1971-09-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to table copy of a letter dated September 17 which I sent to the Quebec premier in reply to the letter which he sent me on September 2 and which I tabled in the House on September 15.

My letter indicates the readiness of the federal government to have discussions about the proposal Mr. Bourassa has advanced concerning the adjustment of family allowance payments to effect an integration of federal and provincial programs. Mr. Bourassa also mentioned questions relating to Manpower centres and the professional training of adults. I agree that they too should be discussed as well as other problems, especially in the area of social policy.
The letter indicates that if from such discussions it appears that arrangements can be made that will be satisfactory from both the federal and provincial points of view, they will be submitted to the cabinet for consideration. Provinces other than Quebec will, of course, be interested in any arrangements that might seem feasible and there would be discussion with them before any final decision was made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 and in light of disturbing revelations of a serious failure on the part of a Canadian mission abroad to deal effectively with the aftermath of a tragedy affecting a Canadian citizen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence forthwith investigate the circumstances surrounding the role of the Canadian Embassy in Rome in reference to the delay in communicating with the next of kin of David Bagguley. That said committee also examine the general question of the present capacity of Canadian diplomatic missions to render meaningful, useful assistance to Canadian citizens travelling abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I would like to move a motion because of urgent and pressing necessity which does not require elaboration on my part. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather):
The House of Commons of Canada extends its appreciation to the congress of the United States of America for the action it took in banning the nuclear device test scheduled to take place at Amchitka Island and expresses the hope that the President of the United States of America will also join us in banning the proposed test and that this decision of the House of Commons of Canada be communicated to the President of the United States forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Frank Howard: I wonder if I might raise a point of order which I would ask Your Honour to consider seriously. I know Your Honour has said on other occasions with respect to motions under Standing Order 43 that it is sufficient for Your Honour simply to hear a negative response, but I would ask that you consider seriously certain other factors. First, it might well be that an hon. member might say "No" but from behind the curtains rather than from his proper place. Or the dissenting voice might even come from the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Knowing Your Honour's powers of perception, I am not suggesting you would not be able to recognize the difference, but there might be other Speakers in the future who would not. To conclude the point of order, I want to suggest that Your Honour consid-
Amchitka Nuclear Test

September 23, 1971
er requiring any hon. member who objects to rise in his place and say so-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: -so there will be no question of doubt and so the record will be clear that there was a negative response and from whom it came.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member is one of great interest. As he knows, the Chair is required to interpret the rules as they are drafted. If the rules are drafted in such a way as to indicate that an hon. member objecting to such a motion should rise and express his negative opinion, then, of course, the Chair would expect this to be done, but as long as the Standing Order is drafted in its present terms I think it should be sufficient for the Chair to hear negative response. I am not sure what the requirements are for a good Speaker, but I gather that among the more basic ones are that the Speaker should have good eyesight and good hearing.


Mr. Jerome:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, as one who has frequently been known to negative as loudly as possible motions put forward under Standing Order 43, simply in order that we may get on with important government business, may I say I found unanimous accord with the motion expressed on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the hon. member will never be a Speaker. His hearing is not good enough.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who has just spoken, sitting as he does among the government benches, is at all right in his statement, perhaps Your Honour would consider asking again whether there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure it would be very helpful if every day the Chair were asked to put the request for consent to a motion a second time. The request has been put and in my estimation it was negatived. It may be that, on reflection, some hon. members who said "no" feel they would not be prepared to say "no" again. I would be prepared to put the request a second time if there were unanimous consent that I be allowed to do so. I draw to the attention of hon. members that a motion having been put and decided by the Chair it cannot be put a second time unless there is unanimous agreement.
Is there unanimous agreement that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena be put at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there may be unanimous agreement.


Mr. McIntosh:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, once a motion has been put I think we should abide by the rules of the House. I said no and I suggest the motion should therefore not be put.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. This is what I feared. The motion was put and was negatived, and unless there is unanimous consent it should not be put a second time.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under Standing Order 43, to present a motion of extreme urgency.
My motion refers to the tragedy that occurred last Friday, September 17, at Valdepenas, Spain, causing the death of 17 Quebec citizens.
I was advised this morning, Mr. Speaker, by a person who lost two relatives in the tragedy, that next of kin cannot claim the remains of the victims without paying $2,000 per body to a foreign company operating in Montreal which, it would appear, has approached all the relatives of the victims to that effect.
I am also informed, Mr. Speaker, that several families have vainly tried to get help from the Department of External Affairs in this connection.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion for humanitarian reasons and in order to help the stricken families to repatriate in short order the remains of their next of kin:
That in the opinion of this House, in view of the tragic situation and the difficulties encountered by families in repatriating the remains of the Valdepenas tragedy victims, the government should make available to the victims' relatives the required air transport, offer the full co-operation of the Department of External Affairs to assist the stricken families in their arrangements for repatriating the remains without delay, and investigate on the requirements imposed on the victims' families by the company involved.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the pressing necessity of this question and its humanitarian aspects, the House will give its unanimous consent to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade). As the hon. member knows, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it may be put. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent necessity.
The pulp and paper industry is experiencing a critical period due to soft market conditions and the implications of the floating dollar. Besides the resultant lay-off of some
4,000	of the work force in the past nine months across the
September 23, 1971

