted to the Victoria conference. This report will be presented next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the House that perhaps we might set aside the additional supplementary questions a number of hon. members want to ask and go on to the next subject.



PANARCTIC NATURAL GAS DISCOVERY-AREA FARM-OUT AGREEMENTS WITH OIL COMPANIES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that Panarctic Oils, of which the federal government owns 45 per cent, is now in possession of one of the most important gas finds on the North American continent, may I ask him whether any of the Panarctic area has been farmed out to the Imperial Oil Company and are

June 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
any other companies being granted farm-out agreements by Panarctic Oil?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in the normal course of business, it is customary for agreements to be reached with other companies whereby research projects are farmed out to them by contract. That is the kind of agreement Panarctic Oils Limited entered into with Imperial Oil Limited a few weeks ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there are some 600 million acres in the Arctic and only 55 million are under the control of Panarctic Oils, may I ask the minister why it is necessary to farm out any of that comparatively small area in relation to the total?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me he might appreciate, with me, that asking the minister why it is necessary to take such and such an action involves a question which is essentially argumentative. The hon. member might like to ask the question in other terms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In addition to the farm-out to the Imperial Oil Company, is it the intention of the government to allow farm-outs to other companies and, if so, to what extent is the area now controlled by Panarctic going to be alienated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, these decisions are made by Panarctic Oils Limited and not by the government, and as I said a few moments ago, it is a practice of the oil industry to subcontract the exploration of oil in certain areas. I must tell the hon. member that most Arctic islands are controlled by Panarctic Oils Limited. I do not believe that concluding such contracts with some companies will be detrimental to Panarctic.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very serious question to the Prime Minister.
I note that the former Minister of Communications has been given a seat at this end to the House. Is this to bring him closer to the Social Credit theories?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. James A. McGraih (Sf. John's Eastlr Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
Transport. What action has he taken with regard to the outrageous increases announced by Canadian National Railways in his absence with regard to the CNR ferries operating between Newfoundland and the mainland and Prince Edward Island and the mainland?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, immediately on my return last night I issued instructions that the schedule was to be withdrawn in the case of the Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island services. The rate increases to which I have agreed will not exceed $1 per adult, $2 per automobile and $1 per berth on the Newfoundland service and not more than 15 cents per passenger or 50 cents per car on the Prince Edward Island service.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he can assure the House that no further arbitrary increases will be announced by Canadian National or approved by the government without first consulting with the two provinces?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact I am examining now the possibility of finding some mechanism through which such rate increases in the future can be submitted perhaps to the Canadian Transport Commission or some other agency so there can be an assessment of them in advance.



WOOD ISLAND-CARIBOU FERRY SERVICE-ACTION RESPECTING INCREASE IN RATES

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take with regard to the doubling of the rates on the Wood Island-Caribou service, operated by Northumberland Ferries, because of the reduction in the subsidy by the federal government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it was not a reduction of subsidy. The subsidy figure is likely to be as high or higher than in the past. It was in an effort to prevent an increase in the subsidy. As the hon. member knows, the Canadian Transport Commission, unlike the Borden-Tormentine service, has authority in the case of the Wood Island service. I communicated with the chairman of the CTC this morning to advise him of the action that had been taken with regard to the ferries coming under my authority and he has indicated that his water commission will be meeting today to discuss what steps they might take.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the extremely depressed prices being received by egg producers, particularly in the provinces of Ontario and

June 8, 1971

Manitoba, I wonder whether the government would immediately initiate an egg buying program under the farm products act?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have initiated a program of this kind and it is hoped to have the call for tenders ready this week.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which I asked yesterday of the Prime Minister who said he would take it as notice and that the minister would reply today. In view of the report handed to the government some time ago by the Prices and Income Commission to the effect that four major Canadian oil companies are 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?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report dealt with violations of the pricing criteria for 1970 and, as I indicated in the House the other day, we are examining a number of alternatives in light of the commission's report. I may say to the hon. member that it is somewhat difficult, of course, as I have explained, to deal with policies in respect of only four oil companies rather than the industry as a whole.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I have asked the minister if the government is planning to take steps to require these four companies to comply with the government's restraint program-yes or no?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers related to 1970, not 1971, and so the question he puts is not entirely in order. We are endeavouring, however, to see, in light of the report, what could be and should be done. If there is an announcement it will, of course, be made in the usual way.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is it not apparent from the minister's answer why the minister has become the worst minister in the government within a very short space of time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the urgent need for immediate and long-term opportunities for employment by Canadian seamen, can the minister tell the House what government action we can expect to flow from the recommendations of the Darling commission on the coasting trade?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I answered a somewhat similar question the other day. The tabling of the report and the publicizing of it were designed to generate as much comment as possible from interested parties. I think it is fair to give a reasonable length of time so that the various interests can make their views known on the report. Just as soon as we have these views, government policy will be formulated along these lines. I would hesitate to give a time frame, but perhaps by the autumn of this year might be a reasonable expectation.



FINANCE


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the question raised last Friday by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal relating to the financing of the International Development Association. The government is aware of the delay being encountered by the United States administration in obtaining Congressional approval for its contribution to the third replenishment. This may have the unfortunate consequence that the agreement will not become effective on July 1, 1971 as originally envisaged. In order to avoid an interruption in IDA lending activity, the Minister of Finance has informed Mr. McNamara that Canada would be prepared to make available its first payment of $50 million in United States funds in November, 1971, even if the agreement is not yet in effect. This offer is contingent upon parliamentary approval of the estimates now before the House. The government has expressed its expectation that a number of other donor countries would follow Canada's initiative in this matter.



AIRPORTS


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the understandable concern in Ontario that there may be some undue delay in respect of the development of the new international airport at Toronto, can the minister say whether the progress of planning is normal and satisfactory or indicate if there is any reason for the delay?

June 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1
think the reason for the delay, as I attempted to explain in the House on several previous occasions, is the complexity of the negotiations with the province of Ontario. I do not say that in any critical sense. There is a great deal of data and documentation to be studied. I would hope that within a week or ten days I can meet with the responsible minister in Ontario to determine what areas are still uncertain in his mind with regard to federal participation and that we can move ahead from that point. I want to say categorically that there is no intention on the part of the government to retard in any way this particular development. It remains our determination and our intention to create in southwestern Ontario an additional airport facility at the earliest possible time.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has offered the Ontario officials the same cost-sharing arrangements that were offered the province of Quebec with respect to the new airport at Ste. Scholastique?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the question, with respect, is hypothetical at the moment. I have indicated we are prepared to talk about participation at the federal and provincial level, that is, what input each would provide, but before that kind of discussion can be meaningful it is necessary to know the particular site that is to be employed because the costs will be determined largely by the site. I have communicated this to the province of Ontario and I will reinforce it in meetings within a week or so, I hope.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister studied the remarks made by the Prime Minister with regard to the potential airport that is to be built?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I have. I concur with what the Prime Minister has said in this regard in that if there is delay beyond 1975 there is no question that it will have an effect upon the division of air traffic within Canada, but I am confident we can meet that obective because it is our intention to keep Toronto a very important part of the aviation complex.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Minister of Transport. In saying that he agrees with the Prime Minister does he realize that puts him in the hole with the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. In view of reports of pressure on
farmers, particularly in western Canada, by the banks for payment for farm improvement loans where the secur.ty is a lien on the machinery purchased, would the minister inform the House whether he has inquired of the banks concerning the extent to which default has occurred on the part of farmers and seizures made by the banks, or how many of these loans have been transferred by the banks into other loan categories?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to take that question as notice.



INDUSTRY


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell the House whether Mr. Malone, president of Chemcell Limited, has informed him of the project for closing this company's plant in Montmagny during the next few months?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my department is aware of this proposed closing of the plant. We discussed it with Chemcell to try and find a solution, unfortunately without success. I want to point out that we are now examining the possibility of assisting workers affected by the closrng, under the textile products act passed recently by this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Bellechasse wish to ask a supplementary question?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, in his answer to this House, asserted that this company had not filed any application with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for a grant to modernize its plant or make some improvements needed to stay in operation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was absolutely right. We have here a kind of rationalization decided upon by the company with the hope of remaining competitive on both the domestic and the international levels.
H*



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since the present legisla-

June 8, 1971

tion requiring the railways to first apply for abandonment of passenger service as a prerequisite to a subsidy application is causing needless anxiety and concern to the Canadian public, has the minister given any consideration to amending the legislation to allow the railways to apply for a subsidy without going through the presently required ridiculous procedure?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, not on that particular point because, without getting argumentative about it, I am not sure how you could determine the size of the subsidy or whether or not it was warranted without having a hearing. But I will be glad to examine the matter.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Since the minister has already indicated in reply to a previous question that he is studying ways of reviewing freight rate increases before they are put into effect, does this mean that there might be some important changes in the National Transportation Act coming before the House soon?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not anticipate that it will be soon, Mr. Speaker.



INTENTION OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS TO DISCONTINUE OTTAWA-TORONTO PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE

George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I merely want to point out to the hon. member and to all hon. members that we will be running short of time and we should try for the next few minutes to limit supplementary questions as much as possible. But the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: With regard to the application of Canadian National Railways to cut off passenger service between Ottawa and Toronto, would the minister advise the management of the CNR that that railway exists to serve the Canadian public and that it is not in the public interest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -to cut off the passenger service between the capital and one of the two largest cities in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question but a submission. The hon. member has to assume that it will be taken into account. We have to go on to the next subject.
$	% SjS



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General but before doing so I should like to commend the minister for doing away with the numbering-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should
ask his question.


John Gilbert: I will, but I would first like to suggest that he should be commended for doing away with the numbering of prisoners' garb in penitentiaries. It indicates that he is not attempting to treat the prisoners-


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

I believe the hon. member for Broadview had a supplementary statement to make to the House.


John Gilbert: I will put my question now. In view of the progressive measure which the minister has taken with regard to prisoners in penitentiaries, would he make a statement on motions in the next week setting forth his short-term policies concerning reforms in penitentiaries to ease the tensions that prevail in these institutions?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we will announce from time to time the reforms we propose to make.
As to the basic changes, I think that the hon. member should wait a little so that we may gather our ideas and we will announce them in due course.
* # *



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, whose reply to my letter I appreciate very much. Is he giving consideration to taking appropriate action to increase the subsidy on the Wood Island-Cariboo run, where it has been obviously demonstrated that an increase is needed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As 1
mentioned earlier, this service is subsidized through the Canadian Transport Commission. They are meeting on it today. I dare not anticipate what they might do, but they know what I did on the other run.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate whether his meeting with the executive of the Ukrainian-Canadian Committee yesterday resulted in any common understanding?

June 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: If you conned them into believing what you were trying to tell them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings, I think these people are of high intelligence, and we agree.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Minister of Transport. Will the decision of the Ontario government to stop construction on the Spadina Expressway hamper or prevent the development of the CNR-CPR complex known as the $200 million Metro Centre in Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am
afraid that is much too technical a question for me to answer immediately. I will be glad to look into it. I might add that the decision which was made by myself, along with Mr. Campbell of Metro Toronto and the provincial government, with regard to the commuter railway study apparently becomes considerably more important now, and we will speed up that study in light of what has happened.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the minister try to let us have an answer to my question shortly?



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the Auditor General's concern that special accounts for funds to be held over for spending in future years severely weaken Parliament's surveillance over public expenditures, is the government going to stop using and creating such special accounts?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: would expect, and indeed I hope, that this particular issue would be thoroughly discussed in the Public Accounts Committee.



THE CENSUS


John Angus MacLean: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce. Are the census authorities still insisting that persons in old people's homes and occupants of other institutions of that sort complete the long census forms and send them in, or is the short form being accepted in lieu thereof in those situations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know how the census could be valid unless the proper procedure is followed. The sample method can only produce good results if it is properly implemented. It would make it impossible for proper statistics to be compiled if people were to exchange long and short census forms or if people refused to answer the long questionnaire but agreed to answer the short one. I do not think the system would work if this were done.



REPORTED REFUSAL OF WINNIPEG ENUMERATORS TO SEND IN FORMS BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PAY

['Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not aware that the question is a hypothetical one because the moon is full this week?\n[Mr. Sulatycky.)\nJune 8, 1971']
Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the eleven o'clock CBC broadcast this morning on which we were told that Winnipeg census enumerators have refused to turn in the census forms because they feel that the pay they are receiving is inadequate, what steps does the minister propose to take?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was in the House at eleven o'clock so I could not listen to the news program. I will have the information checked. If it happens to be true, I will express the greatest resentment because these people were quite well acquainted, before accepting the work, with the salary which they would receive. Their action would be most unwelcome in view of the importance of the documents that they are now holding in their hands, if this news item is true.



Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Having in mind the proposal made today by the U.S.S.R. through the United Nations calling for a world agreement to ban world arms from the moon, can the Prime Minister say whether the government will give consideration to supporting this proposal at the United Nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Canada has been extremely active in the establishment of agreements barring armaments from outer space and from the seabed. I am sure that through our representative in New York, Ambassador Beaulne, and our representative in Geneva, Ambassador Ignatieff, Canada will again participate actively in reaching agreement on such a subject if indeed it has been brought forward.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not aware that the question is a hypothetical one because the moon is full this week?
[Mr. Sulatycky.)
June 8, 1971



POLLUTION


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry if he will be involved in any way in the E. B. Eddy shutdown and, if so, in what way?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there will be a shutdown of the E. B. Eddy plant.



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, mercifully my question does not involve stamping out moonshine. It is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the possible need for more container facilities in Halifax-Dartmouth, can the minister advise whether this matter is under study by the National Harbours Board?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of future development in Halifax is under constant study, and I might say that quite a few advances have already been introduced.
* # *



FISHERIES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: 1
have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the recent ICNAF meeting I should like to ask the minister whether Canada has made any proposals to the ICNAF nations concerning quota systems? Would the minister advise the House what the plans of his department are in this respect and, if possible, table the proposals?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, Canada made a number of proposals at the recent ICNAF meeting in Halifax. I gather that this matter will be discussed at length this afternoon in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. If the hon. member wishes to attend he can get answers to many questions in detail.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the federal governlnquiries of the Ministry
ment has not adopted a national salary scale for nurses, although it has done so for every other profession, and in view of the fact that some nurses with families to support have had to ask for welfare assistance, will the government reconsider its policy with a view to removing the discrimination against these employees in a profession largely female in content?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the question let me say that the federal government is active in trying to eliminate discrimination against females in any place it can be found. I cannot accept the premise of the hon. member that the federal government has brought about or imposed a national standard covering all other professions.


Donald MacInnis: Will the government indicate its willingness to reconsider this policy in time to avoid this matter going to arbitration and thus restore the confidence of the 2,200 nurses in the federal public service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is asking me to acknowledge that the technique of the bargaining process, including the arbitration element, is unsatisfactory and that we are prepared to shortcircuit it. As the hon. member knows, I have a continued objection to negotiating in this way across the floor of the House.

tTranslation]



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
The National Arts Centre seems to have been completed for a few months now. Can the minister tell us if final acceptance of this building has been given? If not, can he tell us what is the reason for the delay?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this question could be put on the order paper. If there is any urgency, the hon. member could suggest to the Chair that the question be debated at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Last Friday the minister took as notice a question I placed before him with regard to the student militia and civilian program and the fulfilment of the quotas. Does the minister have the answer now?

June 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I find on checking that the quotas have been filled as follows: a total of 6,000 in student militia training; in the naval reserve, 900; first year 3,250, second year 1,850-that is in militia training. I should explain that last year's militia program was 7,850 and not 5,000 as mentioned by the hon. member. The total this year is 8,000, combining 6,000 in militia training and 2,000 civilian leadership candidates. The total program in armouries is limited to 4,150 as compared with over 7,000 last year. The remainder of the programs will be conducted in combat group training areas. I hope this is the information sought by the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murla (Lisgar):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the report of the Barber Commission was tabled several weeks ago, will the minister state when we can expect some statement from the government on whether it intends to act on any of the recommendations of the report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think there will be statements form time to time, Mr. Speaker, but I should remind the hon. member that a great deal of action has been taken on some of the recommendations in an earlier report.



FARM MACHINERY-RESULTS OF ACTION ON BARBER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister in a statement to the House indicate whether any significant results have been achieved as the result of the actions he has taken?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a very significant additional competitive factor in the sale of farm machinery in Canada that did not exist prior to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I said at the beginning of the question period that I would allow the hon. member for Joliette to ask one supplementary question to the one he had asked earlier. I now invite him to do so.



CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to my favourite member, that is the Prime Minister.
Regarding the Victoria Conference, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure us that the amending formula will be discussed only after the negotiations about provincial powers are completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I tabled the agenda yesterday, and unless the provinces should want to modify it, it will remain as it is, that is to say that first the Constitution, and then social security will be discussed. But I think that it was agreed that no final decision will be taken on any item on the agenda before it has been discussed as a whole. And the federal government does not intend to exhaust an item and to exclude any possibility of bringing it up again.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the order about to be called. When the special order for today was passed it was provided that this debate would be interrupted at six o'clock and the vote, if one is called, would be taken at that time. That is 15 minutes later than would be the case under the ordinary rules and it would cut into the dinner hour. There is also the fact that we will have more votes at eight o'clock. I think you will find there is agreement among the four parties that the debate today be interrupted at 5.45 p.m. so that with a 15-minute ringing of the bell the vote can be taken promptly at six o'clock.
While I am on my feet may I say that we are not suggesting any change in the order so far as time limits on speeches are concerned but we do suggest that no one ask for overtime.


John Angus MacLean: The suggestions of the hon. member are acceptable to the official opposition, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Lewis: That this House condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced the income of western farmers and threaten the future of Canada's entire rural community, and, in view of the financial crisis of western farmers, calls on the government to consider the advisability of an immediate payout to them of a minimum of $100 million without conditions and in addition to other farm assistance programs.

June 8, 1971

noon)
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have placed this motion before the House at this time because my party believes that it is essential to take careful stock of government agricultural policies which are developing clearly in the direction of depopulating Canadian rural communities within the next number of years. We have placed it on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, because we believe that this policy carries with it fateful consequences not only for the entire farming population of Canada but also for all of Canadian society. I also believe, and I say this frankly, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion of this subject and a vote on the motion may be necessary at this time because of the provincial election in the province of Saskatchewan. The electors in that province have the right to know clearly where each of the parties in this House stands on the issue raised in the motion I have had the honour of moving.
The subject placed before the House is also urgent for another reason. It is urgent because of the financial crisis in which western farmers now find themselves, and there is an urgent need for an immediate injection of large amounts of cash into the prairie grain economy.
As hon. members know, farm organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union and other spokesmen for the farmers have insisted that the minimum amount required to enable western grain growers to get out of their financial difficulties is at least $250 million. My reading of the statistics relating to the plight of western farmers suggests, even though I do not claim to be a farm expert, that the demand for a $250 million injection is fully justified. In my motion I have limited the amount to $100 million because that seems to be the amount which the government is ready to make available to western grain farmers. It is ready to make that amount available, however, only through a form of blackmail directed at the western farmer and western farm organizations. The government has attached this pay-out of $100 million to another kind of policy, its policy, so-called, of stabilizing the farming industry. That is a policy which farmers oppose and the details of which as presented by the government every farm organization opposes.
I make no bones about the fact that this motion is related to the provincial election in Saskatchewan. I say that before someone else says it. It is necessary for hon. members to see whether the Liberal members of this House are prepared to vote for or are determined to vote against the demand that $100 million be paid out immediately, without condition and without the loss of any other farm assistance programs.
I have studied over the last little while, and since assuming my new responsibilities in my party I have done it to a greater extent than I did before, the various aspects of farm policy and the suggestions for agricultural policy that have been made to the country in the last few years. If you put together the Lift program of last year, the report of the task force on agriculture, some statements made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and other statements issued by the Department of
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
Agriculture and spokesmen for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, as well as the legislation presently before the House, it seems to me that you can clearly discern a complex and composite of policies which are deliberately designed to induce farmers to leave their land, to hasten the demise of the independent Canadian farmer, to make farming the preserve of powerful corporations-in short, to tear the very heart from western Canada and to chase farmers into overcrowded and polluted urban centres. This, to us, appears to be sheer madness and shows the typical attitude of this government to every aspect of our economy. It is an attitude that is concerned purely about statistics and figures of growth and which to a large extent ignores the human beings involved in the policy and in the economic area concerned.
When you look at statistics showing what has happened to western grain farmers in the last few years and note their starkness, you will see that they are truly distressing and shattering. Calculations have been made showing that in 1970 the total, net realized income from farming operations of more than 180,000 farmers across the Prairies was $174 million, less than $1,000 per farm. This is a decline of $700 million from 1969 and of $830 million from 1968.
The government of the province of Manitoba has calculated that the net, realized income from some 40,000 farms in the province was $31 million in 1970, which represents a net income per farm in that area of only about $800. Studies show that you must go back to the depression and drought year of 1936 to find comparable net farm incomes. That was the situation in what everyone agrees was a year of considerable growth, although accompanied by considerable unemployment in this country.
If you look at Saskatchewan, the same situation is revealed. The net realized income of all farmers in Saskatchewan, and there are about 75,000, was $200 million in 1970. In the five years 1963 to 1967 that income averaged $435 million. These figures were presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its brief to the government some time ago. In 1970, in other words, the net income of farmers was less than half their average income in the five-year period 1963 to 1967. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture added in its brief that if you deduct from this amount income in kind, which is included in the figures from which are calculated total income, the figure would change from $368 million to $131 million, and would become about one-third in 1970 of the average figure for the five years 1963-67.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture went on to point out something we all know, that there is a considerable number of cattle-producing farms on the Prairies. The federation shows that if you allocate to livestock a quarter of the total of the net income, or $92 million, over the five-year period 1963-67, and the federation presents evidence showing that that is not an unreasonable assumption, the net income left for grain growers in the five years 1963-67 averaged $276 million. However, the figure relating to cattle raising and cattle producing on
June 8, 1971

Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
the Prairies remained the same or was larger in 1970 than in the five-year period I have mentioned. If you allocate the sum of $92 million to livestock production in 1970, which is likely to be a conservative figure, you reduce the net from grain growing to about $40 million in Saskatchewan. That represents only about $500 per farm in that province in 1970.
As a rule, I am not given to citing statistics in speeches I make in the House or, indeed, outside the House because they are usually a little difficult to follow. I have done so this time and I will cite some other statistics. As a member who represents a central Canada constituency, is well acquainted with the urban centres in all parts of Canada and, I hope, acquainted with the farm communities across the country, I feel it is important for all the people of Canada to realize that the conditions of the western grain farmer in 1970 and, indeed, in 1969, have been really desperate.
As a group, grain growers have been operating at virtually a loss. They must survive on depreciation and using whatever farm produce they can for their families. The disastrous income position of the grains growers is one of the reasons for introducing this motion. I submit that it highlights the very real problem facing Canadian grain farmers and Canadian agriculture generally and the need for all members of this House, regardless from what part of Canada they may come, to pay careful attention to the future of this essential industry in Canada.
We who live in central Canada, including, for example, the workers in my constituency, all of metropolitan Toronto and Brantford, which is represented by the new member whom I had the honour to introduce this morning, are concerned about the widespread massive unemployment which this government has inflicted upon this country. We are concerned about the overcrowded and impossible living conditions in our large urban centres. But we must not be so self-concerned about our position in these centres as to ignore other areas.
As we in this party have always suggested, we must begin to realize that the western farmers, the western grain growers in paticular, are in precisely the same kind of desperate situation as the unemployed workers in the cities. For literally 35 years, as a member of this party, and with the honour of now being its leader, I have said to the people of Canada than when there is an economic difficulty in this country it is never limited to either farmers or urban dwellers. It invariably hits both sections of the Canadian community just as severely.
This is one of the reasons why I cannot but deprecate deeply and feel very strongly distressed at the continuing attempts in this country-an attempt is now being made by the premier of Saskatchewan during the present provincial election campaign-to divide the farmer and the worker, to say to the farmer that the industrial worker is in some way his enemy and to say to the worker in the city that his high cost of living is due to what the farmer
is getting for his produce. I say to the industrial workers in this country that this is not so.
The farmers in Canada have been receiving incomes that are all out of proportion to their efforts and investment. The increase in price which the farmer has received over the years has been minimal compared with the actual increase in price in the retail store which the industrial worker visits and where he spends a great deal of his money. Much of the increase in food prices has gone to the large packing corporations, the large processing corporations and the middle men along the way. In all areas of farming, only a little trickle has gone to the farmer.
The grain grower is in a difficult and desperate situation, as is the hog producer. When I visited Saskatchewan a couple a months ago, I was shown an actual invoice by a hog producer. For a 300-pound hog he received a net of $2.47. I think he received three cents per pound in that particular instance and after all the various deductions had been made he was left with $2.47.
I wish to emphasize that the point I am raising is not a matter only of agricultural policy nor a matter which concerns merely the farmers of Canada. It is a matter which concerns the entire Canadian society and impinges on the entire Canadian economy. I want the city folk of this country, including myself, all my friends in the unions, unorganized workers, the employed and the unemployed, to appreciate that the policies of the government have not been harmful only to the industrial workers. They have placed the Canadian farmers, the western grain farmers in particular, in a position every bit as desperate as that of the unemployed in this country. The government has been consistent in its mismanagement of Canada's economy, whether agricultural or industrial, whether in the east, centre or the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: If you look at the farm situation from the point of view of cost you get some understanding of what has happened. While the gross receipts and the net incomes of the farmers have been fluctuating, and have been steadily dropping in the past while, farm expenses have been rising at a steady pace. The cost of farm machinery has increased. The cost of farm labour has also increased as it should have. The costs of all the things that farmers use have been steadily rising. There is no reason to think that farm expenses will begin to decline because there is no reason to believe that the cost of anything in Canada is likely to decline. On the contrary, in over 200 years of history we have learned that there is a steady rise in prices in our kind of society.
The so-called stabilization plan, which the ministers concerned have introduced into the House and which is now before a committee of the House, makes no mention of the question of farm expenses. It makes no suggestion about the need to stabilize or in some way make up for the continuing increase in farm costs. In round figures, Mr. Speaker, farm expenses and depreciation charges relating to crop production on the Prairies rose from $500

June 8, 1971

million in 1950 to $1,300 million in 1970. Perhaps it will be a little more meaningful to state that in 20 years the cost rose from $8 per cultivated acre to $18 per cultivated acre, more than double the cost per acre.
The facts which this House must be concerned with are the desperate financial situation of the farmer, the continuing rise in farm costs, the everlasting squeeze in which the farmer finds himself as a result of the international market, and the continuing rise in farm expenses. I emphasize the fact that I do not pretend to be an expert in this area. However, over many years I have tried to understand it and perhaps do understand it to some extent at least.
The orientation of this government toward agriculture, as indicated by the various documents to which I have referred, is the same as the technocratic orientation of this government to every other sector of our economy. It is an orientation toward business consideration, an orientation toward the dollar, an orientation toward the balance of payments, an orientation toward exports. At no point is it an orientation toward farm people or toward the welfare and future of the rural communities of this country.
Everyone who has studied the matter at all is fully aware that there are in Canada some marginal and uneconomic farms which, possibly, can never be made viable. Their position requires special consideration. But these are not the farms, and they are certainly not exclusively the farms, toward which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board has directed his writings that I have read. He has directed it toward the entire agricultural economy. He has directed it toward the concept that very large farms integrated with choking agribusiness will be more efficient in terms of the dollar. That may well be so. But at what cost to Canada and to the rural communities in particular.
Without wanting to sound sentimental or maudlin, I say, as a city feller, that I believe, as I have always believed, that the rural life of Canada is an important and integral part of Canadian society. The rural communities are important to our welfare as a nation. What does the government want to do, I ask. It seems to me that what the government wants to do is rationalize western farming to the point of making them into factory farms run mostly by foreign-owned food corporations.


Mr. Lang:: Nonsense!


David Lewis: It is not nonsense. It is a fact. This is what the task force on agriculture means. It cannot mean anything else. If he wants to take two farmers out of every three off the land, that is the eventual effect of the policy upon which the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) have now embarked; that will be the effect envisaged in the statements he has made and the writing he has produced and which I have read. They want to turn our rural communities into ghost towns. They want not only to throw farm folk off the
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
land but to close up local stores and service industries, because that will be the result of the policies which are being pursued.


Otto Emil Lang: That is malicious nonsense.


David Lewis: It is not malicious nonsense. It is the truth of what the minister is doing, and the arrogance of his denial is evidence of the fact that what I am saying is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Every step the government has taken, every step the government has proposed, leads inevitably in that direction, whether or not they have had the courage to state it publicly. They have not, but it leads inevitably in that direction. What is at stake, therefore, is the welfare of farm families and the communities which serve their needs. What is at stake, briefly, is the rural lifestyle in our society, something which these technocrats opposite are determined to reduce to a factory assembly line. We believe this to be destructive of Canada's future.
One word, Mr. Speaker, about farm efficiency. Again I address myself to my own constituents, to the constituents of central Canada and those of industrial centres in the east and west.
When Canadians think of technological change or advance they think primarily of industries located in the urban centres and of the resource industries in the forests and underground. The fact is that technological development in the agricultural industry has been immense in the last number of years and the agricultural industry in Canada has for years shown the most dramatic productivity compared with other areas in our economy. For example, the rate of productivity increase for all commercial industries in this country has been estimated at about 3.5 per cent per year since the end of the war. The growth rate for productivity in agriculture during that time has been the highest in the country at about 51 per cent per year. So no one has the right to talk disparagingly about farm efficiency because if there is one industry in this country which is increasing its productivity through technological change it is the agricultural industry. Farmers have learned modern farm management to an extent they have never done before. They have concentrated on maximum production and good farming such as impresses one every time one visits a farm community in this country.
So we have no right to question farm efficiency at this time. It is our duty to pay homage-not to every farmer, of course; there are exceptions in every sector of our society-to our farmers generally and particularly to the grain growers for the immense advance they have made in productivity, an advance which they have made possible frequently at the expense of mortgaging not only their own future but the future of their children and their grandchildren for years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers


David Lewis: In such a situation, what is the problem? As I see it, the problem is not that there is no need for the food Canada produces. It is trite to remind members of this House that there are hundreds of millions of people round this globe who go hungry to bed every night of the year and who have an immense need for the grains and other food we produce.
The problems of Canadian farmers are, by and large, the same as those of farmers around the world. They derive from the vagaries of the weather and from the vagaries of the international market. They arise, in other words, out of circumstances over which the farmer and the farming community have no control whatever. This is why it is the duty of government and of Parliament to make sure that farmers receive the net income to which they are entitled.
Whenever we talk about assisting farmers everybody in the country, it seems to me, particularly in the urban centres, gets worried. Let me remind members of this House and the people of Canada that we do not bat an eyelid-certainly those technocrats across the aisle do not bat an eyelid-when the government makes available to large corporations, most of which are foreign-owned, an amount in the order of $1 billion annually. Yet when one asks for $250 million to help western Canadian farmers, the government reduces the amount to $100 million, whittles it down still further, and then attaches it to a form of blackmail which the government knows the Canadian farmer is unhappy with and finds unacceptable. We believe this is total nonsense. We believe a new approach must be taken by Parliament and the people. We believe the government should stop its present treatment of family farms in this country and assist young people to set up in farming should they wish to do so.
In my opinion the subject we have introduced today is of great importance not only to the agricultural industry and the farmers who engage in it but to Canadian society as a whole, both in its general aspect and the demand for an immediate pay-out, without conditions and without blackmail, for at last $100 million to the western grain growers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish at this point to participate in the debate but I should like to raise a point of order that I would ask you to take into account. It is related to whether or not we can have two debates on the same subject running concurrently before the House. I waited until the hon. member for York South had completed his remarks, but I should like to ascertain whether or not the $100 million and the conditions and so on that he talked about in his motion are the same as the $100 million and the alleged conditions contained in Bill C 244. I take it that is the intent of the motion.
If that is the case, then if we speak about the other points that were made with respect to the purpose of the motion, having a vote in the House on this $100 million, and indeed on the so-called conditions attached, before the election in Saskatchewan-though that is not important to my point of order-and we argue the reasons for
the other parts of Bill C-244, then I suggest that we will be paralleling a debate on a subject that has been initiated in the House and is currently before a standing committee of the House for disposition and report back to the House. Therefore I find it difficult to respond to the wording of the motion unless we are allowed to trespass upon a matter that is already before the House in Bill C-244.


David Lewis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the motion was very carefully drawn-I know that is the case because I participated in drawing it-so as to make clear that it was not to be a duplicate debate. We are asking for the immediate pay-out of a minimum of $100 million without conditions and in addition to other farm assistance programs. I point out that Bill C-244 not only proposes payment of $100 million but also proposes to eliminate from present assistance programs, if I remember correctly, the legislation dealing with storage payments and also-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Now you are duplicating the debate on that bill.


David Lewis: -eliminate PFAA. It is proposed to eliminate certain farm assistance programs, and the $100 million provided in that bill is intended to take their place.
I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that this does not impinge on the other legislation precisely because of the wording of the motion. I could take the time to indicate very briefly that, as I understand Bill C-244, the result of it would not be to pay out $100 million additional to the grain growers of western Canada but would result in the paying out of no more than $40 million or $50 million additional to these farmers. This motion very clearly calls for a pay-out of a minimum of $100 million.
The Minister of Agriculture may find it difficult to speak to the motion for a number of reasons. He may even have some conscience about the subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. The Chair is ready to hear comments on the point of order but it cannot allow hon. members to debate the position taken by other members; that can be done when we debate the motion. The remarks of hon. members should be related directly to the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will forgive me if I suggest that he was not entirely clear as to the point of order he was raising. Perhaps he was raising two points of order, and, if so, I should like to comment upon them. If he was raising a point of order as to the validity of the motion, then I suggest he is half an hour late. The Chair put the motion and no questions were asked at that time. I suggest that to question the validity of the motion at this point is hardly appropriate. On the other hand, if that is not his point of order and he is accepting the validity of the motion but is asking that hon. members speak to the motion rather than debate some other bill, then I think this is a hypothetical point that should be

June 8, 1971

raised if and when members transgress and speak about another bill instead of the motion.
In my view, the hon. member for York South was not doing this. If any member does so, then the minister can raise a point of order and object. I suggest that the Chair has already put the motion-I am now speaking about the first of what I think were two points of order-so it is before the House and therefore no point of order is appropriate at this time. If hypothetically hon. members do transgress and veer from the subject before the House, then it is up to the Chair at that time to ask members to speak to the motion before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the minister rising on the point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point raised by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture is very pertinent, particularly in view of the manner in which the leader of the New Democratic Party framed his remarks in dealing with the $100 million. The hon. member for York South suggested that his motion was very carefully drafted, and presumably he meant to have it both ways. On the one hand, he drafted the motion in terms that would allow it to be put; on the other hand, it was also drafted in terms that would allow him to discuss matters which, if they were actually put in the motion, would not have permitted debate. It is clear that the $100 million is exactly the same as the $100 million in the other bill in view of the fact that that pay-out would also be $100 million without conditions, unless of course we regard the manner of paying, the acreage base and so on, as conditions, which I submit would not be ordinarily construed to be such.
I submit that the two amounts are in effect the same and in that sense the motives for the motion were clouded. These motives have now been clarified by the hon. member in whose name the motion stands, and it seems to me that the defect relates back to the beginning.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the point of order that has been raised. I have followed the debate extensively on Bill C-244 and I was listening behind the curtain to a great deal of what the leader of the New Democratic Party said when he put this motion forward. I suggest there is a similarity. I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the motion before the House condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced the incomes of western farmers and threaten the future of the entire rural community in Canada.
This aspect is not dealt with in Bill C-244. At the present time discussions are going on between the Minister of Agriculture and the provincial Ministers of Agriculture regarding government action that would drastically reduce the farm population of Canada from 480,000 farmers to 150,000, which is the goal of the government. The minister's department has issued a 20-page document dealing with how that program can be achieved with the co-operation of the provinces.
This is the heart and soul of the motion before the House: Are we going to eliminate the farmers? If we do, 24107-591
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
will we also do away with the rural communities as we understand them? If this is the case, then can urban society as we now know it accept another 300,000 farmers who are untrained for other work, unprepared, and who do not want to live within an urban society? I repeat, this is the heart and soul of the motion. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that it is a very worthwhile motion and that the minister should take heart and listen to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair appreciates the remarks made by all hon. members on the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture. Some of the remarks bring us right to the problem itself, namely, that it is not permissible to allow speeches in one debate to relate to another piece of legislation already before the House or before a standing committee of the House. The Chair is also aware of that fact but, as mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the motion was already put and it is before the House at this time. The Chair feels there was ample time to raise the point of order and that it should have been raised at the first opportunity.
On the other hand, in looking at the motion it appears that the main point is not directly related to the $100 million. In the opinion of the Chair it is related to the situation facing the farmers of Canada. This situation could perhaps be solved in many ways by spending money. In addition, the Chair did not find it difficult to accept the presentation by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I feel that his remarks were within the confines of the motion and did not impinge on the rules of the House, nor did they relate to Bill C-244 which is at present before the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
In the circumstances the Chair feels the motion is acceptable and will allow the debate to continue.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate. To some extent I am glad the motion as drafted was challenged because we will now have an opportunity to clear the air and find out what is at the heart of government policies as they have affected western Canada. I find it rather strange that the New Democratic Party would introduce a motion of this sort prior to an election with the hope that the government's policy for the payment of $100 million might somehow save them. That is rather awkward reasoning, to say the least. If anyone had anything to gain, it would be those who would be inclined to support the government in this regard.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am wondering whether he might agree that the explanation for them moving this motion is perhaps because of their embarrassment over the fact it is well known in Saskatchewan they are blocking the other piece of legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a question.

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be other speakers from that party during the course of the day who will provide their own explanation.


Otto Emil Lang: Oh, come on.


Stanley James Korchinski: I fully subscribe to the suggestion that the effect of past, present and future government policies has been to put western economy in a depressed position. Perhaps the government is somewhat embarrassed over the thought that provincial reaction will ferret out weaknesses in the government's plans and people will have an opportunity to discuss them at some length.
Let us consider the situation in respect of railway stations now scheduled for closure. I do not have any major cities in my riding, but I do have some communities of a fair size such as Preeceville and Carrot River with populations of between 2,500 and 3,000. They had substantial economies but as a result of government policies over the years the railway companies came to the conclusion these stations had to go. I see nothing on the horizon to indicate that the government will attempt to intercede on behalf of these communities. The remaining smaller communities in terms of population have all been abandoned so far as rail service is concerned. One can travel 50 or 60 miles without finding a railway station in my constituency. This is proof of what we are going through as a result of government policy or the lack thereof.
I wonder why the motion is drafed in terms relating simply to $100 million, because I find this unacceptable. If we attempted to bring the western agricultural economy back to where it was and make it a viable area which might survive for some time, we would have to adopt a number of the policies suggested by the task force. There is a need for a greater injection of cash into that economy in one form or another. Only this morning at a committee meeting we were told of an amount of approximately $250 million paid out under a plan. These are figures arrived at by the department. In these terms $100 million is very unacceptable considering that the results of some of the government's policies mean a complete abandonment of government responsibility.
I have in mind the stockpiling of uranium, assistance to the gold mining industry and assistance to companies such as Ford of Canada. These are industries which came to the government and received assistance. I cannot comprehend why the government is today abandoning its responsibility toward the farming industry. This is obvious in view of the relatively small amount it is prepared to pay and the large amounts being spent on other programs. Some of these programs are not new but represent an abandonment of existing programs which had in fact been serving a purpose.
I suppose there does come a time with all legislation introduced into the House when amendments and changes are required, but I do not understand how the government can abandon a policy which has had the result of a cash infusion into the western economy. Certainly there has been a need for this infusion in the last three or four years, far more so than in the previous five or six years.
I remember that three years ago we had a severe crop failure as a result of frost damage. The grain was damp and farmers had to make additional expenditures to dry the grain. This meant that in addition to the lower returns because of low grades there was the added expense of drying and storing the grain. At that time we pleaded with the government for some measure of assistance to help us out of a very awkward situation. Moreover, we suddenly found that because of bungling here and there ships were waiting at ports but could not be loaded. There was not enough grain and some ships were turned away. This all resulted from government planning.
Last year was a 15-year low in terms of grain sales. That also added a depressing factor to the western economy. This year with a few grain sales one must think about the result. People are inclined to make comparisons and when they read about grain sales they think in terms of quotas. We have heard the minister refer to the question of quotas. He tells us we will have an eight-bushel quota. But when one thinks in terms of quotas today the eight-bushel quota on grain is equivalent to a five-bushel or six-bushel quota years ago. Today we have an entirely different basis on which to calculate the amount of grain.
We also went through the period of the Lift program. At that time the government immediately batted about -and this is a game the government plays-the suggestion that it would represent something like $140 million. The government asked what the farmers were complaining about because they would get $140 million. The net result after a fairly long period under the program is a pay-out of approximately $53 million.
The government is now in the midst of introducing several other bills. It hopes, for example, to pass Bill C-244. There will no longer be an initial quota. It is interesting to note that there was a pay-out in 1968-69 of over $100 million. That was an actual pay-out from the consolidated revenue fund. This year, as was amply pointed out by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), when one calculates the result of the loss on storage it will amount to something like $40 million.
It is rather confusing to talk about $100 million in respect of this motion and the other legislation when in actual fact the amount of money to be paid out will be far less and probably in the order of $40 million. In addition, for years to come we will have a further complication in respect of storage facilities. In the planning stages there have been discussions by the elevator companies concerning the possible elimination of certain storage facilities, because the government no longer feels that grain in storage in itself is an asset. The farmers in an effort to make as much money as possible or, if you like, save as much money as possible will also be seeking

June 8, 1971

to reduce their storage. The government in this regard is abdicating its responsibility and the net result is we have lost stations in many communities and will lose many elevators which will further complicate the situation in that it will increase the cost of production in those areas. This is all part and parcel of the government's planning.
We have heard so much about Bill C-176. This is part and parcel of the bureaucratic planning on behalf of the industry. It is supposed to do great things for the industry. Without going into the ramifications, I might say that when one talks to farmers one is frightened by their reaction. In the initial stages when this bill came before the House I was somewhat impressed by the fact that at that time the government felt it was in the interest of the industry. To some extent even our NDP friends shied away because it was part and parcel of the national marketing idea they had batted around for years. At various stages of the discussion of the bill they were reluctant to show any opposition to it as a plan which they thought was acceptable to them. Part of their philosophy involves government bureaucratic planning and they consider this the only way to solve some problems.
The government's consolidation program on which the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) touched is another program with a far-reaching effect. What does consolidation mean? It simply means a small farm is added on to another farm. This means the eventual elimination of farmers. I do not see how we can consolidate and still have as many farms. In addition there are bound to be fewer producers. When the agricultural committee was studying the whole question of farm machinery prices the president of what was then Massey-Ferguson came before us and waved a headline. That was in 1961 or 1962. The headline announced a large sale of grain. He was happy because this meant they could increase the price of farm machinery. That is exactly what happens. There are many people who are willing to help relieve the farmer of any income he obtains. It is almost as if they have the first claim on his income. As one goes through the country one notices the new offices and facil-ties the banks are building. All these things are paid for by the interest payments made in and around those communities.
As a matter of fact, we end up with the credit unions and banks in competition when everything else is falling apart. When other businesses fall apart the banking fraternity seems to be able to increase its facilities and services. We have reached the point where everybody is involved in mortgages.
This brings to mind the situation which existed in Cuba. The reason for the Cuban revolt really was that the people wanted to have a piece of land that was really theirs. Whether it is a large corporation or the government which owns the land the net result is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member. Since it is one o'clock I must now leave the Chair. The House will resume its work at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I was suggesting that the government's policy with regard to farm consolidation is unacceptable in the light of present circumstances, as well as in the light of the past experiences of some other countries. I was remarking that in Cuba, where some land was owned by landlords, the Cubans took it upon themselves to change that system, perhaps in a more violent way than one would care to see in this country. They felt that consolidation was unacceptable in view of unemployment. We in Canada find ourselves in a similar situation, and if the present trend is continued by this government it will eventually lead us into an unhappy situation. As farms are consolidated into larger and larger holdings, the unemployed who are massed in urban areas will ask why the land holdings have to be so large, regardless of whether these holdings are private property, government holdings or those of the Farm Credit Corporation.
This government policy will lead farmers to say that they do not care whether or not they own the land. The government is already in the business of confiscating some of this mortgaged land. That will be unacceptable from the point of view of production. I have had an opportunity of visiting some of the communist countries, such as Poland and Russia, where I found that production was very poor. The explanation provided by most people was that individuals lacked incentive. In the case of Poland, the government of that country had to turn over part of the land that was state owned to private individuals. This provided greater incentive for production, and the net result of the reversal in their policy was increased productivity.
Surely, we should learn a lesson from these countries. We do not want a situation where violence would be almost necessary. On the other hand, we do not want efficiency to be decreased. I pointed out previously that the redistribution of some of the wealth may be necessary. The government's proposal, as set out in one of the bills, would indicate that whereas in the past the infusion of government money into the western economy was in the order of eight to one, at present the ratio is one to one; in other words, the amount deducted from the producer himself is equivalent to the amount contributed by the government. This fact was amply demonstrated in the Prime Minister's speech on June 2, 1968 when he outlined what was then the Liberal policy. This policy has resulted in the effort to consolidate farms rather than have a government infusion of cash. It is true there is a time when one should put on the brakes, but there is also a need to see that the lives of these people are not disturbed to the point that they become so disappointed they simply walk away from a life's work and effort. On three occasions another administration, then headed by-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must do so in order to advise