country and continuing setbacks, a specific case of hardship has reached one city in Canada, Corner Brook, Newfoundland, which is almost completely dependent on the industry and where a partial close-down of production will tend to cripple the economy and affect some 30,000 citizens.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay Labrador (Mr. Peddle):
That the government take the initiative and hold immediate discussions with the Canada pulp and paper associations and the labour movement, to establish proposals to rehabilitate the industry and to provide measures to avoid further lay-offs and shutdowns.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
September 21, 1971-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Public Accounts for the year ended 31 March 1970, tabled in the House January 12, 1971, and the Auditor General's report thereon, tabled in the House June 4,1971, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is based on the statement made in the annual review of the Economic Council of Canada that "the revival of such programs as municipal winter works and winter housing should be considered in formulating a more integrated and selective strategy for manpower policy". In view of this statement and in view of the urgent need for job programs for the coming winter, would the Prime Minister indicate if it is the government's intention to initiate action on such programs immediately for implementation this winter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the report which I believe was made public just today, I must confess I have not read it yet and therefore am not in a position to comment on it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I had assumed that, like myself, the Prime Minister would give urgent attention to the report of the Economic Council of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: A speed reader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition kindly ask the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to the meeting with the provinces about which the Prime Minister has told us on a couple of occasions, in all seriousness and with all due courtesy and respect I should like to ask whether he has assured the premiers whom he has invited to any such conference that the government will in fact present specific programs in connection with jobs for this winter, as has been requested by many of the premiers?



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MAURICE SCHUMANN, FOREIGN MINISTER OF FRANCE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the right hon. Prime Minister replies to the question which has just been put by the Leader of the Opposition, may I announce to hon. members of this House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished visitor, His Excellency Mr. Maurice Schumann, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic.
Mr. Minister, we appreciate your visit, which can but consolidate the traditional friendship between France and Canada. We, members of the House, are particularly gratified by your presence among us, as a token of your attachment and that of your government to parliamentary institutions.
On behalf of all hon. members, Mr. Minister, I welcome you most cordially.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I answered this very question yesterday and said to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I had written to all provincial premiers, as of July, to suggest several dates when we could meet and discuss economic, tax and other matters.
I have repeated publicly that the federal government intends to discuss, then, mainly the problem of unemploy-
8094

September 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ment and economic matters in general. I must inform this House that since I gave this answer yesterday, it seems that we shall agree on a date which will be rather late in fall, but again I cannot say anything until the premiers agree with me concerning one of the dates which I have suggested to them, be it in October, November or even later. I am in no position to convene them myself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the answer to my question is no. [English]
In view of the fact that the suggestion box program as carried on within the Public Service has evidently been very successful in getting some right things done, again I ask with all respect and courtesy, would the Prime Minister consider extending this program to my colleagues and myself and hon. members to my left so that we could deal directly with departments and perhaps get some action with regard to the creation of jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


David Lewis: I do not know whether it is exactly a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that perhaps other hon. members have supplementaries that are exactly such.

The House might allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Joliette who seems to have a supplementary.



OLD AGE SECURITY-LOWERING OF PENSIONABLE AGE TO PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, who is searching for a solution to the unemployment of those under 25 years of age, if, when he meets with provincial ministers, he would consider proposing the creation of an old age security pension for which one would be eligible at 60, thus reducing present unemployment by more than 50 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a feeling that the hon. member's question has already been asked yesterday or the day before.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PARTICIPATION WITH PROVINCES IN WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which a reading of Hansard of yesterday will clearly indicate was not answered by the Prime Minister. It is this. As a winter works program is by far the cheapest and easiest way to provide work needed by people in the winter period and as such a program requires planning now to make it effective at that time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I thought I heard the referee's whistle, Mr. Speaker. I guess it was just the usual noise from the other side. I will continue. Is the government now planning to advise the provinces that it intends to participate with them in a winter works program so that planning can start now and this program can be effective in the winter months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must again today, as I did yesterday, call for the co-operation of hon. members. The suggestion was made at the end of the question period yesterday that there were 20 members who were waiting for an opportunity to ask their questions. I recognize the same 20 members today. I hope that before the end of the question period I shall be given an opportunity to recognize them. I suggest to hon. members that if we spend half the question period on the question asked originally by one hon. member-on behalf of others, and I appreciate that-it becomes materially, physically and metaphysically impossible for the Chair to have all hon. members recognized before the end of the question period. I invite my colleagues to co-operate with the Chair and with their colleagues in this respect.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have an excellent supplementary but I will bow to your ruling and not ask it.



MANPOWER


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the hope that perhaps he or his officials have at least skimmed through the annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. In view of the criticism of the manpower policy in this review, particularly that the policy is not achieving the goal of greater efficiency in manpower use in Canada, I wonder whether the minister has studied this problem and has some changes in mind in respect of the set-up of his department and the law governing it?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this report deserves a much more thorough review than anybody could have given it at this point in time. We have noted the tremendous increase in employment on a year to year basis and in recent months in Canada. Despite a very impressive increase in terms of employment, there is still ongoing challenge with regard to unemployment. It is, of course, true so far as the manpower department is concerned that both its placement functions and its training and retraining function in respect of the training and retraining of individuals are bound to be less effective in periods where jobs are relatively more difficult for people to obtain. The record of the training programs, however, indicates a very significant improvement in the earning levels, in the performance levels and in the employment levels of those persons
September 23, 1971

who have been trained compared with their record beforehand. We are, of course, studying this continually in an effort to see whether it can be improved even more.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to make a statement to the House indicating the results of the training as to what percentage of those trained have in fact obtained jobs, what percentage are still unemployed when they finish their training and the other factors which he mentioned?