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers him that his time has expired. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we have an opportunity to discuss some of the matters raised in the motion before the House this afternoon, as well as an opportunity to deal with some of the arguments made in relation to that motion.
I must agree that some very severe problems are associated with the decline in the gross receipts from any commodity, particularly when that commodity looms as large in our total agricultural economy as does grain. It is a fact that there has been a decline in receipts in the latest year for which full statistics are available, that being 1969-70, from some of the years in the recent past, particularly during the prior five years. That fact brings along with it some of the problems referred to by hon. members with respect to the amount of net farm income that these producers receive. Certainly, while there has been a decline in demand for these commodities in world markets, there has not been a corresponding decline in costs of production. I am the first to admit that this is the situation we have faced in the last two years or so.
Canada is not alone in this situation. I do not think that any member of this House will disagree that in dealing in an international market, where many countries have to compete in the price and volume associated with that market, comparisons with such countries are valid. As hon. members know, the crop year transcends the calendar year to some extent and as far as Canada is concerned between 1969 and 1970 gross cash receipts declined from $4,192 million to $4,166 million, or some $26 million, a very small percentage. I acknowledge that there was a larger decline in the grains sector than in over-all agricultural commodity sales. In some sectors of the agricultural economy, there was actually an increase between 1969 and 1970.
As I said a moment ago, we need to draw comparisons. For example, Australia also has a very large interest in international markets as far as her grain production is concerned. I am sure hon. members present will agree that perhaps Australia is the country with the greatest relevance for Canada. Over 50 per cent and even as high as 75 per cent to 80 per cent of that country's grain production goes into the international market; that is about the same as Canada. We need to make these comparisons with countries having a relevant situation. In Australia, the total cash receipts for 1969-70 declined from $1,050 million to $890 million for 1970-71. What we are talking about here, of course, is a very difficult situation of over-supply in relation to the effective demand in the international grains market. Canada's farmers had some difficulty with that, but they were not alone.
I should like to move on to the next step which I think is important, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, a federal government such as we have in Canada has some responsibility to be helpful in that type of situation. In 1969-70 the federal treasury transferred into the grains economy $66.3 million through the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, about $12 million under the Prairie Grain Advance
Payments Act-that was only for the payment of interest on this money-$57 million under the Wheat Acreage Diversion Program, $6 million for the payment of interest on credit sales, about $73 million went into the purchase of food aid from this sector of our agricultural economy and $1.1 million under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for a total of about $215 million during that year. Although some amount of this was paid in the first part of the year, I am not going to argue that this $215 million fully compensates for the difference in the gross cash receipts that farmers received in years from 1963 to 1968. These years registered the highest in terms of total cash receipts that farmers ever received from the sale of grain. I think we have to agree that this went some distance in attempting to alleviate what was recognized as a very difficult situation for the farmers.
I hope my colleague, the hon. minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt, will intervene later in the debate and deal with some of the other specific programs that we have undertaken to relieve this situation. In the event that he is unable to participate, or that his time will be occupied in another very important agricultural debate taking place in one of the committees, I should like to point out briefly that since the end of the period for which these statistics are available there has been a marked improvement in the international situation as far as our volume is concerned. We expect that the export of all grains in the current crop year, and this started over ten months ago, will equal and indeed exceed the previous record of 685 million bushels established in the crop year 1963-64. For example, barley and rapeseed exports will reach an alltime record level and wheat exports will be the highest in history, excluding the three exceptional years from 1964 to 1967.
We have to take these things into account. We also have to consider whether the action of the Canadian government and the agencies involved in selling grain to the international market did, in fact, assist in improving the market. It could be argued pretty successfully that the Lift program and the reduction in Australia and the United States, led us to the present situation where the marketing prospects for this grain look substantially better. Whether it will be maintained for X number of years or months no one can tell, but that has been the history of the grains industry as far as Canada is concerned. We know very well that not only in the grains sector but in other agricultural commodities we now possess the production technology and land resources to overproduce almost any commodity we wish in a very short period of time. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we can overproduce all commodities at the same time if we apply this production technology to all of them. Hopefully, future results will be considerably better than they have been in the past.
Since our time in this debate is limited, may I turn to a number of other matters. One of those matters other hon. members have referred to relates to the efficacity of the Canadian farmer. I agree, as I have said many times, that
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
June 8, 1971

the efficiency of the Canadian farmer has been demonstrated. Since world war II, the increase in productivity with respect to agricultural products has been almost twice as high as the increase shown by all other sectors of the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, the benefit of a large part of this increased productivity has been passed on to others; some say to the middle man, others to the consumer. It is certain that the primary producer has not received the benefit of all that increase in productive efficiency during these past few years. There are some additional steps that we ought to take for the purpose of claiming for the primary producer some of the results of this increase in efficiency. An important element in this is the need for farmers to have greater influence and input with respect to marketing arrangements for farm products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have proposed a bill to parliament that
would set up a structure under which that could be done. We believe that it is essential for us to proceed with provisions for marketing arrangements that will be acceptable to the producer and that will also be in concert with the wishes of provincial governments which have some jurisdiction in this field. I cannot predict this afternoon how soon we may reach the position in which farmers themselves will become more directly involved in the marketing of their products. All I can do is repeat what we have done and express my hope that this goal will be achieved soon.
May I say this, too. Simply passing the marketing legislation that is before Parliament now will not solve the whole problem. The legislation will merely provide the legal framework on which we can negotiate with the provinces and with producer representatives in order to find a way that will increase the farmer's influence and, hopefully, the return to the producer as a result of that action. I hope that we can proceed on this matter. I repeat what I have said many times across the country: In my opinion, since our farmers are now possessed of the advanced production technology I have referred to, the greatest return to the producer and the best way to enhance his position is through the establishment of marketing techniques as opposed to other methods. Government subsidies, transfers out of the treasury and that sort of thing ought to be used from time to time for helping the producers of a particular commodity over some rough spots in the marketing of their products. No member of the House sincerely believes that that course is a panacea that will help agriculture over a long period of time.
A great deal has been said this afternoon about the small farms adjustment program that we have been negotiating with the provinces for some time. I think it would be useful for me to say a few words about that program so that there is no misunderstanding in the minds of hon. members or of farmers who may be affected by this program as to what is being proposed. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, may I say what this program is not. May I talk about its negative aspects first. First, this program is not designed to force any farmers into accept-
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
ing the options that are being made available under the program. The farmer will make his own choice. If you look at the history of small farm units and the degree of attrition that has taken place with respect to the total number of farm units-most of the units involved are small farm units-I think you will agree that this attrition has been brought about as a result of advancing production technology and efficacity. These trends will probably continue.
The farmer, no more than any other worker in our society, likes to be in the position of not using his talents and his time to full advantage. He does not like to use 50 per cent, 40 per cent or 30 per cent of his capability. All people like to use their full time and their full talents and energies in the occupation in which they are engaged. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that fewer and fewer people will be required to produce the total food requirements for our domestic use and for those markets available to us in the international field. So, we have come up with a small farms adjustment policy or program that offers three options to farmers who will qualify. When I talk about qualifying, I am sure hon. members will expect us to start at the bottom end of the scale and take those farmers in greatest difficulty, with the smallest units in relation to the size of economic units needed for the production of the particular commodity they raise. We should begin there and work up through the system as rapidly as funds will permit and as quickly as farmers wish to participate in that program.
We have suggested, therefore, that we start with farm units with a value of $20,000 or less. On a unit of that size, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe a man and his family can make a living or sufficient income to provide a decent living. The three options we are offering are these: first, for the particular farmer in that position who is either near or at retirement age, there is a program that we are suggesting under which he could make use of the assets he has acquired in this farm unit plus some subsidy. These, put together, would form a retirement package that would allow him to withdraw from agricultural production with some dignity and security. That is one option. The second option we are offering under the program


David Lewis: How much a month would he get?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That would depend on the amount of his assets plus the subsidy. I could go into some of those details, although there is not time for that now. I am prepared to send my hon. friend the 20 or 22 page explanation of what is involved in that program.


David Lewis: I have read it and the monthly payment is pretty low.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The second option that we are offering to those farmers who are younger,-


David Lewis: It is about $100 a month.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -and whose farm units are also too small to produce a reasonable return for themselves and their

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers families is this: We are suggesting that a farmer in that position use the assets and equity he has in the farm unit, together with some subsidization from the federal treasury, in order to give him sufficient resources to obtain some skill and enable him to provide for himself and his family during the transitional period of withdrawal from agriculture. He may undertake the necessary retraining and acquire skills so that he can find a place for himself in society in an occupation other than farming.
There is a third option suggested for other farmers who are not old enough to be near retirement and who want to continue in farming. In that case we are suggesting that some counselling and farm management service be provided. In addition, special credits should be provided so that he can acquire other small farm units and consolidate them into a unit which is large enough to provide him and his family with a decent living after expenses have been paid.
We think all three of his options should be considered together. Certainly, if some farmers are to retire and others are to withdraw from farming to go to other sectors of our economy, we need some people to pick up these small farm units and consolidate them into units large enough to provide a decent return. It may be, and this would be a very small part of the over-all program, that we may wish to use the land contained in some of the small farm units that are located in the areas of marginal or sub-marginal capability in so far as the soil is concerned for some other purpose. A number of suggestions have been made. Reforestation has been suggested, as well as using some land for recreational and other purposes. I do not want to get into the details of those suggestions. There may be some in that category.
It is essential that we make arrangements with the provinces in advance as to the disposition of this kind of land. This is one of the aspects we are discussing with the provinces at the present time. Certainly, we in the Department of Agriculture do not wish to become landlords of great numbers of farm units. I want to make it very clear that if there are any transfers for other purposes, these will be or at least ought to be made after a transitional period with the co-operation of the provinces.
There is one other important area of this ajustment program. We do not wish to enter into a program and set up all of the administrative machinery that is necessary if any part of it is going to duplicate what the provinces are already providing. For example, in those provinces where there are counselling and farm management services available, these services should be used. They should be co-ordinated with this small farms adjustment program so there is not a duplication and, even more important, that there is not a competition between various levels of government in offering these programs.
I hope hon. members will discontinue the argument that we are trying to drive these people out of agriculture and that we are going to set out on a policy that will force a reduction of perhaps 50 or 60 per cent in the
number of farmers in this country. We know that the total number is now being reduced. This program is designed to give some assistance in being helpful to people in those situations who may want to choose one of the options we will be offering. I see that my time is rapidly running out. Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about some of the other commodities. I have been dealing with those commodities with which there have been the most difficult problems during the past few years.
Typically, all members who have participated in the debate so far have concentrated on these commodities rather than mentioning some of the other commodity groups where there has been an improvement from last year to this year and, indeed, a gradual improvement for the past four or five years. For example, beef looms very large in the total of the agriculture production in Canada. One year ago, Mr. Speaker, choice slaughter steers were selling on the Toronto market for 33.5 cents a pound. For the week ending May 29 this year, they were selling for 34.5 cents a pound. I remind hon. members that the price was substantially less than that three years ago. During the same week last year, they were selling on the Winnipeg market for 33.3 cents and at 34.25 cents in 1971. In Calgary the price increased from 32.4 cents to 33.4 cents. While this is not a large increase, it indicates that there has been sufficient to cover the increased cost of production during the past year.
The dairy sector is one area where there has been a remarkable, almost a dramatic improvement in the marketing situation during the past 12 months. About one year or perhaps 18 months ago, we had great quantities of skim milk powder and some other dairy products. Attempts were made to sell very large quantities in the international market at prices less than half of our support price in Canada. At that time, our support price under the Canadian Dairy Commission was approximately 20 cents a pound for skim milk powder. About a year and a half ago, we were getting six to seven cents in the international market. This was partly because of the supplies that Canada had on hand and partly because of the large supplies of this product that were available in a number of other countries, particularly inside the European economic community.
A year ago we embarked on a very difficult change in the dairy policy of Canada. We substantially increased the holdback on shipments that were made in excess of quota. I know there was some criticism, but as a result of that and other changes in the international market, we now have a much better situation. As a matter of fact, twice during this year we have increased the returns to producers on dairy products in the industrial sector. On February 8, we increased the product prices, in the case of skim milk powder from 20 cents to 24 cents and in the case of cheese from 47 cents to 51 cents. This increased the value of the milk being shipped to the producers by aoout 32 cents per hundred. Almost all, in fact 29 cents, was passed on to the producer by the processor.
On June 1, I announced that we were lowering the holdback for these producers, again increasing their

June 8, 1971

returns to some extent. All this comes about because of an improvement in the international marketplace and a reduction in the cost of surplus disposal into that market. Although you cannot predict these things forever, as far as we can see, which is several months down the road, it looks like we will have even more improvements in this sector because we have recently been making some sales of skim milk powder in the international market with no subsidies at all. Indeed, it was sold at 24 cents a pound. We have sold some cheese. In fact, for several weeks we have been selling cheese in the international market, although not in great quantities. Some of these sales have been with no subsidy or, in other words, above our support price of 51 cents per pound.
In conclusion, total cash receipts for farmers in 1970 were down a little from the 1967 receipts, from $4,192 million to $4,166 million. This was almost entirely due to the difficult grain marketing situation. On the other hand, there were many areas where the total cash receipts were up. They were up in the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and British Columbia from levels a year earlier. There is a reason for that. The total cash receipts for Saskatchewan had been affected much more profoundly by the grain sales in the year before. Receipts from sales of livestock and products rose from $2.5 billion in 1969 to $2,624 billion in 1970. Receipts from sales of cattle and calves, hogs, dairy products and poultry were all higher in 1970 than in 1969. Then again, receipts from particular commodities such as rye, flaxseed, rapeseed, soya beans, potatoes, many vegetables and tobacco were all higher in 1970 than in 1969. The Wheat Board's net cash advance payments figures were, of course, down from $157 million in 1969 to $105 million in 1970. So it is not fair or just or accurate to say, as did the leader of the New Democratic Party, that income receipts were down in respect of all commodities in all areas. That is simply not so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Minister of Agriculture but I must do so in order to advise him his time has expired.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) concerning the situation of Canada's farmers.
He said for instance that the government had decided to encourage an increase in farm acreages in order to ensure higher incomes for farmers. This is not a new policy. There were attempts in the past to group a number of units for a farmer who had to increase his income, but these experiments were not too successful in most instances.
Agriculture in both eastern and western Canada is in such a mess that farmers can hardly live on the income from their land. Is it not a fact that we are witnessing an exodus of our young farm people toward the cities, toward other centres where they expect to earn an income which will allow them to keep their farms since actually the farm can no longer afford a living to the farmer?
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
Mr. Speaker, the NDP motion is specific enough and it reads as follows:
That this House condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced the income of western farmers and threaten the future of Canada's entire rural community, and, in view-
-and this is very important-
-of the financial crisis of western farmers, calls on the government to consider the advisability of an immediate payout-
-whether there is production or not-
-to them of a minimum of $100,000,000 without conditions and in addition to other farm assistance programs.
It means that over and above whatever is now granted to western farmers, $100 million must be paid out to them immediately because they are going through a severe financial crisis.
Mr. Speaker, since there will be a provincial election in Saskatchewan on June 23 next, I wonder whether copies of the speech made by the New Democratic Party leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), will be distributed in Saskatchewan in an effort to collect votes in favour of his party's candidates out there.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party is forgetting that Saskatchewan has already amply enjoyed government by his party for the past 17 years, a government which has allowed citizens of that province to migrate to Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba-


David Lewis: That is not true.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for York South is hiding behind the curtain and says: That is not true. But official statistics reveal that Saskatchewan is the only province in western Canada where the population decreased, under an NDP government. Why did that government after 17 years in power fail to get re-elected in Saskatchewan? Why? It was defeated by a former CCF, Mr. Ross Thatcher, who was here around 1945, 1947, 1948 and who has become the Liberal premier of Saskatchewan in 1964.
I do not blame the hon. member for York South, whom I highly consider, for being interested in politics since there will be an election in Saskatchewan on June 23. For the whole of Canada, the member for York South introduces a motion requesting that $100 million be distributed immediately to the Western farmers who are going through a severe financial crisis. I went there and met some farmers: it is true that they are having a hard time.
But the western farmers, those of Saskatchewan, are not the only ones who are having a bad time of it. In fact, the first organization to have severe financial troubles is the federal government: it cannot meet any demand. The farmers out West are no worse off than those of eastern Canada.
Barely two weeks ago, I met some eastern farmers. I also met some of the employees of Massey Ferguson in Brant, where just the other day an NDP member was elected, not because the people are socialists out there,
6482

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
but because the personality of the candidate impressed the voters in Brant. That is why the New Democratic party won the constituency of Brant, and I advise the hon. member for York South accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, the financial crisis is widespread. We have just learned that in Quebec, the Manic Automobile Company Limited, which has received many thousands of dollars in federal subsidies, has nevertheless decided to declare itself bankrupt. The Soma plant, which assembles the small Renault cars, is about to close its doors, if deficits keep on growing. Textile plants at Lachute are closing, and the same will happen in the Eastern Townships, in the Saint-Maurice region, in October 1971, and at Montmagny as well. Those are facts relating to the industrial field.
Agriculture is also facing a financial crisis. Money is lacking, not intelligence or good will, for the 800,000 unemployed want to work. The 1,500,000 students who are now seeking summer jobs would like to be part of Canadian society, but they are told: We have no money. Credits of $27 million were voted to help our young people. What does it represent? A mere drop in the ocean!
If a war broke out tomorrow, those 1,500,000 young people would be drafted. It would no longer be a matter of $27 or $50 million; billions would be found to give them decent food, clothes and shelter. Ways would be devised to finance their integration into the Canadian armed forces. Yet, we do not seem able to work out ways of making them part of society in peace time. That is what is wrong with the system.
There is the same problem throughout the country. Corn producers in Ontario complain they are facing a financial crisis. Everywhere from east to west, we are told the same thing: There is a financial crisis! Instead of getting directly at the source of the financial crisis, the government is pitting one region against the other. Western farmers tell me: "If we do not have enough, it is because Ottawa is giving too much to the East". When I am in the Maritimes, I am told the same thing: "If we do not have enough it is because the federal govemement is giving too much to western farmers".
The hon. member for York South is well aware of the squabbling which exists in Canada and which is destroying Canadian unity. This is well known. Why? Because nobody is trying to get to the root of the evil.
The roots of this evil, Mr. Speaker, are not to be found in the pockets of millionaires. I hear members of the New Democratic Party saying: "Down with exploiters, down with big business, let us get at the rich and help the poor". If we were to collect $200 million a month from the rich and distribute the amount among the population, what would they get? Ten dollars each. Would we make them rich? No! We would thus make the rich poorer by $200 million. We would have more poor and this would increase the consumers' wealth.
The deep-rooted cause of the problem lies with the financial system. We will at long last have to make up our mind to correct its faults and use our national financial institution, the Bank of Canada, in a rational and effective way. In fact, nothing keeps us from doing so. But so long as we do not do that, we shall be beset by a lack of unity, quarrels, and current problems in Canada. The hon. member for York South knows what he is talking about, to be sure.
About one year ago, I was in Winnipeg where a convention of the New Democratic Party was being held in view of the recent convention at which the hon. member for York South was chosen as party leader. One evening, I was watching a news broadcast on television about the New Democratic Party convention and I heard the hon. member for York South repeat what he says quite often in this House. He was speaking against the Americans, both fists raised, and he said: Our economy is controlled by the Americans. It has to stop. A New Democratic government would put an end to any abuse and control of our Canadian economy by the Americans. The young people as well as the others were shouting their satisfaction in the arena where the convention was taking place. Everyone was happy to hear such statements from the hon. member for York South who seemed quite sincere.
In Manitoba, it just happens that the New Democratic Party is in power. The premier, the Hon. Edward Schry-er sat here, as the member for Selkirk, I think. During the Winnipeg convention, the hon. Mr. Schryer spoke to the delegates. Well, the next evening, after having heard the leader of the New Democratic party on the radio, I heard the Minister of Finance in the NDP government of Manitoba who had just returned from a visit to United States

a country of exploiters who want to control the Canadian economy-say:	I was exceptionally well
received by the Americans who rolled out the red carpet and granted us a loan of $50 million for the construction of a power-station in Manitoba.


Donald MacInnis: Why not?


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way asks "why not", when we are, at this very moment, fighting against American control of our natural resources!
Either the hon. member for York South or the Minister of Finance of the new NDP government was lying the following night. One does not want any American control, while the other seeks it in order to develop the natural resources of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that the NDP government is worse than the Quebec government. The Liberal premier of Quebec went to the United States to borrow $75 million at 9 per cent interest for 25 years. Nine per cent interest for 25 years. Did the Quebec premier return from New York and Washington with whole sackfuls of American dollars? No. He came back with a slip of paper on which was written $75 million, signed by Robert Bourassa endorsed by the Province of Quebec.
[Mr. Caouette.l
June 8, 1971

Not a single five cent piece left the United States but Mr. Bourassa came back with a slip of paper worth $75 million.
A few days later, Premier Bourassa went to Germany, France, Italy, England to borrow money. Did he come back with whole sackfuls of German marks, French francs, Italian liras and English Pounds? No, he came back again with slips of paper with figures on them.
Why was Premier Bourassa not allowed to have the figures printed by the Bank of Canada instead of by American and German bankers allegedly because we must diversify our loans in order to help farmers and all other people in Quebec?
How could we cause greater inflation by having $75 million produced in Canada, by the Bank of Canada instead of going to Germany, Russia or the United States? The difference would be in the interest that must be paid to others.
And while Premier Bourassa was borrowing money everywhere, in Europe, in the United States, Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, lackey of this government, who is working for the agency giving assistance to underdeveloped countries, was in India, granting interest-free loans for 50 years! Do you think that Paul Gerin-Lajoie left Canada with whole sackfuls of Canadian dollars? No, he went with a little piece of paper bearing the words $40 million interest free for 50 years and that, while Premier Bourassa was in Europe to borrow money bearing interest at 8 and 9 per cent. Such logic!
This can be said to the Liberals while the member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) comes to my constituency to say that I am opposed to interest-free loans to foreign countries. If it were permitted to say that he is a liar I would say so but since it is forbidden I will not. However-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Although I was not in the House when the member for Temis-camingue began his remarks, I am wondering how he can connect them with the motion and I invite him to conclude his digression as soon as possible.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, while helping the western farmers with $100 million, we are going as far as helping at the same time the farmers in India with an interest-free loan of $40 million. Therefore my remarks were not so irrelevant. Money is found to help others and we should also be able to find some money to help not only western agriculture but all the other sectors of our economy.
This problem does not concern agriculture only: it is general throughout the country. When I give as an example the action of people who try to introduce a motion for purely political purposes and because an election is to take place in Saskatchewan, I think I am saying something pertinent.
In any event, this motion will not solve the problems of the western farmers. The Minister of Agriculture is well aware of the solution. If he were still a Creditiste he would speak as we do, as he used to do a few years back
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
and he would find where the problem lies because he could find it some years ago when he was a member of our party.
He would accept to tell the government exactly what he thinks. However, at the present time, he is caught inside the cabinet: solidarity prevents him from speaking his mind. He smiles while listening to us; that reminds him of happy memories, when he spoke exactly as we do, some years ago, while he stood up for the farmers-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I still do.


David Réal Caouette: -as no hon. member had ever done before. Today, he supports the farmers by telling them: Be happy with what you have, we are doing our best.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


David Réal Caouette: When asked: What are you doing?, they reply: Not much, we are doing what we can. But what are the results? There are none yet, but there will be some. We are going to dispossess two, three, four or five farmers, in order to establish a collective farming unit or a larger one designed for two farmers who will get into debt over their heads. Nobody will ever see their ears again as long as they live because they will be so deep into debts.
The Minister of Agriculture considers such a solution excellent for helping the western farmers. Even if $100 million or $200 million were granted, that would not be the proper solution. The only solution to get agriculture back on its feet is to allow consumers to buy products suited to their needs.