Otto Emil Lang: I did that, of course, in the last portion of the session at the time the department's estimates were before the Committee. I will look at whether we have a further report at this stage and, if so, make it available in due course.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the 10 per cent surtax on imports entering the United States, has he any new indications that Canada will be protected against this measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the government proposed a special measure to the House. Indeed, in the next few days we shall probably ask the House to pass the bill on third reading.



EFFECT OF UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX ON AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF ASSISTANCE TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Hon. I. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he now in a position to announce details of the government decision to render assistance to primary producers of agricultural products who have been adversely affected by the United States surcharge, and what action are they required to take?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not in a
position to make that announcement today, but following the undertaking I gave to the House and the country in my comments about two weeks ago we have been working on some commodities and I hope that within the next few days I can give further details.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mine may be a related question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In light of the fact that Cornwall is already suffering under a 20 per cent unemployment rate, is the government going to take any action? In view of the announced delay until we deal with other" matters, has he any intention to take specific action to avert further lay-offs at Courtaulds Limited as a result of the loss of business with the United States and because of the very specific situation there? Would he also indicate to the House and to the people of Cornwall whether or not the employment support bill can be expanded or whether or not there is any action under that which the Prime Minister might pursue to ensure against these proposed lay-offs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is my
understanding that the bill still before the House is one which will be applicable in all parts of Canada, and I am hopeful that the people of Cornwall and the industries in Cornwall will be able to obtain help under it.



POSSIBILITY OF SURTAX ON IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

['Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena.']
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Would he say whether he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any of their officers indicated to the Japanese ambassador or any of his officials during the recent meeting in Toronto that unless Japan or other countries drastically reduce their exports to Canada, Canada would consider imposing a surcharge?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, but one of the things we have brought to the attention of the Japanese is that we certainly did not want to be subject to receiving goods which are diverted because of the surtax in the United States.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the government of Canada considering a surcharge or any other measure which would effectively control the import into Canada of goods from countries such as Japan?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the Valdepenas tragedy.
Is the Prime Minister considering the possibility of giving financial assistance for the air fares of persons whose relatives died in that tragedy, in order to enable them to bring back as soon as possible the remains of the victims, since they are unable to do so at the present time, in view of the considerable amount asked to send back the remains?

September 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs informs me that the matter is being considered for the moment.
I take the liberty of adding that I am strongly under the impression that the allegations made by the member a while ago concerning the behaviour of our embassy officials there are entirely gratuitous.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must say, to correct the official report, that I have never claimed that the Canadian embassy in Spain had been remiss in its duty. I said that the next of kin of the victims had gone to the Department of External Affairs, here in Canada, and that no one had shown any interest in the matter.
I should like to put the question again to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he intend to consider this matter and give the necessary assistance to the relatives of the victims, either through free air transport or some form of financial help, that the remains might be repatriated as soon as possible?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I be privileged to add a word to what the Prime Minister has said. We have been very conscious of this dreadful tragedy in Spain. Our embassy has been doing everything possible to help. I had under consideration whether there might be some way in which help might be given to bring the bodies of the victims home. I do not think it could be in the form of subsidization of air fares, but there are other things we have under consideration.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
As the victims' relatives have asked me what the government could soon do to repatriate the remains, I would ask the hon. minister to specify-


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



MANPOWER


Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the commitment he made yesterday to communicate to the House the activities of his manpower consultative services in areas where lay-offs have taken place, for example, General Motors in both Ontario and Quebec, is the minister in a position now to give us a full disclosure of what his department has been doing in these areas?


Otto Emil Lang: I will be glad to do so if the House will bear with me. In the case of General Motors at Ste. Therese-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that the answer should be as short as possible. I have the impression that he is now launching into a statement which normally should be made on motions, and because of the fact that the question period is limited in time I would hope that answers to questions would be as short as possible.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I did suggest yesterday implicitly-


Mr. Broadbent:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is rising on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the importance of this issue at this time, I wonder if we could obtain the unanimous agreement of the House to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor.


Otto Emil Lang: We have, of course, so many involvements with so many companies, and each lay-off is important. If I were to make a statement on motions each time, the House would be occupied with this at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Mr. Muir:: That is what happens under this government.


George Harris Hees: So many plants are closing down because of the maladministration of this government.


Otto Emil Lang: On the other hand, I would be delighted at any time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East rising on a point of order?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Surely the minister would want to correct the impression he has just left. If he is referring to the 90 per cent unemployed in Guysbor-ough county in Nova Scotia, for example, then I suggest he owes those people an apology.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That of course is not a point of order. Again I caution hon. members that if we embark on points of order and questions of privilege during the 40 minutes there will be those celebrated 20 members left by the wayside at the end of the question period. For the moment the minister still has the floor.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the first confidential notification of the lay-off in the case of the plant at Ste. Therese it was possible to have discussions with the company and with the union, as well as with the interested department in the province of Quebec, and to arrange for the setting up of an adjustment committee to consider in the usual way the many ways in which manpower services might be available to assist with the problems of the individual workers who were due to be laid off. The timing of the words was chosen in view of the plant's announcement as indicated at that time. All parties have agreed they will co-operate to assist the workers who will be displaced, and of course the usual investigation is taking place about supplementary benefits, and so on.