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


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was somewhat intrigued when the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) started out by telling us how badly off the Australian farmers were and that the Canadian grain farmers were no worse off.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I didn't. I started with Canadians. [English]


Alfred Pullen Gleave: He wound up by giving us figures to show that the Canadian farmers were really quite well off. When he compared the Canadian farmers to the Australian farmers, he reminded me of the story of a chap who felt badly because his hogs were sick and dying. He went over to see if his neighbour knew anything about the disease. His neighbour said his hogs were sick and dying as well. The first farmer said: "Well, it ain't as bad as I thought it was". This story came to my mind as the minister was talking.
The minister then took our first speaker to task for his attitude and what he said about the adjustment program. I say to the minister he should not be surprised by the conclusions which are drawn with regard to this program. If one goes back to the task force recommendations, he can draw the clear conclusion that this consolidation program was recommended by the task force. Let
24107-60a

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers me read the final paragraph on the production oi a grain receipts policy for the western grain industry, as set out by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Under the heading "Encourage adjustment of farm units to more efficient sizes", I read:
The problem of farm consolidation is one which is not peculiar to the prairie region and which, perhaps, is less critical in this region than in other areas of Canada. It is therefore believed that it would be inappropriate to propose programs for the prairie region to deal with the consolidation issue in advance of the availability of programs to deal with this problem in Canadian agriculture generally. Such a general plan is in preparation.
The report refers to a consolidation program which is under way. It does not say anything else. Let me read from page 6 of the minister's own document put out on March 8 regarding policies required. Time does not permit me to read it all, but I will read what I think is the operative paragraph.
The second main group of policies involves several subsets of policies designed to control the direction and rate of these adjustments in line with the needs of the market. These include policies to increase economic incentives to shift, for example, from wheat to forage, from dairy to beef, or from farm to nonfarm employment. They depend for their operational efficiency on the effectiveness of the first set of programs-those designed to increase the mobility of resources and to grease the wheels of the adjustment process.
That is what is said. Neither of these documents suggest these policies are designed for the people. The first I quoted said the policy is designed to consolidate farms and the second one refers to the direction and rate of these adjustments in line with the needs of the market. I grant the minister that there is a reference to a retirement option and so on, but if the government really expect us to believe what the minister said a few moments ago it should get some new writers. These writers should be instructed to put down the words the ministers want to use. What we read in these documents causes us concern and that is why we have put forward this type of motion today. We want to emphasize the agricultural situation in western Canada, and if as a result the minister or others responsible clarify their position, redirect it and get someone else to put in writing what they want to say, then this debate has been helpful.
I think it might be useful to take a look at some of the reasons we have reached this point. We might go back to 1966 when farmers were asked to grow all the grain they could. I do not particularly fault the minister responsible at that time. It has become almost a practice of governments to claim credit for any wheat sales that are made and then, when conditions are not so good, to duck for cover until sales pick up again. This is not an unusual process. Following the negotiation of the International Grains Arrangement, we had to contend with a decline in price and in sales volume. The two came together. I could quote Canadian Wheat Board figures to show the twin trends, but I do not think it is necessary to do so. Later on, we had the devaluation of the dollar which was government policy. This was another factor in the decline of the actual gross income of grain farmer.
But now, at that point in time, what was the government's answer? Well, the first action by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board was to initiate a new cash advance program. At that time we told the minister there was an income crisis in western Canada as a result of the situation which existed in respect of grain. That was known. No one questioned the facts of the situation. So, the minister said he would bring in a new cash advance program under which the amount the farmer could borrow would be doubled. The net result was that the farmer sold the next year's crop in the present year, in an attempt to obtain some income. This process went on for two years, but did not put extra cash in the hands of the farmers. The minister can talk about the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the PFAA, which was an established program, but at the present time there are proposals to completely eliminate these programs. The net result of the cash advance program was that the farmer faced even greater difficulty.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Did he not get the money?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Sure; he got the money.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And he got into deeper difficulty by getting
money; I do not understand that.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am surprised. The minister is a rancher,
a farmer and a businessman, but he never heard of a farmer borrowing enough money to get into difficulty. I am very surprised.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is not a loan. It is an advance on grain held on the farm.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All right. I am just putting on the record
what the government proposed, and what the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who is not now in the House brought forward as policy. It did not work very well. In fact, the minister is back this week redrafting the whole policy, as well as the cash advance legislation because it was a failure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It needs improving, that is all.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All he did was restore the original provisions of the legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The farmer can now be charged interest,
and that is a pretty standard improvement for these people who are in power. They can now charge an interest rate which they could not do before.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And give loans on other grains also.


Mr. Boulanger:: You are playing Saskatchewan politics. Be honest. Do not be a socialist all your life.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why those people across the way seem to think I am concerned with Saskatchewan politics. If I were concerned about Saskatchewan politics, I would be in the same

June 8, 1971

category as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Prosper Boulanger: Don't say anything more.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, would you mind asking the hon. member across the way to cease interrupting until I have finished.


Prosper Boulanger: He does not understand your English.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Speaking about politics in Saskatchewan, I
note a newspaper report in the Ottawa Citizen in which there is the following reference to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board:
He added with a smile that he was confident Premier Koss Thatcher would be bringing the wheat sale to the attention of Saskatchewan voters during the next few weeks.
Earlier in the same article we find the following:
Mr. Lang suggested the large sale had been expedited through Prime Minister Trudeau's recent visit to the Soviet Union.
Well, I say to the boys opposite that they sure take the prize for timing, so do not start kidding me about politics in Saskatchewan.
I wish to come back again, Mr. Speaker, to the programs the government has initiated. After the cash advance program, they came along with the Lift program and said they would pay out $100 million. Somebody the other day said that more than the $100 million was committed, but that was denied. So, the government came along and said it would pay out $100 million. According to the figures the minister gave a few minutes ago, the amount that was really made available was somewhere in the area of $60 million. You know, Mr. Speaker, the farmers are still trying to collect the remainder of that money. It is past seeding time for this year and they started collecting this money away back in the previous year.
Another of the minister's answers to the situation was to tell the farmers not to grow any more wheat and not to plant any more land to barley or rapeseed. In effect, he told them to close down shop. Fortunately for the government, the farmers did not really follow his advice. They did plant some barley and some rapeseed. They planted a fair amount of acreage in both. They continued to plant some wheat. Had they not done this, the sales of rapeseed and barley the minister is bragging about would never have occurred. Had the farmers taken the advice of the minister without portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, the sales the government is bragging about could not have been made because the grain would not have been available.
You know, Mr. Speaker, one can trot out figures and say a number of things. However, these are the facts of the matter. The programs the government undertook have caused a real disruption in farming practices. It is a lucky thing we did not have a windy spring because then I do not know how large the disaster would have been. Then, the government comes along and hits the button
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers again. Back in October 1970 there were proposals in respect of the cash receipt policy for the western grain farmer. There are a number of proposals now, which the minister has said will eventually be put into legislation. One of these proposals was the payment of $100 million to help out in respect of the shortfall which it was known existed. That proposal was made in October 1970. Mr. Speaker, that $100 million has been dangled before the eyes of the farmers since that time. I could go on all through the piece.
In October, there was the announcement concerning certain proposals. Then, on March 1, there was the announcement to the House of Commons regarding initial payments on wheat, oats and barley. On March 9, there was the final revision of the grain policy proposals which were tabled in the House and were to be completed within the next two weeks. On March 15, there were the revised proposals, and again legislation was to be considered. Finally, on April 29, the government came along with definite proposals.
Now again, we see the repeat of the carrot and stick method which was used in the Lift program. On the one hand they said, "We think it would be in your interest to accept the Lift program", and on the other hand they said, 'If you do not, you will suffer under the permit system which governs your privilege to deliver grain". Under this program, they say "Yes, we have $100 million,' but before you get it we have another program which will decide your future for years to come. Before you get that $100 million you will have to sign on the dotted line". All this time the farmers have been promised $100 million. Is it any wonder that when one goes back to one's constituency, people ask when this acreage payment will be made? Is it any wonder that we receive letters asking when this acreage payment will be made? All that one can reply is, "Whenever the government is ready to do so."
The minister has accused the opposition of holding up the payment. I spoke of the time it took him to get the legislation before the House. He could have released this money at any time the government was agreeable after October 29, 1970 when he announced these proposals. All that our motion requests is that the government now do what they said they would do. Nobody is asking them to develop new proposals. All we are saying is that we want the government to do immediately what they said they would do because there is a need that it be done immediately. I suppose it is too much to hope that the government will agree to do it. If they do, then it will certainly be welcomed by farmers in western Canada.
The minister stated that the situation is not that serious. I have farmers who are under pressure to pay back farm improvement loans, which they cannot do because of lack of money. I have farmers who have had to ask the Farm Credit Corporation to allow them a delay because they did not have enough money to pay back the loans. These are not irresponsible people, they are ordinary well established farmers.

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers [Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in this debate, since I have had the pleasure of offering my co-operation to the Committee on Agriculture for nearly three years. I have read carefully the motion which was introduced today, and I have had the opportunity of listening to a few speeches.
The motion reads in part as follows:
-condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced thee income of western farmers and threaten the future of Canada's entire rural community,-*
It is very easy to condemn the government but, in all objectivity, we must be true participants and make certain suggestions.
And I am not one of those who believe that government policy alone is responsible for the difficulties encountered by western farmers at the present time. Demanding the unconditional payment of an amount of $100 million is surely unacceptable to me since we must admit that the wheat markets we had a few years ago are inexistent today and some of our customers have become competitors.
We must nevertheless admit these facts and I was quite pleased to listen a while ago to the hon. minister responsible for the Wheat Board, who spoke as much as possible on the methods that the government has tried to implement for three years.
Charges leveled by various people have been refuted, but as the leader of the Social Credit (Mr. Caouette) has also said, I do have reservations about these $100 million being granted exclusively to the western farmers.
We know very well that some western farmers are in trouble. Certainly these $100 million would be welcome in view of the Saskatchewan election. Some might say that this motion has a definite political objective, but I am too kind to make such a charge.
1 should perhaps consider the time we have spent discussing agricultural measures involving especially the western farmers since I came to this House. It made me aware of the problems of the grain producers, but does the full responsibility for those difficulties lie with the government? I shall be more objective and honest than that, and certainly I shall not blame the government alone.
As I said earlier, some circumstances made it easier for us to sell our wheat, but we know very well that nowadays we have to compete with other countries.
But 1 also think that, even though it is said in this motion that the income of farmers have decreased, we should have been more practical in the House and set a limit to some debates in order to save time. We could earlier ensure some grants to these farmers.
May I give an example. We could easily have improved incomes for some groups of farmers, not only in western Canada but also in the East-


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Joliette, but the hon. member for St. Boniface is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention on the fact that those who proposed the motion now before us, namely, the members of the New Democratic Party, are all absent from the House.


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


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. Boniface for his remark. Apparently his few words have proved efficient since already an NDP member is seen entering this House.
I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, that a matter of money is at the root of all policies but, unfortunately, the simple matter of politics is also there. Would granting $100 million to the farmers of western Canada be considered as a temporary solution? In my opinion, the government is responsible for setting down a long-term policy and the motion we are now debating which tends to claim these $100 million is still acceptable since it is also aimed at requesting that some conditions be fulfilled. I do not believe the government can deliberately grant $100 million to a certain group because of the difficulties they are experiencing. I can well imagine that tomorrow morning the government would be faced with further requests for grants of the same kind.
I particularly want to stress how much time we are spending on the study of different measures, more particularly the one now before us.
I said we could have increased the income of farmers, not only in the West but also in the East, had we been a little more practical about Bill C-176. The motion involves the income of farmers. I know there is much opposition in that field. We have been waiting over a year. The passage of this bill would improve to a certain extent the income of western farmers. I believe the government has made a commendable effort in the last year. We have played too much politics about this bill instead of emphasizing for instance, the mandate we have been given in this House.
In comparatively less time we could have improved the income of some farmers for example by introducing a bill to ensure the distribution of our products and the setting up of price averages which would have directly affected the farmers. But, on the contrary, we spent much of the time of the House opposing the proposed measures because we fear too much control. I believe control has become necessary if we talk of planning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I should remind him that he must as much as possible stick to the motion now under consideration. Apparently the hon. member wishes to review the discussions held in the House in connection with another specific bill and he referred to those which may have been held on that bill in the Committee on Agriculture. I

June 8, 1971

do not think that it is advisable to resume those discussions when the House is dealing with a general motion concerning the agricultural conditions in the country.
Moreover, the hon. member will recognize that the point has already been raised by the Chair when it was suggested earlier during the debate that the motion could give rise to a discussion on another bill. The Chair then suggested to the hon. member to stick to the motion and not to initiate another debate on a bill concerning agriculture which is now being considered either by the House or a committee.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I was simply trying to show how much time is wasted in this House when we consider an urgent piece of legislation dealing specifically with an increase in the producers' income. I had thought that hon. members would not have to restrict their remarks to western producers, in the light of the difficulties experienced by the whole country.
In any case, I want to comply with the request of the Chair and restrict myself to this motion, but I cannot help reminding the House that it is not appropriate to waste time while we are discussing bills. In fact, I think that the amount of $100 million mentioned in the motion has been discussed for some weeks in the Committee on Agriculture, where, more and more, the contributions only result in delaying the passage of this legislation likely to provide immediate assistance to producers.
I only wanted to react against the tendency to extend too often the proceedings in order to gain time and to enable some hon. members to make the headlines. I dare believe that every member has the duty to suggest the best solutions. A vote will eventually be taken, but we already know how it will turn out.
I think we should strive to save time as much as possible in the House by suggesting concrete solutions, by making haste so that producers may take advantage of the legislation brought before the House. Of course this is no way prevents hon. members from taking part in the debate and making suggestions.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be more practical than ever, considering the interests not only of the farmers but of all Canadians.
On reading the motion, one finds that it is a question of planning. Some co-ordination is required with regard to this production and, if we speak of planning, in a system directly affecting wheat producers, we must also be ready to do some planning in the House.
How can we continue to speak about planning within government organizations if we refuse, at the start, to do some planning here in the House so that our debates may be more efficient?
I ask the question because it must be asked. The thought occurred to me because I know from three years' experience in the House that we have greatly neglected to put order into our work.
We must take greater care of the categories of people affected by the bill I mentioned. Therefore, I dare hope we will be more practical about these measures.
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
In my opinion, the motion before us is unacceptable since it simply asks for a $100-million subsidy to be given unconditionally and exclusively to western farmers. We very well know that they are not the only farmers in difficulty. I must admit that the government has made some efforts and that several bills will be introduced. I hope my colleagues will be practical enough to adopt promptly the measures that will benefit eastern and western farmers.
f English]


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: As
usual, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this and every opportunity to take part in debates relating to the economic welfare of the agricultural industry. I have to support the no confidence motion introduced by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the new leader of the New Democratic Party, as it appears in today's order paper. The motion reads:
That this House condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced the income of western farmers and threaten the future of Canada's entire rural community, and, in view of the financial crisis of western farmers, calls on the government to consider the advisability of an immediate payout to them of a minimum of $100,000,000 without conditions and in addition to other farm assistance programs.
I must say that I became somewhat concerned about the sincerity of the hon. member's motion when he related it to the Saskatchewan election, slated for June 23. Western farmers in particular have been watching the new Leader of the NDP very closely. They want to see what policies he will advocate relating to agriculture, inasmuch as over the year, as a high priced labour lawyer, he, together with his party, seemed to be more concerned about organized labour than about agriculture. On occasion, when labour unrest and west coast and seaway strikes threatened our grain market economy, our friends in the NDP were strangely silent.


An hon. Member:: That is absolutely correct.


Richard Russell Southam: Another example I could cite is the debate in the Saskatchewan legislature relating to the slowdown and strike of rail workers this spring. The grain trade stated that this cost us about $50 million in lost grain sales. In that debate, the Saskatchewan NDP members were forced to support the Saskatchewan Liberals in condemning the strike, while the federal NDP members kept quiet. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member for York South that, regardless of his motivation, he cannot leave the impression that he and his party are the only ones who are seriously interested in the welfare of agriculture. It seems that our chief concern is ever decreasing net farm incomes and ever increasing production costs. Again, we see the spectre of the cost-price squeeze looming its ugly head.
I have never been one of those to take a negative approach in this House in any debate, particularly in the area of agriculture. We ought to look at the problem of

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers declining farm incomes, a problem which is serious at the moment and will be serious in the days ahead. According to statistics and reports at hand, the situation is serious. I have before me some statistics that were given to us recently in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. They relate to the Manitoba farm scene. May I quote from these statistics. In 1968, farm cash income in the province was $364,816,000. In 1969 that figure was $351,941,000. The 1970 figure shows a decline to $341,957,000. Now, let us look at farm net income figures. They are what this debate is all about. In 1968, farm net income in Manitoba was $162,666,000. In 1969 net income had declined to $117,090,000 and in 1970-listen to this-had further declined to $78,631,000. There has been a decline of over 100 per cent in three years. I do not have the figures for Saskatchewan at hand, although I questioned one of our witnesses before the committee, and he said that net farm income in Saskatchewan had decreased last year by $200 million.
If you go back to the period 1962-63, when we developed policies to move western grain to world markets, you will find that Saskatchewan farmers, as well as prairie farmers in general, enjoyed an average net income of about $4,800. Last year, according to figures at hand, the net income of our farmers declined to about $1,000 per farm. That means, of course, that some farmers earned more than that; nevertheless, a large number of farmers did not enjoy any net income at all. That is precisely why we have no alternative except to wholeheartedly support this plea for an emergency injection of $100 million into the farming economy at once.
We passed through a similar emergency just before the party I support took office in 1957. There was a very serious farm problem at that time, too. All kinds of grain was piled up in every elevator, in skating rinks, in farmers' bins, in terminals and so on. We were not selling enough grain and, consequently, the farmer was caught in a serious cost-price squeeze. We met that emergency by doing something similar to what is suggested here. We pumped $45 million into the farm economy. There was another temporary emergency in 1959, and we again put another $43 million into that economy. The same thing happened in 1961 when there was a drought, and another $45 million was pumped into the economy, to tide farmers over the emergency while the government went about developing long-term policies relating to trade as well as the selling of grain.
We entered into trade agreements with countries like Japan involving textiles and with other countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia and countries in South America. We sold wheat to China in 1961 on a long-term credit basis, and this put our agriculture into a viable economic position. Liberal governments followed those policies for several years and rode along on the economic band wagon which had been created without developing new policies.
Then, the International Wheat Agreement collapsed in 1968. Actually, that collapse was heralded in the spring of 1967, when it was agreed that we would come up with a new grains arrangement on July 1, 1968. That arrangement did not materialize. I wish, in that connection, to cite some other statistics and figures which were presented before the Standing Committee on Agriculture this morning. They relate to the total value of all marketings and go back to 1949-50. From 1949 on the picture became progressively better until 1952-53, after which a decline set in which, according to the figures, continued until 1956. There was a slight increase in marketings in the period 1960-61 when my party took over, and these figures began to improve. By 1960-61, as a result of trading policies we instituted, we were able to increase incomes with respect to all grain marketings to $708,570,000. Those incomes increased until, in 1966-67, they reached $1,353,172,000. Then began a decline, and in 1969-70 those marketing values were down to $855,210,000.
Those figures support what I have been saying. Gross farm income and, particularly, net farm income has been declining. The picture will get worse because, as a result of the Lift program of last year, farmers were coerced into reducing wheat acreage by 12 million acres. If you accept a nominal figure of, say, 30 bushels of grain grown per acre and consider that that amount was not grown on the acreage taken out of production, you will see that about 360 million bushels of grain that could have been produced were not produced. If that grain were sold at $1.50 per bushel, a minimum price, it would mean that the farm economy would have received over half of $1 billion. It has not received that amount.
I do not think anyone in this House can ever say that we have thrown grain into the ocean or been forced to sell it at fire sale prices. It seems that mother nature enters the picture; there is an upset in conditions in other parts of the world and the result is that we can find markets for our grain. In any event, the potential income from grain sales in western Canada has been reduced by half of $1 billion. This loss we can never regain. It is only reasonable that, in the face of emergencies, we should take steps such as have been suggested this afternoon and inject $100 million into the farm economy. We should then develop an over-all agricultural policy that will put our agricultural industry into a viable position and give hope to our farmers. We must create an optimistic outlook for the future.
Bearing all those things in mind, I should like to relate to the House a few facts. First, what is the problem? Canadian agricultural policy must be related to the business of agricultural recovery. National economic policy has been guided by five goals. They are full employment, a high rate of economic growth, a reasonable stability of prices, a viable balance of payments and an equitable distribution of rising incomes. From this point of view, Canadian agriculture has been a leading achiever and contributor. However, today it is in deep trouble and its problems relate to the quality of Canadian life and the horizons of Canadian development. Last year, Canada became a net importer of food products. Approximately two-thirds of Canada's farm families live below the poverty line. The sale price of farm products is not keeping pace with the increasing costs of food production. The net income of the farming industry continues to decline.

June 8, 1971

To overcome this trend, we should have a goal. The skill of our farmers, the generosity of our land, and the real and potential value of agriculture to the whole economy means that we must remake agriculture as a vital industry. Our goal must be a properous industry in all respects; achieving effective domestic and export markets and successful competition for manpower, capital, land and transportation facilities needed in agriculture.
The framework within which we must accomplish this goal includes: First, the ready adoption of new technology and new dynamics in marketing and processing; second, the establishment of a system of domestic marketing of agricultural goods which will facilitate the freest possible movement of goods between the ten provinces of Canada; third, the continued development of viable communities; fourth, the security of a minimum level of income. There has been a lot of debate in the House and in committees recently about the minimum level of income. This level of income cannot be established at a poverty level. It has to be based on a net income so that the farmer can have an economic position which will compare with other sectors of our economy. The fifth point is the lowering of the costs of production and marketing in order to compete effectively with other producers; sixth, the stabilization of input costs in order to achieve net income stability and reasonable prices to the consumer; seventh, the freer movement of persons between sectors of the farming and non-farming community.
Most important, the framework must take into account the human dimension. The Progressive Conservative party believes that government mechanisms of control, regulation and limitation must be viewed with caution. To control supply and regulate prices would inhibit the adoption of new production techniques to the ultimate detriment of the whole economy. There must be room for flexibility and individually-for freedom-in pursuing broad goals and humane rates of change.
To accomplish this, Mr. Speaker, I have several guidelines I would like to set out. For us, agricultural adjustment is the process of correcting the inequalities in incomes and imbalances of resources that are constant dangers in a dynamic economy. Government agriculture policies have left approximately two-thirds of our farm families below the poverty line. In other words, about 200,000 Canadian farmers face drastic adjustment problems. The challenge of adjustment, of premeditated change, must be the fundamental concern of agriculture policy. As a first step, we would construct a Canadian agriculture development design to permit national development and revitalization of this industry within the framework of regionally integrated and highly flexible national planning. This will not be a design for coercion or retrenchment. It will be a strategy for equitable and constructive growth.
The present government's policy of farm management is not acceptable. For us, an agriculture policy which presumes to have the power to move people out of agriculture, and to pull resources out of agriculture, is
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
doomed and rightly so. The most efficient adjustment will rest on a program designed to help the individual farmer act to satisfy his own particular goals. The federal and provincial governments, together, must develop a national information system designed to provide the individual farmer with the information needed from farm and non-farm sources in a format acceptable to individual farm decision-making. This system would provide information on future prices of both inputs and products, information on institutions affecting individual farm operators, such as credit institutions, insurance and marketing arrangements and information on non-farm employment opportunities and non-farm living conditions, including training and retraining opportunities.
Such an information system would build a field staff whose primary purpose would be to concentrate on major adjustment decisions and farm management advice. It should ensure expanded capability in university departments of agriculture economics to train the people required for this field staff. It should start training and retraining programs for all who want to become better farmers and farm workers, or to qualify themselves for non-farm jobs. Manpower training programs have been less available to rural than urban people. Perhaps mobile manpower units should be introduced to rural areas. Retraining programs which do not depend on the individual leaving his rural community must be established. Programs in tourism and farm labour are needed and could be invaluable for existing communities and income improvement.
In the field of marketing, this government's policy is supply, rather than market oriented. Yet the greatest potential for improving the state of our industry is in charting the most profitable direction for expansion, rather than contraction, of our agricultural and food industry. I repeat, yet the greatest potential for improving the state of our industry is in charting the most profitable direction for expansion, rather than contraction, of our agricultural and food industry. New guidelines are required to develop programs to assist producers through extended market and technical information, and develop programs to achieve a stronger domestic and international orientation in the agriculture industry. A marketing policy should draw together all facets of the agricultural and food industry to develop co-ordinated strategies to move the maximum volume of produce at the best possible return.
The choices we must now face are related fundamentally to these conditions. For example, an objective of our foreign aid policy is to encourage developing nations to become agriculturally self-sufficient. In terms of ecological balance, is it appropriate to assist India to sear her soil to feed her people while Canadian soil, with greater and safer capacity, is being taken out of production? Only with a view to optimum global development and population and ecological planning can the parameters of our nation's trading goals be constructed most fully and responsibly.