September 23, 1971

[DOT]	(2:40 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question. In light of the great amount of information that he has there, obviously relating to a whole series of lay-offs, which does not bespeak very well the government's economic attitudes, would he be prepared to say to the House that on a certain day, say the first or second day of next week, he would be prepared to appear and make a complete statement on motions about the involvement of his department in those areas?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not select, from among lay-offs occurring, some as being more important than others. Each lay-off is of extreme importance to the people involved. Therefore I am willing to indicate to hon. members privately or in other ways the state of affairs that applies to each. I am willing to put these things down in writing from time to time as requested.

[DOT]	(2:40 p.m.)



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
STE. THERfiSE, QUEBEC-POSSIBLE FURTHER LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS-ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTION IN CANADA
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell us whether he has received from the General Motors authorities in Ste. Therese a statement to the effect that the employees in this plant would not abnormally suffer from adjustments being made?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting yesterday with the officials of the company; they have shown me a number of opportunities offered to them in their effort to adjust their production. I am not in a position, of course, to share this with the House, but none of them indicates any shutdown at Ste. Therese. As a matter of fact, all possibilities considered at this time suggest maximum use of the GM plants in Canada. Since they invested more than half a billion dollars in the last five or six years, General Motors are surely not going to close down their establishments in Canada tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has said that he cannot handle all the questions that are posed these days regarding the number of layoffs taking place in Canada, would the Prime Minister give him a little help so that he can handle this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the House whether or not the intended cessation of the production of Pontiacs at the Ste. Therese plant of General Motors was discussed with the General Motors officers and, if so, did the minister, on behalf of the workers involved in Canada, urge that corporation to ensure that if and when production of that car ceases at Ste. Therese, Quebec, the production will be picked up elsewhere in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I have given implies that very strongly. When I mentioned that the company had no intention of closing any of its establishments I was implying that the company, in readjusting its production, would see to it that all the plants presently in existence would be fully active. Of course I cannot say, and the company says it has not decided-I think it is still in contemplation-where that particular model will be built and where other particular models will be built. This is presently being studied by General Motors.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on one further supplementary and then pass on to another hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my one further supplementary is this: did the minister obtain a commitment from General Motors Corporation to inform him well in advance-by well in advance I mean several months in advance-of their intention to cease production of the Pontiac at Ste. Therese, if they so decide?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said yesterday, that usually department communications with these companies are very good. I think we have had an accident de parcours. I do not know how you translate that in English, but I think the company is now more fully aware or realizes better that it is not in its best interests not to provide information, and proper information, and in sufficient time for the government to use in answering questions such as the ones that were asked of me two days ago. There is no doubt that there were a number of aspects of this matter in which it would have been useful for me to have the information. I think the company realizes that now better than ever.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister advise the House if any approach has been made to his department by either the United Steel Workers Union or the American Smelting and Refining Company of Buchans, Newfoundland, or by the premier or government of Newfoundland, with regard to the possible intervention of the minister in the strike which has left 550 miners at Buchans idle since June of this year?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to serve me notice,
Inquiries of the Ministry

September 23, 1971
and I have been unable to find any record of any request by the union, by the company involved, or by the Premier of Newfoundland or the government of Newfoundland for federal participation in this labour dispute. I would imagine the fundamental reason for this is that the dispute is within provincial jurisdiction.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: In view of the apparent impotence of the Newfoundland government in this matter and in view of the disastrous economic impact of this strike at Buchans, is there any way within the law by which the minister's acknowledged skill in such matters can be brought into play to affect a settlement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is actually one that was left by the wayside yesterday and is relevant to the original question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I direct it to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the government has reintroduced Bill C-244, has the Prime Minister backed down from or changed his insistence on Monday that new economic measures will not be considered until after passage of the tax bill? If so, will the government introduce legislation that will bring in tax cuts and other ways of stimulating the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we always attach the utmost importance to getting on with the debate on the tax bill. The country knows that if the bill is going to be effective and benefit millions of people from January 1 on we will have to have it adopted not too late in the fall. If there can be agreement among the house leaders on bringing other items of legislation in for very short periods, the government will not be absolutely rigid about this. The important thing is that all hon. members realize what ultimate deadline they are working against if the tax reform bill is going to become law in time to be effective as of January 1.



MANPOWER


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises from a number of complaints that I have received as I am sure many other hon. members have also. In view of the skyrocketing costs of welfare, what steps are the manpower offices across Canada taking to follow through on jobs that have been referred to suitable applicants but which have been refused because the persons involved wish to take welfare?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would want to prepare a full report in answer to a question of that magnitude involving as it does relations between the provincial authorities and the federal authorities.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the minister assure the House that he will make such a report very soon?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
A few minutes ago the hon. minister admitted that there have been many lay-offs throughout the country and primarily in the province of Quebec.
The premier of Quebec stated last Sunday in Hull that he has created 90,000 jobs during the year. Is the hon. minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: -I see they are prompt to applaud on the other side, over there. Is the minister convinced that
90.000	new jobs have been created, or is it not rather that
90.000	new lay-offs have taken place in Quebec?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister.
On November 17, 1941, the government of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King decided to control prices and salaries. In view of the current economic situation in North America, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether there will be a new control of prices and salaries to celebrate this thirtieth anniversary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we overlooked this anniversary, since the hon. member is reminding us that it is today. Instead of introducing such measures, the government believes that Canadians should ponder over the circumstances which made it possible for those measures to be successful during the last war, before asking that they again be invoked in peace time.


Mr. Baldwin:: As long as this government is in power, there will always be emergencies.

September 23, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns public confidence in the communications branch of his department. Will the minister explain to the House and to the family of the late David Bagguley of Ottawa the utter lack of communication in the Department of External Affairs in relation to his tragic and unexpected death in Italy on June 30 and about which his parents were not notified until August 6?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr, Speaker, the department has been in touch with the relatives and has expressed our profound regret at the lack of communication. I can only say to the hon. member and to the House that a very serious mistake was made. It was made during a time when there was a tremendous load upon the embassy. I should like to assure the House that I do not personally believe that this is justification for a mistake like this, and steps are being taken to see that it does not occur again.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Will an investigation be made as to the efficiency of our embassy in Italy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The implication of what I have been saying is that we do not think that the communications were adequate. It ought to have been impossible for a member of the staff to have been informed of the death of a Canadian and for this not to have been passed on to his superiors. I can only express my profound regret that such a tragic event should have happened.



TAXATION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that manufacturers and producers will be granted blanket exemptions from federal sales tax on all anti-pollution equipment, can the minister give some indication that he intends to listen to the wishes of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and grant municipalities the same exemption on anti-pollution equipment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have received communications from them and, of course, their representations will receive consideration.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO YOUTH RECREATION CENTRE, FLIN FLON, AND FOR INSTALLATION OF ASTROTURF, WINNIPEG

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
It arises out of the reply I received from the minister recently concerning the request regarding the availability of federal financial assistance for a youth recreation centre at Flin Flon, Manitoba. The minister stated at that time that the department's limited funds have made it necessary to restrict assistance to national organizations and, under certain conditions, to the provinces. Would the minister tell us how he reconciles that answer with the donation of $50,000 recently to the stadium in Hamilton for Astroturf?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is an argument rather than a question. I do not think it is in order.


George Harris Hees: The stadium is in the minister's riding; that is the answer.


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that a question asked in those terms is not a question but an argument. I have suggested before that when hon. members ask ministers to reconcile one statement with another they are debating the matter and a question should not be asked in those terms.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. It is a related question. Is the minister in receipt of a request for assistance for Astroturf from the Criterion Athletic Club of Winnipeg?


Hon. John Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the House if the proposed solution to the chicken and egg war now being worked out by various governments is in conformity with the British North America Act which allows free and uninterrupted trade across provincial boundaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously inviting the minister to express a legal opinion. A question in those terms is not in order.



INVESTIGATION OF USE OF GRANT BY STUDENTS AT TARBOTVALE, N.S.

Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the minister responded, and what action has he taken, to complaints regarding nudity and other activities being subsidized by a $6,000 grant to six so-called students to operate an establishment at Tarbotvale in the constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso?

September 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Greene:: Are you preaching for a call, Bob?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I further ask the hon. gentleman whether part of the grant will be used to provide clothing for those students?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that such a matter has escaped my notice. I shall endeavour to find out and answer the hon. member.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering the correspondence between himself and the Quebec premier which he has just tabled and his very encouraging answer to Mr. Bourassa, I wish to ask him if there is any hope for constitutional reform, taking into account the fact that social security was the stumbling-block in Victoria? May we hope-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for my part, I am prepared to hope. I feel that the question should rather be directed to Premier Bourassa who, when he said no in Victoria, added that he needed further information. Perhaps he hopes to get this during those discussions and, in that case, everything should go well. But, once again, he is the one who should state publicly what kind of explanations and elucidation he mainly wants to obtain and what he is driving at.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Could he indicate to the House, particularly for the benefit of my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova, and myself, the response he has made, if any, to the telegram from Mr. Charles Wallace, President of Local 1231, United Steel Workers of America, with respect to the operation of the unemployment insurance office in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker,
I received the telegram from this particular union complaining about service in the New Glasgow area. I asked for an inquiry and I find that the staff, contrary to what is said in the telegram, has not been cut. It consisted of 16 members before the new act came in and there are still 16 members there. There is no indication of delays in the Moncton-Halifax area in hearing appeal cases and there

has been no difficulty in the New Glasgow area since the new act came into effect. I have asked the Unemployment Insurance Commission to get in touch with the union directly in light of conflicting versions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Has the minister received a request from any or all of the Ministers of Agriculture for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for a meeting to discuss proposed federal agricultural policy and in particular Bill C-244? If so, can he inform the House as to the nature of his reply?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram asking for a meeting with the prairie agricultural ministers. The telegram was addressed to me by the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta. I suggested specifically, the date of October 1. I think it should be possible for me to meet with them on that date.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF MONEY UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the impasse which has developed regarding Bill C-244 and the debate surrounding the administration of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, can the minister indicate if the cabinet has now given serious consideration to paying the $61 million due under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as of August 1, 1970, of which amount $40 million is owing for the 1969-70 wheat pool? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, in hopeful anticipation that the government will abide by the law of the land while at the same time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest again that the question period should not be used for the making or repeating of speeches which are normally made after the question period. The hon. member has asked a question and perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I might have an opportunity a little later today to reply at greater length than you might allow at this time.