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

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is in the name of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). In essence, it calls for two different things. It calls for an immediate injection of cash into the western economy, an injection that is unconditional-and will go out to the western farmers immediately. Second, it expresses concern about what is happening in western Canada today to the rural way of life or, as it is called, the life style.
This is a no-confidence motion in the government. It is very valid. There are many areas where the government is not fulfilling the job of governing the way it should. One of the most important is with regard to farmers and agriculture, particularly the grain farmers in western Canada. To prove my case, I need only quote only a few statistics from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that have been released by the federal government. Net farm income in Saskatchewan fell by about 56 per cent between 1968 and 1970. In terms of dollars and cents it fell from $462,348,000 in 1968 to $202,718,000 in 1970. This represents a decline of some 56 per cent in net income for grain farmers in the province. This is a startling figure even to those who know nothing about the western economy. It is startling that any industry or group of people should suffer a decline in income as severe as that in two years.
Throughout Canada generally, farm income has dropped severely in the past two years. In 1968, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) assumed power, net farm income was $1,714,470,000. In 1970 it was $1,198,400,000. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) said, the net income the prairie farmers is getting on an average after expenses have been met is about $1,000 a year. If this does not convince even people who know nothing about agriculture that farmers are facing a severe problem, then nothing will. Almost all the grain farmers in western Canada are today living below the poverty line despite the fact that they know how to manage their farms, despite the fact that agricultural productivity has increased at a faster rate than in any other industry. These statistics alone show that something should be done immediately to get more cash to the farmers so that they can carry on production.
The motion before us calls for the immediate injection without conditions of $100 million into the economy of western Canada. Most farmers will agree with us in this regard. The government may say: We have a bill before the House, Bill C-244, under the terms of which $100 million will go out to the farmers. Mr. Speaker, the $100 million mentioned in that bill is tied in with a stabilization plan to which all three major farm organizations are opposed. We are faced with an attempt to blackmail the farmers into accepting this stabilization bill before they can get-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member. Members who have taken part in the debate until now have respected the suggestion made by the
Chair that we should not inject into this discussion the issues raised by Bill C-244, which is before the House. To do so would involve repetition of a debate which has already taken place, which is proceeding in committee and which will be resumed in the House in due course. I would think the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) would want to follow the good example which has been set for him to emulate during this debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be
guided by your words of wisdom. The motion before us calls for the injection of $100 million into the western economy as well as expressing the concern which is felt by the whole rural economy of western Canada. A whole western way of life is being threatened. The future of the family farm and the rural community are in doubt. Anyone who travels around western Canada as I have done in the last couple of months finds that many farmers have been forced to leave the land because of their failure to make ends meet. Many of those who are left are living below the poverty line.
It is not only the farmers who are in serious trouble. Many of the western towns are rapidly becoming ghost communities. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) said this morning that such a statement was nonsense. It is not. One can go to many towns on the Prairies where business places have closed down because farmers are no longer able to buy the commodities they used to buy in the small towns and cities. People are unemployed, people are moving out. We are told that last year more than 30,000 people left Saskatchewan. Most of this migration was due to the sharp decline in farm income. The situation in western Canada amounts to a real emergency and this is why we must take immediate action before more farmers are forced to leave the land. Today, the new member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) took his seat in the House. Hon. members who go to Brantford will find many unemployed people there; they lost their work because of the shutdown of farm machinery plant in the city. This is one example of the effects of the severe cutback in income which the western farmer has suffered.
What we see out west is a threat to a whole way of life, a threat to something we should be preserving and stimulating. Instead, we are permitting it to be destroyed before our eyes. What happens to the individuals directly concerned? What happens to farmers who are forced off the land or to businessmen who are obliged to close down their businesses in rural areas? Many of them find their way to the large cities where they find it impossible to get jobs and eventually find themselves on welfare rolls. What type of life is that for them and their families?
A few years ago the late President Jack Kennedy called for a study of urban violence in the United States. It was reported that an important source of violence in American cities was people moving from rural areas to urban centres, people unable to find employment who felt alienated and out of place. We should not allow this to happen in Canada; we should not encourage such consequences by expediting the movement of people from the rural to urban sectors.

June 8, 1971

We who come from the west are sad to find these communities closing down, little towns whose populations are full of despair, towns in which there seems to be no life whereas formerly there was bustle and activity. What must be done to start the economy rolling again? I was very happy about the announcement that a large wheat sale had been negotiated with the Soviet Union. This underlines once again the value of the Wheat Board and the orderly marketing of grain. Outside of this, two or three things must happen. A short-term injection of cash is needed if western farmers are to be saved. The farm organizations are calling for $250 million. I do not think they are being too greedy. They need this money in a genuine and sincere way. I should like to see us put this much money into the economy of western Canada this month and during the summer, so that many of these farmers who are otherwise going to be forced off the land can stay in business.
If we cannot accept this proposition, then let us accept the terms of this motion which seeks to inject a minimum of $100 million into the western economy. This would greatly help many farmers across the Prairies. But this is not the whole solution; it is merely a short-term solution, and it is about time the Department of Agriculture and other departments discussed the long-term ramifications of agriculture.
A task force has been studying the agricultural industry in western Canada and two or three of its recommendations terrify me and many others in the west. For example, the task force suggests that two-thirds of our family farms should be eliminated, mainly in the name of efficiency or of making larger profits faster. This is not the type of path that we should follow, and it is one reason that our party has moved the motion it moved today, which underlines that the life style of western Canada and the rural communities is being threatened severely.
The task force also talks of there being less government involvement in the agricultural field, and I do not th:nk this should be the case either. I think the farmers of western Canada and across the country must be helped in a more meaningful way if they are to survive. To do this we must make important decisions immediately. The longer we wait, the faster the owners of smaller and middle-sized farms will be driven off the land. If we simply allow the recommendations of the task force to be implemented and continue in an unplanned way, as we are at the moment, then I forecast that in 25 years there will only be a few large corporate farms in western Canada, with the towns and villages becoming giant service centres for those farms. I do not want this to happen. As I said before, there is a quality to rural life. Our farmers are making a tremendous contribution to Canada. Our cities are too over-populated and polluted now, so why this rush to push everyone into large cities?
The first important decision that we must make as a country, as a government and as a Parliament, is that we must save and stimulate the family farms in the rural
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers communities. This would represent a reversal of government policy. During the last few years, I think the government has intentionally been trying to drive the smaller producers off the land and into the cities. We must decide to preserve and to stimulate family farms and the rural communities that go with these farms. Not only are family farms disappearing, but rural post offices are being closed down, station agents are pulling out, elevators are being shut down here and there across the prairies, and rail services are becoming less and less frequent. Our whole rural way of life is being severely challenged.
If we are to make any meaningful, long-term headway I suggest the government must think very soon about really significantly supporting agriculture in Canada, as agriculture in many other countries around the word is being supported. We must be prepared to give support to a guaranteed price for certain agricultural commodities, and a good example of this is hog prices. This morning my leader spoke about an invoice that a farmer had shown him. I was with him on that occasion and this invoice was given to us by a farmer near Prince Albert. It showed that he had received only $2.90 for a fully grown hog. This sort of thing should not be permitted and there is no reason why it should occur. There is simply no reason why the farmers must bear the brunt of price fluctuations that occur in the market. They should be given a guaranteed price so that in the spring they will know what sort of income they can expect in the fall. This sort of thing is being done in other industries and there is no reason why it cannot be done in agriculture.
We must also soon accept the fact, as all farm organizations have, that there should be a two-price system for wheat in Canada if we are to help those on small and medium-sized farms. This can be done with hardly any extra cost to the consumer. The price of bread does not depend on the price a farmer receives for a bushel of wheat. With a guaranteed price and a two-price system for wheat, many farmers would be in a much better position than they are under government policies today.
We must also do something about the high cost of production and farm machinery. In this regard, I would suggest that we implement some of the long-term recommendations made by the Barber commission regarding the cost of farm machinery. There is no reason why the price of farm machinery should be so high or why the profit margin of farm machinery corporations is so excessive, a point made by the report of the Barber commission. This does not have to be the case, and it would not be the case if we had a government that made sure farmers could buy machinery at lower prices.
If we are to do something about saving and stimulating the rural economy, the farmers must have the power to control their own destinies. After all, this is what democracy is all about. Democracy is not simply electing a government and allowing it to do everything it wants for four years, then having another referendum. Democracy brings all groups in our society into a position of real power and authority. I do not see why our farmers should not have some say about the price they receive

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
for a bushel of wheat or any other commodity. After all, other sectors of the economy have this say. They are able to set prices and determine income received, either through collective bargaining or by setting their prices in a certain manner. But our farmers can only have such say if the government trusts them to make important decisions that affect their own lives.
Our farmers must also have a say about the price they pay for their supplies and be able to control the cost of their production. For example, why cannot farmers negotiate the price of farm machinery or have some say over what they pay for what is needed to produce a bushel of wheat? 1 suggest the government should start listening to the recommendations that farm organizations are making. If these were implemented, we would have a much stronger rural economy in Canada. I plead this point sincerely, not just on behalf of our farmers but for the entire country. If we have a viable agricultural economy we will have a much more viable and strong economy across the land. We would not have lay-offs in Brantford or in other eastern Ontario cities where farm machinery is manufactured. We would not have so many people across Canada looking for a purpose in life if there were jobs for them. One way of providing these jobs is by having a viable rural economy.
I suggest to the members of the government party that this is a very realistic motion and represents the very least we can do for western farmers. If it were adopted, we would not be giving them a handout but making an investment, an investment not just in the farming communities but in Canada as a nation. Indeed, far from being a handout, this money is something the farmers deserve. They receive less now per bushel of wheat than they did in 1946. I do not think there is any other sector of the Canadian economy that can make that claim. Yet this is a harsh reality, and the government party should be very ashamed of it. I shall be very interested to see how government members, especially those from western Canada, vote on this motion, since they know as well as I that western Canada is in very serious financial trouble. If some of the suggestions I have made go unheeded, the family farm and our rural life style as we know it will cease to exist before too many years have passed.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be speaking about farm machinery but will stick to the motion before us. I have to agree immediately that there is a problem regarding farmers' cash receipts. I am very concerned about some of the comments which have been made in the House this afternoon. Many times while I sat here as a backbencher I wondered what it would be like if I were on the other side trying to criticize the policies of our government which benefit the Canadian people. Never in my life would I ever paint a picture such as has been painted this afternoon by some members of the opposition, then go back to my constituents and try to convince them I was representing them properly in the House. All I heard this afternoon was doom and gloom. There was not a good thing that could be said in respect
of any of the policies that have been implemented in the past to the benefit of farmers in western Canada. I am equally as concerned as hon. members who have spoken regarding western Canada, its unemployment and other problems. When a dreary picture is painted of everybody deserting the farms, as we have heard, I say to the hon. member he should go back west as often as some of us do to make sure what is going on in his area.
Another thing I am concernerd about in speaking to the motion is that it is very broad and not realistic. This is not a problem which has come up overnight, but has been in existence for some time. If the socialists had really wanted to speak for the people by moving this motion, they would have had their researchers make a thorough study in order that they would have been able to make some suggestions regarding rules, regulations and procedures for the distribution of this $100' million. The manner in which the motion was drafted just goes to prove that it was not intended to go any further than it suggests: Let us give the farmers and agricultural people in western Canada $100 million and this will solve all their problems. This will not solve all the problems.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We didn't say so.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You had a chance to speak and you can get up again.


An hon. Member:: You implied it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I never said it.


Prosper Boulanger: Don't start any trouble now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Nothing we can't finish.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like to suggest that in some of the legislation we have proposed, without naming any of the bills, there are rules and regulations which would help to solve some of the problems the farmers face. In this way, sudden drops in gross receipts could be avoided in the future. Some of this legislation would form part of the stabilization program, and if such a sudden drop occurred payments would be made.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made reference to the net income of farmers and quoted DBS figures. He suggested they are only getting 56 per cent of what they used to receive. One of the things he has overlooked is the fact that over $200 million was transferred from the Treasury Board to the grain economy. This is more than has ever been paid out by any government in any one year before.


Prosper Boulanger: They know that, too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where did it go?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I also agree with the references hon. members made to grain sales, namely, that the latest sale is the biggest of any one year. Grain sales this year may prove to be the best yet, because this year is far from being ended. The largest grain sale ever made was the sale of 685 million bushels, and we could very well sell more. I am not a minister, but I suggest that we

June 8, 1971

will exceed that this year. I am sure hon. members will
have to agree with me before the year is over.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't stick your head out too far.


Prosper Boulanger: Don't be so socialistic, Jack.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I believe the government is really concerned with the problems of the farmers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tell that to the farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am not one of those who believe-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What do you believe?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am not one of those who believe, like some hon. members over there, that this motion involves a real issue. I would even question their sincerity when they use delaying tactics, whether in the committee or otherwise. I should like to say that this government, through its present and proposed policies, will prove in the future to have been one of those most concerned with agriculture problems. Statistics will show that this government has provided more money than has ever been given out in any one year.
When some of the members of the opposition are discussing the needs of western Canada, why do they not at the same time suggest a way to bring in the moneys being spent and that the government contemplates spending? In that way I am sure the contributions could be increased and the farmers would get more than is suggested in the motion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP referred to himself as a "city feller" and explained that he did not wish to appear to be misrepresenting himself as an expert on farming. Of course I, too, have to confess that when it comes to the complexities of making a crop grow, I am strictly an amateur, although I should point out, with some degree of reality, I have had some modest success as a gardener. While the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) draws the line at calling himself a "city feller", I might be inclined to go a little bit further and describe myself as a bluenose by birth with a green thumb by practice.
Like the leader of the NDP, I feel it is imperative that all Canadians in all walks of life take an active and concerned interest in the affairs of Canadian agriculture today, not only from an economic point of view but from a human point of view as well. I have tried to follow what I think is good advice in this regard. I had the good fortune of growing up in a small town which was the centre of an agricultural community. I was well aware from the start of the contributions that farmers make to the general community life, the general provincial life and the general national life. Unfortunately, I have also been able to follow rather closely the many problems that have developed throughout the years, including problems of adjustment.
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
In my original part of Canada, the Atlantic provinces, there were problems which one could follow through Quebec, Ontario and into the west. There has been a tendency on the part of this government to write off the farm. It might not be strictly accurate to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as asking: "Why should I sell your wheat", but this was pretty indicative of the attitude displayed in the west, and that cannot be denied.
I have had an opportunity to visit some farms in the west and I was very struck by the qualities of these people, their capacities and their problems. I had the opportunity of living on one farm for a while last September. I was very struck by three aspects. First, there was a very strong feeling on the part of the farmer for his farm. You could almost feel the attachment between that farmer and his farm. Secondly, I was impressed by the extent of the efforts which had been made by that farmer and other farmers in his area-and this is substantially a grain farming area-to diversify. I know many people in the east think that the western farmer simply grows wheat and expects it to be sold. It was an eye-opener to me to realize the extent of the diversification which is taking place, even on what are basically grain farms in the west. I had an opportunity to visit an elevator there. I was shown samples of crops which had been delivered up until a couple of years ago. I saw the great range of crops now being delivered to that elevator. I believe it is very important that people in the eastern part of Canada realize the extent to which the western farmer has attempted to diversify and the extent to which he has worked to try to solve his own problems.
The third thing which impressed me-and this obviously was an exceedingly well-run operation in respect of which great efforts were made toward diversification- was the size of the investment in the farm. The farmer showed me his accounts, as audited by the people in the minister's own Department of Agriculture. The size of the investment was striking. It was very clear that this man was living on the depreciation of his equipment. He was hanging on. I could not help but ask myself how long this situation could continue. I believe this was a typical example of an excellently run farm. I could not help but wonder how much more difficult it must be on smaller farms which are not in as fortunate a position. Here, we had a substantial operation, fierce determination, hard work, a love of the soil and a tremendous pride. I could not help but think how important the person who operates such a farm is to Canada.
I knew something about farmers in the east. I had not had such close contact with farmers in the west before. I realized how much these people mean to Canada, how terrible it would be if they went under and how important it is that they be helped, not in the sense of things being made easy-that is not what they expect-but in the sense of being assisted so that they are able to work out their problems. We have heard references to figures in this House today, and at other times, concerning the drop in net farm income in the west. This does not apply

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers merely to the west, although the difficulty there is perhaps more striking than in the rest of the country. What we must bear in mind is that this drop in income does not affect only the farming economy. As the minister knows, it also affects the whole economy of the west and the rest of the country. It affects the suppliers, the merchants and the whole basis of our economy. It is important to bear in mind that we are really talking about a subtantial segment of the whole economy. The farmers have been having a bad time with increasing debts and with an inadequate program as well as a very inadequate attitude on the part of the government.
This is not the time to talk about the adequacy of the government's programs and the switch from a storage support program to an inadequate grain stabilization program. But it is the time to emphasize the importance of helping farmers and encouraging them to move ahead. This is the reason I wished to take part in this debate today and to say something as fiercely as I can. Clearly, the passing of this motion today would of course, in a sense, simply be a palliative. Certainly, it would not really solve anything. I do not pretend that the payment of $100 million to the farmers would in itself solve their problems, although I believe it would give them a real lift. I want to emphasize the need for a different and wholehearted approach rather than the hesitant approach to farming and agricultural policies this government has adopted. What is shocking and revolting to me is that after three years under the present government, years in which there have been no major natural catastrophes, we are being forced to consider a motion of this kind in this House.
This all points up the fact that this government in itself is a catastrophe from the point of view of the worker, the businessman, the hundreds of thousands of unemployed who are walking our streets and the farmer. With this government in the saddle there is no need of a natural disaster. It seems to carry its own disasters with it wherever it goes. That is why there is a need for this motion or one like it. After three years of rule, or rather misrule, this government has dragged down agriculture just as it has dragged down the economy as a whole. Three years ago promises were made of a just society and of prosperity ahead. Just like other people in Canada-the city dweller, the small businessman and all others who made the mistake of believing the slogans or who even if they did not believe them were forced to live with them in any event-the farmers have been losing their confidence in a government which has clearly lost its way. This is not confined to western farmers. This is a feeling which unites farmers from the east and from the *west.
Certainly, there has not been unanimity among farmers. Certainly there are differences between regions and between producers of various kinds of farm produce. But one reason for these problems surely is the failure of this government, after three years, to come up with any sort of arrangement that is acceptable to the agriculturalists and the livestock producers of this country.


An hon. Member:: What do you suggest?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They seem to be in trouble over there, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it is their consciences we are hearing from now. Instead, the solution of this government has been to divide, the better to rule; to divide the farmers among themselves and to divide them from the men and women who live in the cities and who curse the high cost of living, often unfairly blaming the producers of the foods they are buying. The guiding principles of the government in relation to agriculture are expressed time and time again in terms such as "viability" and "rationalization". It is bad enough that their jargon is based on economic pessimism. But it is infinitely worse that this kind of lingo totally ignores any humanistic approach to agriculture as a way of life.
Surely, the report of the government's task force on agriculture is one of the most pessimistic pieces of literature ever authored. It should have been entitled "grim expectations". I think the Minister of Agriculture might very well take a look to the south of him; he might take a look at the attitude of the United States government towards agriculture and its determination to sell. I think the effort on the part of this government to get out and sell has been very limited compared to the efforts of the United States. The record of the United States indicates that there is an opportunity for success if the government, when it has things to be sold, would only get at it.
We cannot let the government get away with this sort of thing any longer. We have to point out to the men and women who are suffering from economic recession in the cities that the farmer, too, is suffering. The point cannot be made too often. The policy of the government for the cities and towns has been, of course, to slow down the economy. In the country, on the other hand, it is rather difficult, even for this government, to slow down the growing season, so it has just decided to weed out the farmer instead.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) denies that the government intends to drive people off the farms, whether or not they are efficient. All I can say is that if he does not intend to do this, he had better look pretty quickly at the policies that he is pursuing because that is the effect that these policies are having. If that is not the intention of the present government, then what we have is just another example of sheer incompetence and blundering by this government.


Some hon. members:: Hear hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is a government that is going blindly along, crashing into pothole after pothole on a journey into nowhere, a case of pothole luck for people whom it is dragging along. I hope, as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) said, there will be great grain sales this year. I hope that all sorts of new records are set and that this government and its agencies will really go out and sell. But this government tells us it is not driving people
(Mr. Stanfield.]
June 8, 1971

off the farms. Will it kindly tell us what it is trying to do? There is no evidence of a clear policy leading in any direction. Once again, in the field of agricultural production, we have a government that seems to be proceeding without a plan but trusting blindly to luck. This is not good enough, and that is why I endorse this resolution wholeheartedly to call attention to the need for this government to get going, to move ahead and to help the farmers who want nothing more than to be in the position to help themselves.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I see that the agricultural problem is not settled, as it is discussed even in Parliament on many occasions with a view to helping the government to the greatest extent possible in finding the proper solutions to promote the agricultural industry, not only in one area but all over the country.
I feel that the motion before the House shows that a really difficult situation exists particularly as regards the western farmers. However, the intention of the sponsor of this motion was to emphasize a situation which may be to the disadvantage of the eastern farmers. The mover has therefore proposed as a solution that the farmers be granted an amount of at least $100 million over and above the farm assistance programs.
In taking part in the debate on the motion now before the House, I should like, once again, to suggest to the government that its agricultural policy is not entirely fair to farmers, and that the farmers' net income is not high enough to enable them to get their fair share of the national product. I do not mean by this that the government is not doing anything, that the whole of his policy is to be condemned, but that not enough is done to give farmers, who devote their life to tilling the soil so as to feed mankind, a chance equal to that of citizens who work at other activities of the Canadian economy.
I should like, in this debate, to suggest some solutions which may perhaps seem ridiculous, because some will feel that the time has not come to put them into practice, but, frankly, I consider that means must be taken, other than the present ones, to solve the problem.
In the summer of 1970, after having visited several areas in the Prairie provinces, and after having talked with many farmers, I finally understood that several of them are in very difficult financial circumstances. They have a hard time finding help for the farm; this forces them to get more equipment, of the most modem and expensive type, which plays havoc with their budget and increases the cost of production.
During my trip, I noticed some modern equipment in farm yards, and while speaking with the farmers, found out that they had to use more modem means to do their work at a reasonable cost, because they found it next to impossible to get farm hands.
The farmer, who for that matter is not responsible for price increases, is nevertheless penalized for he must pay a higher interest on his loans. He must also pay more and
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers more for the components of his production, without getting more for his products. Therefore the cost-price squeeze becomes tighter, which contributes to make life more and more difficult.
On the matter of interest, I am convinced that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will announce in due course a reduction of interest rates. I would welcome such news. The opinions we voiced when interest rates were raised have finally been heeded. Interest rates must be lowered even further. This will automatically help farmers to operate at lower cost.
There are farm problems in all Canadian provinces. That is why the provincial and federal governments must co-operate fully so that Canadian agriculture may flourish as much as possible.
There is a grain surplus in the prairies and in order to reduce stocks on hand, the government promotes pork meat production, which results in competition between eastern and western farmers, in short by pitting them one against the other.
As for me, I cannot blame the western farmer who finds himself unable to sell the grain stored on his farm and raises hogs to use up his production. But when that production appears on the market, there is a clash between western breeders and farmers because the latter cannot produce on a competitive level. In fact eastern pork producers are not in position to match the low costs posted by western producers since even with current subsidies for feed grain transportation-which are not high enough-the eastern producer is producing with a disadvantage of $3 to $5 per hog. The purpose of the current government policy is therefore to pit the regions one against the other and this is unfortunate.
Let us see now what is going on in the field of eggs and broilers where, because of farm surpluses which in fact are not actual surpluses, underconsumption prevails. This situation is described in the reports of the Economic Council, so this is not something I dreamed up. The Council stated that many Canadians have inadequate income and are underfed. Let us call a spade a spade. Instead of mentioning surpluses we should speak of underconsumption. In fact a great many families are living in privation because they cannot buy what they actually need. I do not mean luxury but things essential to life.
We are currently witnessing a continued decrease in the purchasing power of low income families. In fact, in Quebec, it has been found that by virtue of the implementation and the interpretation of the new legislation which was enacted November 1 and which permits the state to help needy people, the level of these pensions is generally lower. I receive many letters from people who complain, most often rightly, that their pension has decreased. Moreover the unemployment rate keeps rising, which results in a reduction of the purchasing power of low income people.
I do not think that the pensioners and the unemployed have spent $30 per week to feed their families, as