STABILIZATION BILL-AVAILABILITY OF REPORT ON CONSOLIDATION OF SMALL FARM UNITS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ohn L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Can the minister say if, under the proposal for a prairie grain
September 23, 1971
[Stage Direction]
stabilization plan, any final report has been prepared on the consolidation of small farm units into units of more efficient size? If so, can the minister say whether this report will be made available to the House?
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the paragraph in the statement to which the hon. member refers had reference to some plans being developed by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. Further details about these plans were subsequently issued by the minister, and I know that a full copy was distributed to all hon. members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and the beginning of next week, if he can direct his mind to that at this time.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, among the items that will be called will be the Judges Act. I hope to get consent later today to deal with it in a special way tomorrow. We will call the tax bill, the employment support bill and the agricultural stabilization bill. We will certainly call the employment support bill as the first item on Monday. I will probably call the agricultural stabilization bill as the first item tomorrow and, following that, the tax bill. For the moment, I reserve the opportunity to change the first item tomorrow if it seems desirable.


Gerald William Baldwin: Can the minister indicate, for the benefit of members who want to participate in these important debates, whether that order will be preserved or is the minister reserving the right to change it from day to day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to change the item suggested for Monday. The only one that might change is the first item to be called tomorrow, and probably that will not be changed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to a directive which Your Honour gave a week ago Monday at the conclusion of my speech and the point of order that I raised with regard to the regularity of Bill C-259. Your Honour indicated in very pointed terms that the House leaders should meet to discuss the nature of some procedure to cure apparent defects in Bill C-259. To date, no such House leaders' meeting has been called. The House is proceeding contrary to Your Honour's directive, with the consideration of a possibly imperfect bill which is contrary to the rules of the House. I hope the minister will be able to tell us when and if he plans to call such a meeting to produce some sort of solution to this situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that I have exactly the same interpretation of Your Honour's ruling as the hon. member. However, I propose to meet
Business of the House
with my opposite numbers at an early date. I will be happy to discuss this suggestion along the lines put forward by the hon. member.
While I am on my feet, would it be possible to raise another item with respect to the business of the House? I understand that discussions have taken place between the Minister of Justice and members opposite, as a result of which some expectation exists that we might be able to deal with the Judges Act in an hour and a half tomorrow afternoon. I know this is a firm expectation, not a commitment. There might be agreement to have an order of the House to commence with the Judges Act at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon, so that regardless of what other business is before the House at that time we will deal with the Judges Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker. Within that period of one and a half hours, with the usual expedition that this party shows in dealing with bills, it should be through.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing for the government to exercise its authority over the business of the House and to call this item at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon or even earlier. It is always possible that it might be through by four o'clock, but I hope it is not being assumed that there will be an order of the House that the bill is to be through all stages by four o'clock. This might happen, but I remind the President of the Privy Council that there are several report stage amendments and third reading. We do not mind when the bill is called, but we do not want to be tied at this moment to a cutoff point.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, our party has agreed to this proposal, although we were anxious to express our objections, namely, that it is not the usual procedure and it is difficult, as the previous speaker has said, to foresee the length of the debate. We are wondering why this was not discussed during the meeting of the House leaders of all parties.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that the order agreed to now is that the item will be called at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon. These are the terms of the order now agreed to by the House.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For two days in a row I have tried to get a very important question before the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, as the government has been using every opportunity to turn Parliament into a time machine, I find it almost impossible to get matters of great urgency before the ministry which, after all, should be responsible to the elected representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear a lot of static coming from members opposite, Mr. Speaker, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene).


An hon. Member:: He does not have any energy.


George Harris Hees: And he has very few resources left.

September 23, 1971
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would indicate what the point of order is so that the Chair might be given an opportunity to rule thereon.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, there is so much noise coming from the other side that I can hardly hear myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In my 20 years in this House of Commons there has never been a time when it has been so difficult to get messages of concern through to the ministry. This is partly because of the fact private members have lost their privileges and also because of the catcalls from the trained seals on the government benches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. I suggest he is not making a point of order. He has the floor and I would like him to indicate the point of order on which he seeks a ruling from the Chair.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I thought all members in this chamber were equal. I am wondering, in view of the fact that I have to be away on an important public engagement tomorrow in Manitoba, whether I could at least pose my question and if the government would deign even to take it into consideration and reply at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now asking that the Chair seek the unanimous consent of the House to return to the question period so that he may ask his question or that the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the negative response which the Chair has received. I regret very much that the hon. member has been placed in the position where he was not able to ask his question. As he realizes, it is difficult for the Chair to try to give every member an opportunity. I did not realize the hon. member was unable to ask a question yesterday. My impression was otherwise, but if I am mistaken I apologize to the hon. member.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Your Honour's difficulty. It is impossible for anyone to cope with the growing arrogance of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning Hansard and affecting the privileges of all hon. members. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) a question which is recorded at page 8067 of Hansard. He answered in English. I listened to his answer very carefully. In the last line but one of the answer there appears these words: "There is almost no unemployment there." The minister did not say any such thing. He has smuggled in the word "almost".
Again, on September 211 asked a question of the parliamentary secretary to the same minister. The question and