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers indicated in a report from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which I should like to quote in part:


[Stage Direction]
In 1969, each Canadian family spent $28.80 per week for food, as shown by an inquiry carried out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
The largest amount ($31.70 per week) was spent in the urban centres of the province of Quebec, and the lowest ($21.40) in the rural areas of the Prairie provinces.
According to a per capita computation, the highest figure ($7.40 per week) for the rural sector was found in British Columbia, and the lowest ($6.03 per person) in the Atlantic provinces.
Such data prove that consumption is directly linked to economic conditions, in other words, to the take-home pay, and the family spends more or less accordingly. I now resume the quotation:
As for the cities, Ontario ranks first ($8.83 per person) whereas the Atlantic provinces come last on the list ($7.31 per week).
This is the first such survey made by DBS for the past twenty years-
So, this is not new.
Every dollar spent on food can be broken down as follows:
Red meat, poultry and fish, 28 cents; fruits and vegetables, 13 cents; cereals, bakery and confectionery products, 10 cents; dairy products (including butter), 13 cents; food oils and other fats, 2 cents; eggs, 3 cents; frozen foods, 1 cent; miscellaneous, 13 cents; foods prepared, bought and eaten outside home, including board, 17 cents.
This means that in order to bring consumption to the required level, we should increase income in a different way than it has been done to date. We shall have to use new methods if we are to meet this objective and put the Canadian economy back on its feet, so that all Canadians be treated in a fair way.
And to increase the farmer's income, the greater part of our domestic market would first have to be reclaimed in order to dispose of our farm products. This would become possible in part by providing for a direct increase in consumer purchasing power, and for a guaranteed minimum income at all times during the year. Such steps would help maintain a better economic balance and would result in a more regular consumption on Canadian products, whether they be foodstuffs or anything else.
This guaranteed minimum income should also be available to farmers. Then, whatever the prices, the rural people would also be assured of a guaranteed minimum income and instead of having to cope with major difficulties which get worse from year to year, they would at least hopefully look to a guaranteed minimum income.
For this guaranteed minimum income to be paid, we would have to do the opposite of what is now being done when social benefits are allowed to the various classes of our society. When people are taxed, they find themselves in a difficult situation. Indeed, two years ago when the government moved to boost old age pensions, we did expect a new levy to cover the costs involved. We were in a very embarrassing position. We were in favour of higher pensions for old people but, on the other hand, we did not want any new taxes or an increase in those already existing.
Lest we be accused of being against old people, we had to accept new taxes. That is why, in my view, we should find new formulas to finance the assistance programs based on the production potential of Canada.
If our country is unable to produce enough goods to meet the demand of Canadians, it would be useless to pass social measures providing for higher income if Canadians were unable to purchase the goods they hope to get in order to satisfy their needs.
In order to meet the costs of this guaranteed income, the government should resort to the Bank of Canada. There will again be people to say: The Creditistes are always talking about the Bank of Canada. Indeed they do and they are going to talk about it. The government talks about taxes and we put up with that! Let us do the same then when we honestly advocate reforms. We have to use the Bank of Canada. We use it to other ends. Why should we not use it to such noble ends as the solution of the farmers' problem, by giving them an opportunity of selling their products and by increasing the income of the consumers in a logic and fair proportion?
The Bank of Canada would then be authorized to issue new credits as national production, based on the work of Canadians, increases. Without production, there would be no new credits!
In any event, there would surely be an increase in purchasing power, and this recall of new credits would have to be done through taxation when production drops, in order to strike a balance as much as possible between production and consumption.
This has long been the objective of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and of economists: to try to strike a balance between production and consumption so that the Canadian economy will be sound and people, in all sectors, well-off.
It is very important to make a careful appraisal of the total cost and of the advantages of a new welfare and guaranteed income policy, even from the standpoint of agriculture, because it is in that area that the voice of those who are really in need is less often and less loudly heard.
The motion now before the House suggests that the government should pay out $100,000,000 in subsidies, without conditions, and in addition to other farm assistance programs. This may seem a large amount but if it is spread over the last ten years when farmers were having problems, it only represents $10,000,000 a year.
In concluding my remarks, I wish to point out to the government that Canada is one of those countries which are not very generous toward agriculture. The United States are doing much more for their farmers and the Common Market countries are getting more liberal with their money, in fact, $3 billion were voted by them for farm assistance.
I therefore urge the government to do more for farmers so that they will cease to be victims of an obsolete system and will get their just share of the national income.

June 8, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. 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 Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) -Health-Inquiry as to appointment of national council; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Health-Alleged use of stalling tactics to prevent abortion application being dealt with; the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-Broadcasting-Policy on issuance of licences to agents or Crown in provinces.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That this House condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced the income of western farmers and threaten the future of Canada's entire rural community, and, in view of the financial crisis of western farmers, calls on the government to consider the advisability of an immediate payout to them of a minimum of $100,000,000 without conditions and in addition to other farm assistance programs.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to take part in this debate on a subject very close and dear to my heart, life in the rural communities of Canada as we presently know it. The motion before the House condemns the agricultural policies of the government which have severely reduced the income of western farmers and calls on the government to consider the advisability of an immediate payout to them of $100 million.
This motion was moved by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). I am pleased to see the NDP supporting the concept of acreage payments. I do not want to be political, yet I can remember that when the government of the day in 1959 proposed acreage payments, the hon. member's group ridiculed the idea. The leader of that party said the amount to be paid was peanuts. Let me say quickly, Mr. Speaker, and one need not be a mathematician to arrive at this conclusion, that $40 million in 1959 about equals $100 million in 1970 if one takes into consideration the effects of inflation. In any event, it is pleasant to see the NDP supporting acreage payments, a concept well known to and firmly accepted by western Canada. It is regrettable that the government has tied its proposal regarding the $100 million payout to the provisions of Bill C-244. I do not
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers believe that Bill C-244 mentions, nor did the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in the statement made on October 29 mention, that $100 million.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member should look at the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You will see many other things in the bill. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) mouthing some words.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Look at the bill. That is what I said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is not as good at mouthing as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I cannot understand what the minister is mouthing. It was a shame to see the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) rise and paint a picture of gloom and doom. He complained that the opposition was too severely criticizing farm legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member's party was painting a picture of gloom and doom.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is terrible that the government has to offer a bribe of $100 million in order to get a piece of legislation accepted. Surely, if the legislation has merit it should stand on its own feet.
May I deal with another aspect of this motion, an aspect very dear to my heart, that relating to our present day rural communities. I have before me a copy of the Manitoba Co-Operator of May 20, 1971. An article in it refers to the "Adjustment Program For Canada's Farms". It reads in part:
Details of the proposed agricultural adjustment or development policy of the federal government have been revealed in a paper prepared by the Canada Department of Agriculture. The paper said the federal cabinet has given approval in principle for the development and operation of a set of adjustment policies and programs of the general type outlined in the 20-page document.
The article goes on to outline these policies, and states that they come under three major headings:
-the first main group of policies will be designed to improve the ability of farm people to make adjustments required to increase the attainments of their personal goals.
Under the plan the individual farmer and his family would be provided with information and counselling services-
That is the first of these policies. The article continues:
A second sub-group of policies is designed to increase the mobility of land resources to facilitate outmigration of people from agriculture and the consolidation of farms within agriculture.
Some time ago the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who is not present in the House, rose with all the indignation he could muster when we, in the opposition, charged the government with attempting to put farmers off the land. That was not the case at all, he said. If that is so, why has the program outlined in the 20-page document referred to been approved, and what is the meaning of "policies... designed to increase the mobility of land resources to facilitate outmigration of people from agriculture". If those words do not mean that the government wishes to do away with small family farms, I do not know what they mean. You know, the more I read

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers
the more frightened I become of this government and its bureaucratic manner of doing things.
At this time may I welcome the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who has come into the House.


Mr. Paproski:: He will not have difficulty hearing you, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When you speak of the devil, he is bound to show up, as the old saying goes. That happened on this occasion.


Otto Emil Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like it to be known that the hon. member can be heard in the West Block.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not a question of privilege, that is wasting time. I hope your Your Honour will not deduct the wasted time from the time available to me. I regret that while we were debating this subject this afternoon the Standing Committee on Agriculture was discussing another piece of legislation related to this question. That legislation does not deal with quite the same point the motion deals with, but there are similarities in the objectives of the motion and of the legislation, as the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged earlier today.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If that legislation had passed, the hon. member would not be speaking in the present debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand what the Minister of Agriculture is mouthing. He ought to take lessons from the Prime Minister. At least he is understood.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said, pass that legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I continue quoting:
A third sub-group would increase the availability and control of capital through various forms of credit and through various contractual arrangements used in the acquisition and control of land and other capital.
So power hungry is this government that it wants to control not only capital, but land as well. I hope the minister will not try to say that the government does not want to drive the owner of the family farm out of farming.
The article continues:
It was understood that planners in the agriculture department have been told that the adjustment in Canadian agriculture must take place within this generation, or within 15 years.
So, the small farmer is given 15 years to live, then he must move to the city and go on welfare. What will happen to all the small communities, to the small grocers and the curling rinks and to all the people who live in small communities? Fifteen years is all those people have been given. I will not read all the article, but this part reads:
One spokesman for the federal department said the "utopian condition" would be to reduce the farm population in Canada to 150,000 people by the final stage, but it was realized that this might not be achievable.
Well, they are holding out a 10 per cent chance for the small farmer to survive; that's mighty big of them. I continue quoting the article:
The paper sees three major thrusts within Canadian agricultural policy.
I want hon. members to bear with me because this is important:
The first has to do with marketing, market development and trade.
We know all about that.
The second deals with the adjustment of individual farms and of the agricultural sector as a whole.
The third has to do with the stabilization of incomes ...
The minister admitted, when we discussed this matter in committee this afternoon, that "stabilization of income" is a bad expression. They will have to change the wording in that 20-page document.


An hon. Member:: It means, stabilization of poverty.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As has been pointed out, it means stabilization of poverty. The minister did not like that expression. He said it was a bad expression. How are they going to accomplish this? I continue quoting from the article:
-It concentrates on increasing the mobility of the land resource, enabling some farmers to increase the size of their farming operations and enabling others to get their assets out of farm real estate so they can take advantage of non-farm income, employment or retirement opportunities.
It involves a package of four programs as follows:
A listing service to provide the relevant information to prospective buyers and sellers.
Incentive grants to encourage prospective vendors to sell.
Special credit facilites to encourage prospective purchasers to buy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Read that one over again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can read it over again. The present government has created a need for credit facilities because they have increased the interest rate from 5 per cent to 8 per cent on loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation. They are not doing much for the prospective buyers of land, either. The article continues:
Authority (for the government) to enter the market directly to purchase and resell farms as the needs arise.
The bureaucrat is moving into the real estate business. I should not be warning the small farmers, I should be warning the real estate men across this country that they will have opposition. The government is going to move in. It has the ultimate power to buy and sell land. The government is going to collect it all because they are going to be marketing the farmers' products under this two-headed monster that is responsible for agricultural policy today. If one reads this complete article, he will realize where we are headed. I quote:
The second set of programs is comprised of:
A rural counselling service required to assist the farmer and his family make the basic decision-

June 8, 1971

A farm management service-
An agricultural adjustment information system-
I wonder whether this system will come under Information Canada which is going to set up stores across Canada. One can clearly see the bureaucratic drive going forward in the Department of Agriculture. One has to really study that. What are they attempting to gain by it?
We hear a great deal of discussion today about the standard of living. Does it really satisfy the people? We hear discussions about the quality of life. In my opinion, the quality of life is highest on the small farms across Canada. It should be the goal of politicians to strive to give people a high quality of life. They should encourage the small farmer to stay on the farm and not drive him into the city. I will tell you why I believe that.
In order to enjoy a high quality of life, one must reach some degree of contentment with himself and his community. He must have peace of mind and the knowledge that the food and shelter are his and will be there. He can acquire that on a small farm. In order to reach that contentment, he must have the satisfaction that he is making a meaningful contribution to his family, community and country. He can do this most readily in the agricultural rural community. Above all, in order to have contentment, he must have a sense of security and freedom. This can be most readily acquired in a rural community or on a small farm.
What is happening in other segments of our society? A fear is developing. A headline in this morning's Gazette refers to the inroads of the mafia. If we look at the crime that is developing in our major cities, we see that it is difficult for an individual to reach a degree of certainty. It is not good enough to merely lock the door. In nine out of 10 homes in rural communities across Canada, they do not bother to lock their doors at night. Ninety-nine out of 100 farms are not locked at night. They have a sense of security on the farm. The cities are reaching a point where they cannot offer the same high quality of life.
Other things happen to the environment when men are grouped too closely together. There is a high crime rate. Frustration builds up from a lack of contentment. It drives people to violence and crime. What about the concern for the pollution of our air, water and land? The concentration of the automobiles in major cities contributes something like 62 per cent to the air pollution. This is not the case in the rural communities which the government is deliberately attempting to destroy with a plan that is set out in a 20 page document which they are trying to sell to the provinces. This program is deliberately destroying the highest quality of life that Canadians can hope to enjoy. What about pollution of our land and water? When men are grouped together in close confinement, it is very difficult and costly to maintain a high quality of life.
Let us take a quick look at what we really want to do. Above all, we want to build our country. We also want to protect our past. If you take an extreme example, a farmer realizes that he has inherited his land from somebody who farmed it before him and he must protect it
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers for somebody who will follow. He develops a love for the past and a deep sense of protection of the environment for those who will follow. This feeling is not acquired in the city. In the city, people acquire a sense of frustration which leads them to knock down huge buildings to get them out of the way so that the air will be pure and clear. It is different in the rural areas. The farmer has a deep desire to protect the land which he has acquired. He believes he has to protect it for his life, family, community and country. This is the type of country he wants. We want a person to enjoy a high quality of life. We want him to have a sense of freedom.
If we follow this adjustment program which the government has laid down in this 20 page document, will these people still have a sense of freedom? The government will help these people decide whether they go left, right or in the middle. I do not mean that in a political sense. There are three choices. The government will help an individual make a decision. As far as the government is concerned, that will be his first and last decision. He will have no freedom. He will have to march down the road to the end of time.
One must have a sense of freedom to judge his own actions and freedom from the effects of the actions of others. Where can this best be found but in the rural communities where there is freedom from the actions of one's neighbours. Above all, in rural life there is freedom to acquire a sense of co-operation. There is freedom to build a community and to co-operate with one's neighbours. There is a sense of building a better community and country. As politicians, we have to do much more than just espouse a high quality of life in the political speeches we make from time to time. It must be our goal and objective to give more and more people the opportunity to enjoy a high quality of life.
This afternoon I have tried to spell out what is encompassed within a high quality of life. Many of these objectives are quite attainable for a person who lives in an area that is not too densely populated. The more we group ourselves together, the more the quality of life diminishes. This government is deliberately attempting to destroy the quality of life that many Canadians in our rural community enjoy.
I wholeheartedly support this motion. I do not think that the payment of $100 million will reverse all the intentions of this government. I hope the government is continually bombarded with the theme that they alone are responsibe for this 20 page document which they are attempting to sell to agricultural ministers across Canada. This 20 page document will bring about the ruination of one of the best ways of life we have enjoyed to date.
For these reasons I support the motion. I hope the $100 million can be paid out quickly to help farmers make the necessary adjustments and judge the programs which are to be brought forward. If farmers are not worried financially about tomorrow's bread and butter, they might have time in which to assess fairly bills such as C-244 and C-176, and reject-

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers


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


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on rising I should like to emphasize once again that nobody in this House has a better appreciation of the importance of farming and of farm life than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), and I assure once again, not members opposite who either do not hear or do not choose to hear but the agriculture community generally that everything we do in this government is designed to improve the basic position of farmers generally.
We shall, of course, attempt to offer special help, to develop special measures such as adjustment programs for farmers who are in a situation different from one they would choose for themselves. We in this government have been working very hard on measures to improve the agricultural situation in the long term. We have done so with firm convictions about the underlying strength of our agricultural industry and in the firm belief that with farmers and the government working together we can find an improved place for agriculture in this country.
What have we found from members opposite in these circumstances? We have found the doom and gloom boys once again at work, going across this land trying to suggest evil motives on our part, putting the worst possible light on every situation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We wouldn't do that.


Otto Emil Lang: They have added to the grave difficulties which do exist by attempting to increase the frustration and the hopelessness of farmers across this land, and for that they must stand indicted now and in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It will be up to us in the government and in this party, and up to many other people across this land to attempt to counteract this doom and gloom and depict what the real possibilities are in order that men may work their best, not in the spirit of hopelessness which hon. members opposite have tried to instil but in the spirit of facing difficulties realistically and trying to overcome them.
I am happy to note that in the prairie region there are many who are trying to lead farmers to understand that difficulties can be overcome. I think, for example, of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, I think of the rape-seed associations of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Canadian association particularly, not to ignore some of the others. These organizations have in recent days again emphasized the importance of marketing and of what can be done with our productive acres in the western region if we go after world markets with vigorous determination and a conviction that we can as a result claim those markets and benefit from an evergrowing share of income for the prairie region. It is men like these whose help we shall need, not just in describing the programs we have put in place but to overcome the attempt by members opposite to spread gloom and despair.
I think hon. members can do no worse in relation to agriculture than continue this attempt in which they have persisted for so long. I could point to the tremendous efforts which have been engaged in recently to bring some order and sense into the quota system, to remove programs which biased the system in favour of one grain or another. I could point to the large sums of money made available for diversion programs, the forage incentive program, and so on; programs which are directed to helping prairie agriculture and which are justified because this industry is in real difficulty and farmers have real cash problems in trying to make adjustments which they themselves know to be desirable.
Opposition spokesmen have drawn no attention to such things as federal efforts to place more cash into the hands of farmers by emphasizing wheat sales in our total world program. We have placed important emphasis on market development. The $10 million a year we have committed to market development is designed as seed money to produce much greater sums in the future. It is a tremendously positive attitude in respect of what our agricultural acres can do and where the future of agriculture may lie.
My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has recited how grain producers in many countries are now or have been in serious difficulty in recent years. Canadian producers have shared those difficulties to the full. In recognition of this, the government of this country has stood ready to expend large sums on behalf of the farmer. Members opposite talk about the net income position in the grain industry and how low it is. They do not pay attention to the $300 million which went from the treasury essentially to the grain producing area in 1970-71 in a totality of programs which in 1964-65 produced for the farmer about $92 million, a change of $200 million in additional money put out for the grain industry in recognition of its difficulties.
They do not recognize the other market developments and efforts which have been so important in the over-all planning, the extensive credit facilities which in the crop year ended July 31 made possible the export of some 150 million bushels of wheat and flour. That is about one-third of the total exports for that period and, significantly, it represents approximately the amount by which our exports of wheat this year may be above what some experts said would be the amount Canada would be able to sell in the world market. The government has at the moment outstanding liabilities of approximately $300 million in respect of loans in support of the sale of wheat where the federal government stands as guarantor. Hon. members choose to ignore this important contribution, again. On the market development side, the most positive side, looking to the development of better markets and improved cash position for the farmer by the sale of his own goods no matter what the treasury may do in relation to the farmer, the bulk of his income over a long period of time comes from the proceeds of sale of his own products and this is where the emphasis must be.

June 8, 1971

The results already this year have begun to be evident. We will have exports of grain which will be in record proportions. We have already exported as of May 26, 1971, compared with the year before, and my figures are for May 27-


Mr.   Homer@: Would the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question of the minister unless the minister accepts it.


Otto Emil Lang: I will accept the question toward the end, if I may, Mr. Speaker, since my time is limited. Total exports of grain for the crop year to May 26 were 522.8 million bushels compared with 335 million bushels the year before. Let me give the individual figures to hon. members so they will be satisfied. In the case of wheat except Durum, exports were 285.3 million compared with
234.3	million bushels. In the case of Durum, exports were 33.7 million bushels compared with 14.9 million. In the case of oats, exports were 10.2 million bushels compared with 1.4 million bushels the previous year. In the case of barley exports were 135.6 million bushels compared with
49.3	million bushels. This 135.6 million bushels compares with the all-time previous record for an entire crop year of approximately 122 million bushels.
In the case of rye the figures are 6.3 million bushels compared with 3.1 million. In the case of flaxseed, exports were 15.3 million bushels compared with 14.8 million bushels. In the case of rapeseed-a great potential crop for the future; one on which to base a good deal of optimism-exports were 36.4 million bushels compared with 17.2 million bushels for the previous crop year. These are figures that are beginning to result in record movement of grain out of the prairie region and which will shortly do a significant amount of good in that region.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the farmers.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members say I should tell it to the farmers. Let me tell them other people in this country recognize that the $300 million which was paid out by the treasury is a significant amount of money, even if hon. members opposite do not appreciate it.
In the serious difficulties encountered in 1968-69 and 1969-70 the cash advance payments program was available and provided interest-free money to farmers to tide them over their difficulties. As a result, by the end of the last crop year a total of 122,110 cash advances had been taken for the year, for a total of $272,777,316. I should like to remind hon. members of the importance of this program to the extent that interest-free money is provided to farmers to tide them over the limited cash flow they experienced in the area of grain shipments.
I should like to illustrate how things are different this year. As of June 4, which will be approximately the end of the period for this year for cash advances, 51,353 cash advances have been taken. This compares with the previ-
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers ous year when 122,110 farmers took cash advances. The 51,353 taken this year represent a total of $91,105,330.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But how many are outstanding?


Otto Emil Lang: In the same period, the amount of cash advances outstanding has gone down very significantly. Increased deliveries of grain have to a very large extent reduced this indebtedness, or the amount of advances on future sales of grain, and the farmers are in a far better position in terms of grain sold than they were before. Advances made to farmers by the end of this crop year may be down by over $80 million compared with the previous year. As a result of further sales such as the recent one totalling $130 million to the U.S.S.R., and with the kind of aggressive marketing we have on the part of the Wheat Board, our farmers can begin to look ahead.


David Lewis: That was an old sale, not a new one.


Otto Emil Lang: Our farmers have cause to be optimistic about a better future.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is so far from the fact that it is not recognizable.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite do not like to be reminded of this because they are so happy listening to their own cries of doom and gloom. The present motion before the House calls for an immediate payment of $100 million. This is exactly what would happen, of course, if hon. members opposite would co-operate and pass some of the legislation that is before the House.
I suggested to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) when he spoke that the motives of the NDP in moving this motion were largely political, having regard to their embarrassment at being accused in the election campaign in Saskatchewan, and quite rightly so, of obstructing the payment of this $100 million. A member of the NDP from this House said in Saskatchewan that he would ensure that this money would not be paid out to the farmers until the election was over. I do not have any similar analysis for such people as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), but he needs no motive for obstruction in this House; he obstructs automatically.
I suggest, and it may help hon. members opposite to be more co-operative and attempt to assist the parliamentary process by bringing the question to a vote, that the New Democratic Party has probably accomplished its objective because it may be impossible to make this payment now before June 23. Although they may be happy, they will be held responsible for this delay in Saskatchewan.


David Lewis: Come on, cut it out.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is rising on a point of order.