answer are recorded at page 8036 of Hansard. A whole phrase has been deleted from Hansard. He said in his reply: "As the hon. member knows, there have been consultations going on for two years." That whole phrase has been deleted.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: I believe this is a matter coming under Your Honour's jurisdiction and I suggest it be re-emphasized that the privilege of hon. members in altering Hansard does not extend to altering the sense of the language used, and certainly does not extend to the deletion of a whole phrase or the smuggling in of extra words.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has re-emphasized the position on behalf of the Chair. He has, of course, stated the situation correctly and I believe it should be known to all hon. members. Orders of the day. Order, please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. We have a further point of order to consider before we call on him.


Jack Marshall: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that since September 7, when the House resumed, I have been recognized once during the question period. I simply wish to announce that I represent 100,000 people and I am back in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House, conscious that the Government is bound by the laws of this Parliament as are the citizens of this country, condemns the Government for its deliberate flouting of the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and for the deliberate suppression of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in the publication of and bringing into force of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are times in political life when a particular issue, no matter how important it may be in itself, suddenly takes on an added dimension and puts a spotlight, indeed, a pitiless spotlight, on the way of operation, on the way of thinking, on the whole philosophy of life of a particular government. There are times when a government exposes itself to the gaze of the people who elected it to office. There are times when it shows its real face, a face which it has succeeded in keeping hidden over a considerable period of time behind one of several masks it has at its disposal. But eventually the mask is torn off and eventually the reality is bared. In such a case, the government does not get charged with indecent exposure. If it does not die of shame, it will be buried anyway by the people who no longer recognize themselves in the reflection the government offers them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 23, 1971


George Harris Hees: That is putting it very straight.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In 1957, a little before my time here, it was the pipeline debate which showed the people of Canada that it was time to rid itself of a government which had lost everything but its own arrogance. In 1971, after a long series of inexcusable blunders and tragic miscalculations, we have the final touch of madness-the government's set refusal to pay to Canadian citizens money which is due to those citizens under the law of the land.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In 1957-


George Harris Hees: In 1956.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In 1956-I am corrected by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees); I am always subject to correction-it was contempt for the rights of Parliament which led the Liberal government of that day to its destruction. In 1971 it is contempt for the very laws themselves, which the government feels secure enough to flout, in the face of this House and of the Canadian people.
I have no intention of denying the importance of the particular law in question. There are many thousands of farmers who are affected by the government's refusal to pay the money it legally owes to the Wheat Board. Whole communities, whole provinces, are affected by the action, or inaction if you like, of hon. gentlemen opposite in this respect. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said the other night that he owed a great debt to many people. I say he does owe a great debt, and it is not to the backbenchers who applaud him and it is not to his advisors who tell him how to justify his negligence; it is to the people of Canada who have for too long trusted him and trusted the word of the government. It is a debt, in fact, to the people of Canada who have trusted the laws of Canada. That is the tragedy and that is the crime. It is a crime, because no government has the right to ignore the law, the very law which this or any other government swears to uphold. The government can ask Parliament to change the law, but the government has no right to flout the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the case we wish to make, Sir. That is the case we wish to bring home to the Canadian people. A government is elected, among other things, on the basis of its intentions and its programs. I agree with that. But a government is not elected, at least in a democracy, to ignore the law which exists. A parliamentary democracy may not be perfect. Indeed, it is far from perfect. But any government which tries to claim its own perfection by ignoring democracy and ignoring the law is a government which does not deserve the trust of Parliament or the trust of the people who elected it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are some-I have seen their observations and their comments-who believe that we in the opposition are not really serious when we attack the government on this point. They suggest we do not really mean
Withholding of Grain Payments
it when we discuss the possibility of impeaching, for example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for his part in this affair. Well, they are partly right, Mr. Speaker. We do not really want to separate the minister's head from his shoulders; we should be delighted if we could get the two together. What we do want is to point out to the Canadian people that we now have before us a government which is not only acting ineffectively and incompetently in a whole range of economic policies, we also have a government which is acting illegally.
There are a number of things which I find almost incredible about this government. But there is nothing I find more incredible than a former dean of a law school of a respected university in this country who is not only conniving at the breaking of the law, but is brazenly suggesting to the House that the law does not even matter. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board did not even try to justify himself before this House. He cited no precedent for his unheard of action. He offered no defence. All he did was to attack the opposition in this House for not jumping to the government's whip, and mildly and meekly passing any measure that this government in its wisdom might see fit to present to the House. At least the opposition was acting within its lawful rights, Mr. Speaker. At least the opposition was acting within the law. That is more than we can say for this government, and that is more than this government can say for itself.
Unable to deny that he had defied the law, the minister put on a bit of a show. He pretended that this flouting of the law was an act of bravery on his part. He said that he would be willing to go to jail in the interests of the farmers. I have a very strong stomach, Mr. Speaker, but I almost lost my supper in view of the posturing of the minister that night. What does the minister expect? Does he expect us to propose him for the Victoria Cross for breaking the law? It was a pitiful performance, and I should like to think that it was a performance that was unworthy of the minister. I leave that judgment in the final analysis for his own conscience.
They say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I say that self-righteousness is the last refuge of a man who has done wrong, who knows he has done wrong, who is at this moment still doing wrong, and who can see no honourable exit for himself. But I will suggest to the minister one honourable way out which will also make him feel better. It is to admit frankly to this House and to the Canadian people that he has done wrong. Such an admission, perhaps, will not do his judgment credit but it might at least do much to save his honour.