June 8, 1971
Suggested Payment to Western Farmers


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am not concerned about the NDP; my question of privilege is that the minister directly accused me of obstructing any and all things in the House of Commons, particularly Bill C-244. Let me point out to him that the proposals in this bill were first announced on October 29 and we never saw them again until a month ago. So it is the minister's own fault that he has not had the bill passed before June 23.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is of the opinion that the hon. member for Crowfoot has a question for debate, not a question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Crowfoot has raised such an interesting point I should like to remind him that we followed a practice that I think should be applauded by the producers. That is to say, when we made this proposal we enunciated it in late October, discussed it with the producers and producer organizations for a number of months. This was the basic framework of what we intended and wanted to do for the producers of the region and these proposals were known to the House, even if some hon. members opposite did not see them. Then in March we announced the result of our discussions and the improvements and changes that were made to the program. Following that, the legislation was brought forward.
If we had brought the legislation forward earlier, the hon. member for Crowfoot would have said we did not seriously mean to discuss it. He cannot have it both ways. I think he has very little ground for saying that we are trying to do nothing for the farmers except on the basis of his own understanding that bit by bit and gradually the farmers on the Prairies are beginning to understand that we are doing our very best and working very hard in an attempt to meet their situation now and for the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has complained that members of the opposition have been creating hopelessness among the farmers of western Canada. I point out to him that the hopelessness which hangs like a pall over western agriculture is due to the policies and the fumbling and bungling of the minister himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact that this minister last year could only offer the farmers of Western Canada the Lift program to take their land out of production was a counsel of despair and an announcement to the farmers of western Canada that the government had no policy to dispose of their produce and no policy to maintain their income. The fact that this government pursued policies that resulted in the farm income on the three prairie provinces dropping last year by $296 million over the previous year and $481 million over 1968 is what has caused the hopelessness.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) .1
The fact that the minister had to tie his $100 million hand-out to a bill which is designed to put the farmers of western Canada in an economic straight)acket, so they will have to live with substandard prices for the rest of their lives, is what has caused the hopelessness. If there is hopelessness today on the Prairies, this government must accept the responsibility. Most of all, that hopelessness is caused by the attitude of the government itself.
I have in my hand a copy of the document to which the hon. member for Crowfood (Mr. Horner) referred, the Agricultural Adjustment or Development policy for Canadian agriculture. Unless anyone should not think it is official, it says on page 7 that "the federal cabinet has given approval in principle for the development and operation of set adjustment policies and programs of the general type outlined below," and it sets out in detail a program in relation to a farm adjustment and mobilization resources plan. This is a chart for the dissolution of the family farm in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre.
All those in favour of the motion 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):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 7, 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. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the recorded divisions, pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), in respect of motions to amend Bill C-219, an act to establish the Canada Development Corporation.
The question is on motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. As hon. members know, this division also disposes of motion No. 2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. This division disposes of motions Nos. 4 and 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. This division disposes of motion No. 7 also.
6506


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House divided on motion No. 9 (Mr. Saltsman, for	
Mr. Burton) which was negatived on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Barnett	Lewis
Blackburn	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Brewin	Mather
Douglas	Nystrom
Gilbert	Orlikow
Gleave	Peters
Harding	Saltsman
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)	Skoberg-16.
 NAYS Messrs:
Aiken	Corriveau
Alkenbrack	Cote (Richelieu)
Anderson	Cote (Longueuil)
Andras	Crouse
Asselin	Cullen
Barrett	Cyr
Bechard	Danforth
Beer	Davis
Bell	Deachman
Benson	Deakon
Bigg	Dinsdale
Blair	Dube
Blouin	Dupras
Borrie	Duquet
Boulanger	Ethier
Breau	Faulkner
Buchanan	Forest
Caccia	Forget
Cafik	Forrestall
Cantin	Francis
Chretien	Gendron
Clermont	Gervais
Coates	Gibson
Cobbe	Goode
Code	Gray
Comeau	Grills
Comtois	Groos

June 8, 1971

Guay (St. Boniface)
Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Hales
Harkness
Hees
Hogarth
Hopkins
Homer
Hymmen
Isabelle
Jamieson
Jerome
Kierans
Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)
Korchinski
Laflamme
Laing (Vancouver South) Lang (Saskatoon-Humbolt)
Langlois Laniel La Salle
Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacLean
MacRae
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
Mcllraith
McKinley
McNulty
McQuaid
Mahoney
Marchand (Langelier)
Morison
Muir
Munro
Murphy
Murta
Nesbitt
Noel
Nowlan
Messrs:
O'Connell
Olson
Osier
Otto
Paproski
Peddle
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Reid
Richardson
Ritchie
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Serre
Simpson
Smerchanski
Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Southam Stafford Stanfield
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart (Marquette) Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Thomas (Moncton) Thompson (Red Deer) Tolmie Trudel
Turner (London East)
Valade
Walker
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis
Yewchuk-155.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House divided on motion No. 12 (Mr. Brewin, for	
Mr. Burton) which was negatived on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Barnett	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Blackburn	Mather
Brewin	Nystrom
Douglas	Orlikow
Gilbert	Peters
Gleave	Saltsman
Harding	Thomson
Knowles (Winnipeg	(Battleford-
North Centre) Lewis	Kindersley) -16.
 NAYS Messrs:
Aiken	Forest
Alkenbrack	Forget
Anderson	Forrestall
Andras	Francis
Asselin	Gendron
Barrett	Gervais
Bechard	Gibson
Beer	Goode
Bell	Gray
Benson	Grills
Bigg	Groos
Blair	Guay (St. Boniface)
Blouin	Guay (Levis)
Borrie	Guilbault
Boulanger	Haidasz
Breau	Hales
Buchanan	Harkness
Caccia	Hees
Cafik	Hogarth
Cantin	Hopkins
Chretien	Horner
Clermont	Hymmen
Coates	Isabelle
Cobbe	Jamieson
Code	Jerome
Comeau	Kierans
Comtois	Knowles (Norfolk-
Corriveau	Haldimand)
Cote (Richelieu)	Korchinski
Cote (Longueuil)	Laflamme
Crouse	Laing
Cullen	(Vancouver South)
Cyr	Lang (Saskatoon -
Danforth	Humboldt)
Bavis	Langlois
Deachman	Laniel
Deakon	La Salle
Dinsdale	Leblanc (Laurier)
Dub6	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Dupras	Lefebvre
Duquet	Lessard (LaSalle)
Ethier	Lessard
Faulkner	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
Loiselle
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacLean
MacRae
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
Mcllraith
McKinley
McNulty
McQuaid
Mahoney
Marchand
(Langelier)
Morison
Muir
Munro
Murphy
Murta
Nesbitt
Noel
Nowlan
O'Connell
Olson
Osier
Otto
Paproski
Peddle
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Reid
Richardson
Ritchie
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Timmins) Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Serre
Simpson
Smerchanski
Smith
(N orthumberland-Miramichi)
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Southam Stafford Stanfield Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart Marquette)
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Thomas (Moncton) Thompson (Red Deer)
Tolmie
Trudel
Turner
(London East) Valade Walker Weatherhead Whelan Whicher Whiting Yanakis Yewchuk-155.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Hon. members will be pleased to note that we have now disposed of all motions at the report stage.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-219, to establish the Canada Development Corporation, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edgar John Benson: that the bill be read the third
time and do pass.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: This speech is going to be good when I get going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Now that all the preliminaries are over, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill to outline why the

June 8, 1971

government wishes to establish and how it intends to operate the Canada Development Corporation. I have slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that this corporation will be the most costly fiasco which ever has been jammed down the throat of the Canadian people.
I am very disappointed this is the case because originally, before the government actually presented its bill, I had become convinced that this would offer an excellent potential for enabling Canadians to own and control more of their development. I believed that there were excellent possibilities presented for persuading Canadians, who do not now invest their savings in the stock market because they are unfamiliar with how it operates and therefore unwilling to trust their savings to it, to switch part of their savings to investment in the Canada Development Corporation.
However, because of the outline by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) concerning how the government intends the Canada Development Corporation should operate, I have reluctantly become convinced that the CDC will simply never get off the ground. I have come to this conclusion because of the method outlined by the Minister of Finance for raising the capital with which the corporation will operate. As we know, the government plan is that the corporation will raise 90 per cent of its capital-that is, $1,080 million-by selling shares to the public. In order for this to be possible it is obvious that the public must be willing to buy these shares. If the public is to buy these shares, the people must be convinced that investing in the CDC is a more desirable way for them to invest their savings than the method they are now using.
Let us examine the potential areas from which this capital can be raised. Most of the savings in this country are invested in two broad fields. The first is the stock and bond market, either through individual issues or through mutual funds. The second is the broad field of life insurance, savings accounts and Canada Savings bonds. Those who have been investing in the stock and bond market, either in individual issues or through mutual funds, have a wide variety of issues from which to choose. They are able to assess the possibilities for future growth and future dividends from the reports which companies make available periodically for the information of the public.
These people are satisfied with the method they are now employing for investing their savings and believe they are playing their part in helping this country finance its development. It is very unlikely that any of these people will be inclined to switch their savings from this type of investment to investment in CDC shares. The group which offers the real potential for switching its savings from the present form of investment to investment in the CDC is the second category, which includes those who have been investing their savings in life insurance, savings accounts and Canada savings bonds.
The combined savings of this group approaches $1J billion a year. I am convinced this group could be persuaded to switch part of its savings to investment in the CDC if an appeal were made to the people in it to help their country own and control more of its development. I
Canada Development Corporation believe something in the order of half a billion dollars a year could be switched from this group. In order for these people to be persuaded to switch part of their present investment to investment in the Canada Development Corporation they must be guaranteed the same kind of security and return on investment they are now receiving, which is very real and very attractive to them. They will not switch until they are assured of receiving at least the same security and the same return on investment.
The Minister of Finance recently announced that no such guarantee either of security or return on investment will be made by the government. I have discussed this matter at great length with people in the investment community. These are the people through whom sales of Canada Development Corporation shares would have to be made. They are unanimous in their opinion that unless the government gives such a guarantee to the people there will be no investment by the public in CDC shares.
Why are they so sure this would be the case? They will tell you the people are aware of what happens to business operations which are controlled by the government. They know very well what happened to the 14 companies that were operated by the late CCF government in Saskatchewan in the forties. We all remember the very interesting description given a few years ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he rose in this House and told us in chapter and verse what happened to each of the 14 companies operated by the CCF government at that time. He outlined how long each company lasted under the government's direction and what the loss was to the people of Saskatchewan in each case.
Mr. Speaker, a former leader of the government of Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), was in the House at the time and all he could do was smile and sink a little lower in his seat as the right hon. member for Prince Albert continued to describe the fiasco for which the hon. member's government was responsible.
The people of Canada are also familiar with the operation of Quebec's General Development Corporation which came into existence in the mid-1960s. This General Development Corporation is exactly the same kind of corporation the government intends the CDC to be. It was brought into being as a means of enabling the people of Quebec to participate in the development of industry of their province. In the same way, this government claims the CDC will enable the people of Canada to participate in the development of the Canadian economy.
The people of the business community in particular, the people of Quebec in particular and the people of Canada generally are aware that the shares of the Quebec General Development Corporation were placed on the market at $10 each. That was the highest point those shares ever hit. They have been going down gradually and steadily ever since and today they are offered to the public at $3.50 a share, with no takers. The reason for the sad experience of that corporation is the same as

June 8, 1971
Canada Development Corporation the reason for the sad experience of government-operated business enterprises in Saskatchewan. That reason is two-fold. The first is government interference, and the second is lack of managerial ability.
Without a government guarantee of security of investment and a return on investment, the people of Canada will simply not participate in the financial operation of the Canada Development Corporation, and anybody who thinks they will is completely out of touch with the thinking of the business community and, in particular, of the investment community on whom the government would have to rely 100 per cent to market these shares to the Canadian people.
People in the investment community will tell you that they simply cannot sell CDC shares unless there is a guarantee of security and return on investment. The government think that by appealing to the nationalism of the Canadian people, particularly the group that has savings and has never invested in anything in the nature of development, and by appealing their patriotism, they will achieve their goal. People in the investment community will tell you that without them there would simply be no investment by the public.
It shows how far out of touch with the business community the Minister of Finance and this government are if they think that their pipe dream of selling unsecured CDC shares to the public could be made a reality. It simply could not. All you have to do is ask any person in the investment community if this is not so and he will tell you that of course it is. When you mention CDC shares to the investment community, people simply laugh and the few that do not laugh, cry because it has become a very sad and a very sick joke among them. It is simply too ridiculous for words.
Because of these facts, because of the interference by the government if this corporation becomes a reality, because they know that the public will not participate in the financing of the corporation, more than 20 top businessmen in this country who have been approached to take on the job of president of the CDC, at a salary which I am told is about $75,000 a year, have turned down the proposition. They have turned it down cold because they know that this corporation will be a failure and top-flight businessmen do not like to be associated with failures.
That is why, also, the very large number of businessmen who have been approached to take on the job of general manager have turned it down. Businessmen do not like to be associated with failures and that is the reason this government will not be able to get a first-class businessman, a second-class or even a third-class businessman to take on the direction of the corporation. It will have to rely upon a political hack who has not been able to make a go of his own business and who would like to receive that large salary even for the few years that the corporation might be allowed to operate before it folds up like a $2 suitcase.
Finally, let us look at the use to which the corporation would put the $200 million of the taxpayers' money which the government intends to invest in the operations of the CDC. To get the answer let us ask ourselves first of all why, when the Canada Development Corporation lay dormant and unwanted for eight long years from the time it was first introduced by the then Minister of Finance, Hon. Walter Gordon, late last fall when the CDC legislation rated No. 74 on the government's list of legislative priorities suddenly it was elevated to No. 1. The bill was rushed into the House and now it is being put through in great haste.
The simple answer is that there is no economic reason for it; in fact, every economic reason is against it. It is a 100 per cent political reason. The reason is that the organizers of the Liberal Party suddenly saw in this proposal a first-class election gimmick. This corporation will be paraded on every Liberal platform in the country as a means by which anything that the people in the riding wish to take place in a business way will be promoted and accomplished. The CDC will be promised on every Liberal platform as the means by which companies which appear likely to fall into foreign hands will be taken over. It will be put forward as the means by which any company which is faltering and looks as though it is going under due to bad management or obsolescence of plant or machinery will be taken over.
People are not interested in a product which is obsolescent. The people in the area will be assured that the CDC will take over these companies, will put them on their feet and will put in all the money needed to keep them operating. Then if the government should have the good luck-which would be bad luck for the rest of the country-to be re-elected, which we hope to heaven it never will-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -you can count on the IOUs being presented to the government, and the parade to Ottawa of people from the ridings requiring that the government make good its promises will be really something to see. The Minister of Finance will try to withstand the storm, he will try to put them off, but there will be tremendous political pressure brought to bear which will make it impossible to withstand most of the pressure, and ridings that could be lost the next time around will be looked after very well indeed. If this legislation goes through and the CDC becomes a reality, we will see this corporation operating the greatest number of flops that you have ever seen. They will be operating companies that would make the 14 companies which failed in Saskatchewan in the 1940s look like very profitable and successful operations.
The trouble with the Minister of Finance, the government and its socialistic advisers is that they do not realize that for a company to be a practical success it must be able to produce a product at a price and of a design and quality which appeals to the buying public of this country as well as to the export market, because

June 8, 1971

most Canadian companies rely upon making sales in the export market. To do that a company must be relatively close to the source of raw materials. It must have cheap power, it must have the proper technology and it must have a market that wants its product and is willing to pay for it at the price that is asked and with the quality and design that is offered.
Most of the socialistic planners believe that all one has to do is put up the bricks and mortar, get the machines in and name a manager and somehow or other the company will be a success. That is the reason government-controlled business operations always fail. The public of Canada knows this of publicly-owned corporations of this kind and that is why it will not touch the CDC's shares unless security and return on investment is guaranteed: they will not touch them with a ten-foot pole.
So, Mr. Speaker, we will have on our hands a corporation that I am convinced will be the greatest flop since the Edsel. The Edsel is coming down the assembly line at the present time, and in the near future when the government's majority jams it through the House and makes it a reality, as it will, it will be operating on a gas tank that is only 10 per cent full. There are no drivers willing to direct the operations of the corporation because no first-class or second-class businessmen are willing to take it on. They are making that very clear. More than 20 top businessmen have been approached and every one has turned it down cold. No one will touch it because they do not want to be associated with a colossal failure.
Like its predecessor in this country and other countries, after costing the taxpayers many millions of dollars this corporation will be withdrawn. This has been the case in many instances. That, Mr. Speaker, is why 1 and members of the official opposition intend to vote against this measure on third reading.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waierloo):: Mr. Speaker, in some of the euphoric moments when the New Democratic Party looks at the bankruptcy of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party, we say to ourselves, "Surely the Canadian people will recognize this and elect us to office." The question then arises of the kind of CDC we would institute and who might be the manager of such a corporation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have in our party the Waffle group and occasionally I hear one of them suggest the name of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). They say, "George Hees would be a good manager for the CDC." After the speech the hon. member made tonight I am afraid his name might have to be scratched.
Some of the comments of the hon. member rather surprised me. He sees the CDC as having some significance or force in the private market. I do not see it in that light at all. I am rather disappointed in some of the statements made by the hon. member in another sense. When he was Minister of Transport and Minister of Trade and Commerce when his party formed the government, he was said to be a very imaginative and aggressive minister.
Canada Development Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I don't want to miss this, Max.


Max Saltsman: He used his office as minister for the good of the people of Canada and ran his department in an efficient manner. Surely that must put the lie to some of the statements he made this evening to the effect that a government corporation cannot be run efficiently. We can expect this kind of talk from Liberals who do not have faith in corporations or government and are cynical about what can be done in the public sector, but I had hoped for something more from a former Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The Canada Development Corporation bill before us is disappointing in the extreme. It is unimaginative and does not meet the challenge of the crisis in Canadian development. And we are in a crisis. We are facing a situation where we cannot find employment for our people. We have the highest level of unemployment in the western world and have not been able to meet this problem despite the fact that we have imported so much foreign capital that the country has virtually been taken over.
The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) has been criss-crossing Canada pointing out the serious consequences of the policies pursued by the government. He fees that far too much money from outside Canada is going to natural resource industries which do not provide benefits to Canada, do not provide us with tax revenues and employment opportunities and will in the long run destroy the ability of this country to survive.
The public senses that this is a phony bill. There has been almost no interest in it in representations before the committee despite the wide circulation of invitations to groups to appear before the House of Commons committee to present their points of view. The Canada Development Corporation has been met with a great big yawn. That is the kind of reception the government's CDC bill deserves. It is a nothing.
This bill is based on the false and unworkable premise, Mr. Speaker, that it must be a profit-oriented corporation and that is the only way to handle it. We have many profit-making corporations in Canada, so why are we in the sad state in which we find ourselves? Why is our economy virtually wrecked by foreign ownership? It is not because of the absence of a profit motive. We find ourselves in this state today because we have concentrated exclusively on the short-term profit motive; there is such thing as long-term profit. We have concentrated on giving away our resources and we have invited people to come in and virtually do as they please with our economy.
It will take more than this corporation to meet the chalenge of our times, Mr. Speaker. The bill is immoral in the sense that it attempts to take what is now the common property of all Canadians and convert it to the ownership of a few people. Corporations like Polymer have consistently returned a profit to the Canadian taxpayer as have Northern Transportation and Eldorado. It is wrong to take them away from the Canadian people to
June 8, 1971

Canada Development Corporation
whom they now belong and turn them over to a relatively small group which has money to invest.
After all, Mr. Speaker, only about 7 per cent of the Canadian population invests in equities at the moment. Even if more invest in the future, we will still be left with probably no more than 10 per cent and certainly no more than 15 per cent. This means that the minority of Canadians will be taking over the assets of the majority, and there seems to be no reason for this. If there is any justification at all for the CDC as the government sees it, it should stand on its own without having to be sweetened by taking public property and throwing it into the pot.
When we look at this bill we ask ourselves why the government has brought in such an emasculated, anaemic and meaningless piece of legislation and we come to a number of conclusions. The first is that they have been desperately trying to get rid of Crown corporations. The success of Crown corporations like Polymer apparently has been an embarrassment to them. We think they failed to get rid of them in the past because of public pressure, but think they can do it now by establishing the CDC and throwing Crown corporations into that combination.
Another reason is the paucity of equities for Canadian investors. I pointed out in a previous speech that a study conducted at York University indicated that there was a great deal of money in Canada looking for equity investment and it just was not available. Instead of taking action that would have been more appropriate under circumstances of this kind, as suggested by a former Minister of Finance, and insisting that branch plants of international corporations make their shares available in the Canadian market-after all, there is a shortage of equities in this country because of the high degree of foreign ownership of our corporations-the government chose to take the common property of Canadians and say, "You can now invest in these companies." That does not change the problem of foreign ownership. Actually, it makes the situation worse because we shall now take wholly-owned Canadian corporations and put them into a corporation which we are not sure will remain wholly under Canadian control.
The third reason is, I think, an entirely political one. In this I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The government has political reasons for introducing this bill. It has promised to introduce the Canada Development Corporation for eight years. The failure to introduce it became embarrassing, so much so that the government felt it had to do something. This bill is that something. The CDC will not perform any real function. It does not seem to serve any significant purpose. However, since it has been promised in many throne speeches the government has introduced it. They will go into the next election and say, "You wanted the CDC. There it is."
I am afraid that the Liberal party is in for a rude awakening. The public of Canada is far more sophisticated than that party thinks. The public will see through this kind of fraudulent approach. It will see that the corporation is a nothing, that it is not what it purports to be. What the Liberal party may think is a political asset for them may turn out to be the greatest liability they have been burdened with for a long time.
The government's concept of CDC almost totally ignores the much wider problems facing Canada. The terms of reference of the corporation are not designed to help regional development; on the contrary, they will work against regional development because the idea behind the corporation is that it shall be profit-oriented. It is to be set up in anticipation of profits, as has been said.
The clause stipulating that the corporation cannot invest in businesses with capitalization of less than $1 million will work against the possibility of its becoming involved in regional development. The terms of reference of the corporation are the same as those governing companies in the private sector, and the private sector has failed miserably to meet the challenge of providing opportunities for Canadians wherever they may live in this country. The CDC will do nothing to come to grips with these disadvantages.
Instead of pouring millions and millions of dollars into regional development programs in the fond hope that private investment will somehow find its way to the underdeveloped parts of Canada and help in some undefined way, it would have been better if the money had been put into a development corporation which could have been established to bring about positive development. Such a corporation could have introduced a plan, in co-operation with the provinces, for the economic development of the underdeveloped parts of Canada. In that way we could bring proper development to those parts of the country which need industry and development.
The returns on the millions and millions of dollars being poured into the government's regional program are uncertain. On the other hand, by putting this money into a true development corporation we could do a great deal more and we could do it with the certainty that the money would be well spent and the results would be beneficial for areas which we are seeking to help. The government's regional development program is under an enormous cloud. It has become apparent that despite the department's vast expenditures almost no good has been done in the areas it has tried to help. A much better way of helping must be found if we sue to solve the problem of regional development.
The CDC, as the government sees it, is to be entirely a short-term proposition. It is to take short-term profits but is not to be concerned with the long-term interests of the country. There is a long-term interest, if I may use that phrase, Mr. Speaker, which needs to be met in this country. For instance, one of our great problems is that we need to rationalize our industry. Foreign investors have foisted an inefficient industrial structure on this country. I want to make it clear that this has not happened merely because investors have been foreign.

June 8, 1971

Some foreign investment can be advantageous. Most foreign investment in this country, particularly in the manufacturing sector, has been of a kind to benefit the international corporation which is investing. Much of it has not benefited us because foreign corporations did not set up industries which were indigenous to Canada and would have made sense in the Canadian economy. Actually, they set up a Dinky toy representation in this country of the American economy. They foisted on this country a miniature replica of the industrial pattern of the United States. Although that pattern may make sense in the United States, it does not make sense in this country. We may have modern plants; however, because they are not specialized and because many of them duplicate the activities of competitors, much of their production in Canada has proved uneconomical.
1 think everyone acknowledges that there is need for an intelligent rationalization of our industry. Although the terms of reference of CDC talk about rationalization, they hamstring the corporation with the basest of motives and the narrowest of objectives. Therefore, the kind of rationalization which ought to take place will not take place. That ought to be a prime function of a development corporation of any kind.
Another of our social and economic objectives has to do with the fair distribution of wealth in this country. However, instead of more widely distributing the ownership and the wealth of Canada we are narrowing that ownership, under this bill, to shareholders of CDC only. As I said earlier, we are taking corporations like Polymer which belong to all Canadians and putting them into the CDC. Thus, we are taking away ownership opportunities for Canadians and concentrating wealth in the hands of those who can invest in the CDC. Surely this is a retrograde step. We ought to be moving in the other direction and ensuring much wider ownership of our resources through the public sector so that all our people could participate in the investment, instead of narrowing the field by taking companies out of the public sector and putting them into the private sector.
If it is not intended that CDC shall come to grips with the question of foreign ownership and the government has carefully reminded us that it does not intend the corporation to do that, then what is the point of it? If it is not to come to grips with foreign ownership, why do we need it? The government says that other government policies are to tackle that problem. We have not seen any evidence of those other policies and in light of experience such statements must be treated with a great deal of suspicion. If there are such other policies, we had the right to be made aware of them before the CDC legislation was brought down, and the terms of reference for setting up CDC ought to have meshed with the aims of such policies instead of being in their present form. We do not know what those policies will be. We do not know what tax policies will be introduced. We do not know what the government's foreign ownership policies will be. We do not know what the policies relating to competition will be.
Surely the kind of development corporation required would depend to a great extent on government policies. It
Canada Development Corporation has been our view that CDC should be an instrument of government policy. Instead, CDC as presented to the House is to operate in the private sector. It is to act on its own, to follow the profit motive, and so on. There will be no guarantee that CDC will consider the public interest to a greater extent than any other corporation in the private sector.
The concept of a Canadian development corporation is particularly important to the New Democratic Party. After all, long before the government talked about this corporation our founding convention had dealt with the idea of such a development corporation. We felt it most important that there be such a corporation in Canada. It is for that reason our disappointment is so keen respecting what we have been presented with in this bill. It is also for that reason that we moved a large number of amendments, as it turned out in a vain attempt to change the bill in a way that would make it more acceptable and better adapted to serve the interests of the Canadian people. Every one of those amendments was turned down. It leaves us no choice but to vote against what my leader has called this emasculated version of a Canada development corporation. This is not a Canada development corporation in the sense that we wanted it to be. It is a name, and only a name. For that reason we cannot support the measure.
When we asked the government why the bill was presented in this form instead of a more flexible form that would be more responsive to Parliament and the Canadian people, we were told it was just a philosophical difference between our party and their party and that we see things differently. They did not even have the courtesy to make their arguments to show philosophically why their point of view was valid. They never even attempted to defend it; they simply dismissed our point of view as an ideological difference.
A study of other development corporations was put before the members of the committee. The study showed that no development corporation in any country had been set up in the form of the Canada Development Corporation. In other words, the government has not learned anything from what has gone on in the rest of the world or from their examination of the Canadian economy. There is hardly a country in the world that has not at one time or another actively intervened in its economy. This is even true of the United States which has the greatest hang-ups about government intervention in the economy. In each case they have intervened for different reasons. In Canada there is a most compelling reason why the government must play a more active role in the economy. The reason is that private entrepreneurship has failed the nation. We are in our present state because private entrepreneurs have failed us. That failure must be compensated by public enterprise. It is for this reason that we feel the Canada Development Corporation is of such importance.
It is always sad to participate in a committee hearing when the captains of Canadian industry turn out to be the strongest supporters for continuing foreign owner-
6514

June 8, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
ship. People come before the committee, the representatives of the public, and say they do not want laws against foreign ownership. Their reasons are quite simple and clear. Laws of that type would restrict the opportunities to sell to a wider group of people and might restrict their profits. It is this mentality, coupled with the mentality of continentalist thinking and a government that has given us the highest degree of foreign ownership in Canada, that has made Canadians enormously insecure about their future and their ability to survive this kind of intrusion.
As I listened to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings I could not help wondering what the founder and first leader of his party would have thought of his speech. After all, Canada was built by public enterprise. The Conservative party more than any other party should be aware of this. This country was opened up by public, not private, enterprise. The Prairies were opened up by building the railroads. They were built at enormous expense to the public and tremendous involvement on the part of the government. Ontario Hydro was established by a Conservative government because it felt that businessmen could not function and would not be able to produce efficiently unless there were cheap power. This was not established by Socialists, although perhaps the reasons were socialistic. It was established because businessmen could not develop the industrial potential of Ontario unless cheap power were available. There was no reluctance at that time to bring about this kind of intrusion in the private sector.
Education, which is the infrastructure and backbone of any industrialized nation, is in the public sector. Even our culture is being preserved by the CBC and various grants and assistance to the arts in Canada. If it had not been done in the public sector it would not have been done at all. We would not have anything in Canada but American radio, television, newspapers and books. Banking started out as a private corporation in which all the banks participated after a great debate. After trying to operate in this way for a short time, in 1932, I think it was, it eventually became part of the operation of government. Today we can be proud of the Bank of Canada that we have. We are not proud of all its recent decisions, but on the whole the Bank of Canada is a wise institution. It is under public operation.
Those things in which Canada can take the greatest pride are under public operation, such as health, hospitals and the Canada Pension Plan. I have spoken to Americans who have visited Canada and seen what we have done in these areas. They envy the progressiveness of our public corporations and what they accomplish. I see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is in the chamber. We are sometimes very unhappy about our railroad system in Canada. There is a great deal that is wrong with the policies of our railroads. However, when you compare the railroads in Canada with those in a country such as the United States, our railroads stand out in startling contrast, particularly when we recognize the tremendous difficulty of transportation in this country.
Our air transport system is infinitely superior. The Americans are talking about doing some of the things

which we did a long time ago. Instead of spinning off another company and injecting CP Air, it would have been much better to have made this the prerogative of Air Canada, a Crown corporation. This does not only apply to Canada. In Great Britain, Chamberlain and Birmingham were not Socialists, yet many civil matters in the public sector had to be handled in a public manner. They were not reluctant to do so. Churchill, who would not like to have been called a Socialist, was responsible for bringing the railroads under public ownership. The telegraph operations came under public ownership at the time of Gladstone. I could go on. In the United States, people like Lincoln Steffens pointed out that you could not get rid of corruption in the public utilities until they came under public ownership.
The hon. member for Prince Edwards-Hastings made some remarks about Saskatchewan.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Has he been out there?


Max Saltsman: I think he has been reading some fairy tales. He does not know anything about Saskatchewan. One of the things of which Canada has been most proud will be the achievements of the government of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Back in the thirties.


Max Saltsman: Back in the thirties from the very day they started. The hon. member chooses to ignore this little province with its relatively small population. Though not the wealthiest province in Canada, it pioneered virtually every social reform which is now universally accepted.


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member not agree that I was referring simply to the unfortunate experience of the provincial government in taking over 14 companies all of which collapsed within a very short space of time? I said nothing about the province of Saskatchewan as a province or about the government as a government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Name the 14 companies.


David Lewis: Name seven.


George Harris Hees: My right hon. friend from Prince Albert named every single one, and members over there sank lower and lower in their seats.


David Lewis: Name seven; never mind 14.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair would appreciate it if hon. members would give the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) a chance to continue.


Max Saltsman: I am sorry the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not here. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has nothing else to go on except possibly the memory of misreading what he may have seen in Hansard.
June 8. 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Max Saltsman: He talks about the failure of corporations in Saskatchewan. It just is not true. Losses of less than one per cent were experienced in capital investment in the province, a rate far more remarkable than any I have known in the field of private corporations. The hon. member chooses to ignore many of the industries which are being continued by a government which is obviously hostile to the previous administration. They dare not dismantle those industries in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is the proudest jewel in the Canadian crown and it will be long remembered.


George Harris Hees: Why did the people of Saskatchewan turn the government out?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They did not put a Tory government in.


George Harris Hees: Answer that simple question. Why is this great government not still in power?


David Lewis: Why was Diefenbaker defeated?


George Harris Hees: Trickery!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair finds it difficult to follow the presentation of the hon. member for Waterloo. I would remind hon. members that if they want to speak in this debate, ask questions or raise points of order they should address themselves to the Chair. They should not make all kinds of interjections, otherwise we will make no progress. I call upon the hon. member for Waterloo to continue his remarks and at the same time I ask for the co-operation of hon. members.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Max Saltsman: The hon. gentleman will have to get in line. There are too many Tories trying to rise at the moment and I can only answer one Tory at a time. I shall be very glad to deal with the minister's question later. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings knows that if you take a chance in business there are bound to be some failures. I am sure he would not argue that everything in Saskatchewan was bound to turn out successfully. It would be surprising if that were so.


An hon. Member:: Like the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia?


Max Saltsman: It is not fair for the hon. member, and I know he is a fair man, to distort things in that wildly imaginative way of his, particularly when the chances taken by the government of Saskatchewan were taken for the most excellent of reasons. There are times when a government has to lose money. There are times when a government has to make a choice between profit in a ledger and the lives of people, the social environment of a community. In these circumstances, if a sum of money
Canada Development Corporation is lost is a government to be condemned on that account? Is the hon. member saying that every government decision has to show a balance in a ledger?


George Harris Hees: I never said that.


Max Saltsman: No; but if we are to discuss this subject in a proper context and if there is to be an intelligent debate on public ownership he has to bear some responsibility for telling the whole story.


George Harris Hees: The right hon. member for Prince Albert did that.


Max Saltsman: And the former Premier of Saskatchewan had a complete answer to the statement of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


An hon. Member:: Diefenbaker lasted for four years, but the government of Saskatchewan-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, this is degenerating into a debate.


John Gilbert: Give Otto a chance.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member not agree that a great deal of the tremendous success in Saskatchewan over that period in its history was due to the quality of its people? Many of the other factors might have been due to some of the things mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Max Saltsman: Certainly it was due to the quality of the people, but it was the quality of the people marshalled and directed by an intelligent government. That makes all the difference. There is a great deal of quality among the people of this country generally at the present time, but that potential is not being realized because of the stupidity of government policy.


An hon. Member:: That is why Saskatchewan is going ahead now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You were not here this afternoon.


Max Saltsman: I do not know how that moan will appear in Hansard, but the hon. member evidently does not know whereof he speaks. Nothing can go ahead if you give everything away. In Saskatchewan they have given everything away. They have virtually destroyed the potash industry. What the present government has done is a disgrace. The province might have supported two or three mines but they have invited close to ten, none of which is making any money, none of which pays taxes, none of which pays wages. Is that intelligent government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
24107-62*

June 8, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister in the House last week whether consideration was being given to setting up a national council of health to correlate the various facets of research. As the situation is now, the ground is continually shifting as provincial and federal governments argue about who shall pay for the nation's health needs. Meanwhile, those in charge of medical education live a hand-to-mouth existence. The federal government brought in medicare. They based it on the findings of the Hall commission report which recommended that doctors, drugs and hospital beds must be available for all regardless of economic status. The report stressed that an immediate, all-out effort should be undertaken to increase the number of medical schools in order to train the increased number of doctors who would be required. This, of course, meant that money was needed, so the government set up what was called a health resources fund. It was established to help the province provide new schools, new equipment, scientist-teachers and the doctors required for research teaching and medical care.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? One of the first acts of the government was to cut back on the money it had promised and agreed to provide the health resources fund. It is interesting to note that the present Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. LeClair, who has had a good deal of experience as dean of the medical school at the University of Sherbrooke and received training at the Mayo Clinic, one of the outstanding clinics in the world, is quoted as saying:
Research and medical education is not something you pump for two or three years and then let the pump go dry.
It just does not work in that way; there has to be a steady increase in education on which you can count. I could quote other deans of medical schools in Canada who have expressed similar opinions to the effect that long-term planning is an essential of any health measure as well as short-term projects. Many of these projects were left unfinished when the health resources fund was cut. Incomplete buildings were left for the provinces to finish or to he as a stark monument to the folly of government policies. The result has not only been a slowdown in the training of doctors but the quality of teacher-scientists has diminished. The priority of equipping and training doctors has been seriously impaired.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, we have people today who have no doctor. Entire areas are without medical care. At overworked outpatient departments of hospitals people wait, often for hours, for an overworked doctor to treat them. The doctor image is being destroyed because of lack of time for proper communication and owing to the
swamping of the doctor's time to fill in forms and papers, and red tape of this kind.
Drug care was to be a supplement to medicare so that the poor patient of limited resources would not only have his doctor's bill paid but also his drugs. Not a thing has been done in this regard. I raised this question in the House on a motion and government speakers who replied were in total agreement in principle with the motion. But what has been done to implement it? Paramedical services have been neglected. The poor people still do not know who is going to pay their bills. Individual doctors who are doing research are denied funds for clinical research purposes. This, then, is the reason we need a Canadian council of health. We need to set down priorities that will be followed and which will obtain the maximum result for the taxpayers' dollars.
Dr. John C. Beck, physician and chief director of McGill University's clinic at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital, has stated that although seven years ago national goals were defined by the Hall commission report on health services there is still no national science policy for health. Dr. Beck stated that a national health policy would seem to be of the very highest priority when costs are escalating and taking 6 per cent of the gross national product, $7 billion.
Federal and provincial governments have not stated their policies or their plans for health services systems. They have not stated their policy on financial support for the training and necessary research for such systems. Instead, we have unco-ordinated expansion of facilities and excessively expensive arrangements for the delivery of health services, and the cost is much higher than it ought to be.
We have been unable to formulate and implement planned programs for developing health manpower, for recruiting staffs to the health science centres and for carrying out good scientific research. Dr. Hollenberg, professor and chairman of the University of Toronto school of medicine, states that Canadian medical scientists are experiencing considerable uncertainty over the national effort on medical research. There is a slowing rate of growth in the budget of the Medical Research Council of Canada-


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


Philip Bernard Rynard: I did not start right on time, Mr. Speaker. I have another minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is not for the hon.
member to decide. The Chair allowed 30 seconds for the presentation of the adjournment motion and it feels that this is sufficient to compensate for the time lost. I am positive the hon. member has received his seven minutes by the rules of this House and I now call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney).

June 8, 1971


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) stated in reply to the question of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), we do not agree with the hon. member's premise that there is no national health science policy. Health science is the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he carries out this responsibility through his department and through the Medical Research Council. These bodies are continually co-operating on matters of science policy and, as a matter of interest, are at this time reviewing together the entire question of health science research. In addition, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and officials of his department co-operate closely with federal, provincial and municipal authorities and with universities and health science associations.
The concept of a national council on health is not new. It was considered in depth at the November, 1970, meetings of the Dominion Council of Health and the ministers of health. The department is looking into this matter now but the minister has asked me to remind the hon. gentleman from Simcoe North that the creation of such a body has widespread implications and consultation on a large scale is necessary.



HEALTH-ALLEGED USE OF STALLING TACTICS TO PREVENT ABORTION APPLICATION BEING DEALT WITH

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to raise this matter again just when the Medical Association has registered its opinion that abortion is justified on non-medical social grounds. On May 20 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) about a complaint by Dr. Byron Hyde, a general practitioner on the staff of the Riverside Hospital in Ottawa, that stalling tactics are being consistently used by those in charge of the hospital to prevent abortion cases from coming before their review board. I asked the minister if he would consult with the minister in charge of hospitals in Ontario to see what could be done about this dangerous and indefensible roadblock. The answer was silence, complete and unbroken silence.
I do not think this is good enough. The Minister of Justice is in charge of the Criminal Code which legalizes abortion where the life or health of the pregnant woman is in danger. The minister is fond of quoting the definition of "health" given by the World Health Organization:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
Evidently certain hospitals like Riverside refuse to accept this definition when it is applied to abortion. They refuse to accept "social well-being" as an essential part of a woman's health; and they crack down on it so efficiently that women are obliged to leave their own doctor and shop around other hospitals in Ottawa or elsewhere, including the state of New York. Meanwhile the nine-month time clock keeps ticking away relentlessly.
Obviously no hospital is going to acknowledge that it is deliberately undermining the law of the land by openly
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
throwing up roadblocks in the way of legal abortions. But equally obviously, many hospitals like Riverside can organize their abortion committees effectively to prevent legal abortions. To quote Mr. Jackson Bryan, Riverside's administrator:
If there was any emergency, Dr. Hyde could have applied to the Civic or Grace Hospitals.
To quote Dr. Hyde:
The fact is, every unwanted pregnancy is an emergency. Can Mr. Bryan's statement mean anything other than that Riverside is not available for consideration of therapeutic abortions? ... The fact is, the Riverside Hospital, like many Ontario hospitals, takes the federal law and adds its own riders to make the law unworkable. The abortion law is part of the federal Criminal Code.
I am convinced that it is time now for the Minister of Justice to put an end to this chicken and egg war. If the Criminal Code is such that provincial hospital authorities can add riders to it to suit their own prejudices, let the minister meet with the appropriate provincial authorities to see that the law is applied equally to all citizens. Right now the abortion provisions are gambling with the lives of women who are so unfortunate as to live where hospital authorities are determined to flout the spirit of the law, if not its letter, to keep them out.
A few days ago Lore Perron, founder and president of ARCAL, the Association for the Repeal of Canadian Abortion Laws, showed reporters a copy of a letter dated March 20 to A. B. R. Lawrence, Ontario health minister. It pointed out that of six general hospitals in the Ottawa-Hull area three have no abortion committees because they are administered by religious organizations. And at the Riverside Hospital the chief and the assistant chief of obstetrics and gynecology oppose abortion because of their religious convictions, as do other members of the abortion committee. That letter said that for health reasons, mental and physical, they will not grant abortions, which leaves the Ottawa Civic Hospital carrying the load for at least four of the major hospitals.
Mrs. Perron made the very just and sensible comment that doctors obviously prejudiced against abortion should not be appointed to abortion committees. She also stated the following and I would like particularly to draw this to the attention of the minister:
Hospitals receiving public funds, whether or not they are being administered by religious organizations, should be instructed by the province that they must permit doctors who have privileges at a hospital to use its facilities.
This, of course, would permit Dr. Byron Hyde to perform an abortion on a patient at the Riverside Hospital even if the chief and the assistant of obstetrics and gynecology were opposed to the idea of abortion. As Dr. Hyde himself remarked:
Riverside Hospital physicians who support impediment of the federal law are remnants of another era, and they have their counterparts in hospitals across the land.
It is time for the Minister of Justice to assure himself and the rest of us that the law will be applied with even-handed justice.

June 8, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. lady very well knows, the provisions of the Criminal Code are in the first instance prohibitory insofar as abortion is concerned, and then provision is made for certain exceptions. The manner of qualifying for those exceptions is clearly set out in section 237 of the Criminal Code and is a matter which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the people named therein, who are the Minister of Health, the board of an approved or accredited hospital, a qualified medical practitioner and, if a hospital chooses to establish one, a therapeutic abortion committee. With respect to the practice in any particular hospital and the exact manner in which any application for abortion is processed by the people who are lawfully entitled to consider it, this is not a matter which should concern the Minister of Justice.



BROADCASTING-POLICY ON ISSUANCE OF LICENCES TO AGENTS OF CROWN IN PROVINCES

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight on the adjournment motion debate because of a few loose remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). On Thursday June 3, as recorded at page 6324 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister if there was any change in federal policy prohibiting the issuance of broadcasting licences. Among other things, the Prime Minister said that there is no encroachment upon the policies of the federal government. Later, on June 7, and again in reply to a question to the Prime Minister on the proposed sale of the assets of National Cablevision Limited to a consortium of interests, the Prime Minister said as recorded at page 6412 of Hansard:
I understand that the purchase was not by any government, but mainly by insurance companies. Therefore it is a private purchase.
Mr. Speaker, it may be all right for the Prime Minister to go to Russia and issue either naive or simplistic statements about the federal institution in Canada or about the status of Ukrainians in Canada, but when it comes to a question as basic as federal power in broadcasting, for example the issuance of broadcasting licences, I suggest it is time he should be held accountable for his words.
A quick review of some of the regulations and of the legislation of the Prime Minister's government would show, first, that the issuance of broadcasting licences is an encroachment on federal policy and, second, that it is not a private matter, a matter of a sale between insurance companies, because the proposal filed on May 31 before the CRTC is for the sale of controlling interests of National Cablevision Limited to, among others, Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund. The controlling interests of the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund amount to 30 per cent, which under section 29 of chapter 23 of the Statutes of Quebec of 1965 is the maximum that the fund can hold in any company, and that is the controlling interest in the proposed application. Section 4 reads:
The fund shall be an agent of the Crown in right of the province.
Yet the Prime Minister stands in this House and says that this is a private matter and is not an encroachment on federal policy. A directive of his government issued on June 4, 1970, pursuant to section 27 of the Broadcasting Act says, among other things:
The Canadian Radio-Television Comission is hereby directed that, on and after the 4th day of June, 1970, broadcasting licences may not be issued-
The following people are named. Section 2(a) reads;
Her Majesty in right of any province and agents of Her Majesty in right of any province-
Section 3 reads:
For the purposes of this direction, "agents of Her Majesty in right of any province" means any agents of Her Majesty in such right and includes a municipal or public body empowered to perform a function of government in a province or any corporation empowered to perform a function or duty on behalf of Her Majesty in such right.
Therefore, I submit that it is clear, on the face of the Prime Minister's directive issued by his own cabinet pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, that no licence can be issued under the present broadcasting policy to an agent in right of a province, which is what the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund is, pursuant to section 4.
My question to the Prime Minister was whether there has been or will be a change in federal policy. He pretended to be frivolous or facetious and suggested that there was not to be any change. Later he said it was a private matter. When there are serious constitutional discussions in Victoria on the shape and size which Canada is to take as we move into the 1970s, I suggest that it is contempt of Parliament for the Prime Minister to treat such a serious matter in this frivolous way.
It may be all right for the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who is charged with the responsibility of answering for the CRTC to this House, to say that he is joyful now that the minister responsible for broadcasting in the province of Quebec has worked out a particular deal with the federal authorities so that the impasse or dispute on cablevision can be resolved, and I am not suggesting that it may not be an adequate and proper method by which the federal and provincial governments can work out their difficulties; but I suggest in all seriousness that it is close to contempt of Parliament to say that there is not to be a change in broadcasting policy.
If the policy on June 4, 1970, had any application or relevance, then there has to be consistency with what has been suggested by the Prime Minister. If there is to be a change, let the government admit it. If there is not, then the CRTC should not even be charged with considering the application which it has on file.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the case to which the hon. member is referring represents a private contract for transfer of shares in cable companies between two groups, one of which is selling and is now controlled by American interests. This is one of many such transfers to Canadian-controlled companies as a result of a directive of the government to the CRTC.
[Mrs. Maclnnis.l
June 8, 1971

An application has been filed, according to usual procedures, with the CRTC and will be heard at a public hearing in Ottawa on June 28, as was stated yesterday or the day before. It is the responsibility of the CRTC in reaching a decision to interpret the Broadcasting Act and the directives received from the government. Such interpretations have been made in very many decisions
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion involving foreign ownership. The act sets out adequate legal procedures if in one's view a decision represents an incorrect interpretation of the Broadcasting Act or of the directives of the Governor in Council under Section 22.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, June 9, 1971