Mr. Bigg:: His boss has run out on him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No; in fairness to the Prime Minister may I say the Prime Minister did explain to me that he had to go, and I accept his very valid reason for leaving the House at the present time.
The unfortunate part is that particular minister is not alone in his guilt. The Minister of Finance is equally guilty. He is the minister who under the law is responsible for paying the moneys in question to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is not a matter of choice on his part; under the law he must pay the money, yet he has not done so. He has

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
acted as though the law in question had been repealed, even though in fact it has not been repealed.
This brings me to a third member of this conspiracy, the-


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We must not overlook the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on the way to the Prime Minister. In spite of the fact that this law has not been repealed but remains as the law of this country, it is absent from the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970. That is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but what is worse, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has already pointed out, is that there is a note in Appendix "A" to the Revised Statutes of Canada to the effect that this law has already been repealed. Certainly that Appendix is in no sense a legal document, but it is a document of information.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is clearly an attempt to deceive the Canadian people as to what the real situation was and still is, and that, in turn, is part of this conspiracy, not merely by some of its members but by the whole government, to break the law of this country. So we have something more than a sin of omission: we have three members of the government-indeed, we have the government itself-conspiring to break the law of this country. I say that this could never have happened without the approval and authorization of the head of that government, the Prime Minister of this country, and he must accept that responsibility.
This is a serious charge, Mr. Speaker. The government has not denied the charge because it cannot deny it. The best it has done, so far at least, is to accuse the opposition of not co-operating with it in the passage of a new law. That, Sir, is the reasoning of arrogance. It is the reasoning of Louis XIV. Instead of it being Louis XIV saying "L'E-tat, c'est moi," in this case it is the Prime Minister of Canada saying "La loi, c'est moi"-"The law is me". "I am the law", says the Prime Minister. That may have been acceptable in 17th century Europe, but it is not acceptable in Canada in the year 1971. At least, it is not acceptable to the Canadian people or their representatives in this Parliament, regardless of what some of the hon. gentlemen opposite may happen to think.
We are discussing here the guilt of the whole government, a government that is blinded by its own arrogance and indifference. We have known for some time that this government was contemptuous of Parliament. The members of the government have shown this in their words and their deeds. Hon. gentlemen opposite say they are in a hurry; they find parliamentary debate too slow and too uncertain for their liking.
In the past few years there have been some changes made in our parliamentary procedures designed essentially to expedite the business of the House-that is, the governmental business of the House-and presumably government opportunities for taking action. Under the old rules government estimates could be held up virtually indefinitely by members of the opposition. This situation had been changed before I arrived in this House. When I arrived here there was a limited time for discussion of estimates in the House, and I must say I was shocked to see one consequence of this, which was that ministers

answered only those questions put to them on the estimates that they chose to answer, and to the extent that they chose to answer them. When ministers did not give a satisfactory answer there was absolutely no way in which members of the opposition could obtain one, because once time expired the motion was put and the estimates were passed.
I am not arguing today that we should go back to the old rules, though doubtless some members would be prepared to do so. But what I am saying is that since the estimates were taken out of the House-indeed, since a time limit has been put on even debating estimates in the House- the opposition has lost any method it had of compelling a member of the government to give information to this House. Obviously, the members of the opposition seem to have lost the capacity as well to compel members of the government and the government as a whole to obey the law of the land. There has been a vast reduction in the power of the House to hold the government responsible to the House.
Under the old rules, when there was virtually no limit on the extent of debate on estimates, no government of Canada would have dared to defy the law as this government has. No government would have dared to do what this government has done because if it had, it would have realized that it would never get its estimates through this House, Mr. Speaker. It would never have dared to do this.
This vast change in the relative strength of the two sides of Parliament, the government's side and the opposition's side, I say imposes upon us in the opposition a heavy duty to fight the clear breach of the law with which we are faced. On the other hand, the power of the opposition to force the government to comply with the law and behave properly, as a result of the changes in the rules to expedite business, has been reduced. Surely, this imposes a higher moral, institutional and parliamentary obligation on the government to obey the law and behave in a highly responsible manner toward the House.
The government has shown its contempt for the House. The imposition of the roster system was bad enough; there is no justification for it under the rules. When, as happened yesterday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was not in the House to answer serious questions that he must have anticipated would be put to him that day, surely we have reached some kind of low point. I heard the Prime Minister's explanation that the minister in question had another engagement that was important. I think that in itself shows the relative priorities that the Prime Minister and the minister attach to parliamentary obligations compared to obligations outside the House. Surely, the least that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce ought to have done in the circumstances was to see that the Prime Minister or some other minister was fully briefed on the meeting that took place with representatives of General Motors in the morning and was able to fully answer the questions in the House rather than have the Prime Minister simply say that he did not have the information.
That is the point we have come to in this House, Mr. Speaker. There have been many occasions when this gov-
September 23, 1971

ernment has made light of the House of Commons and the rules of this House; there have been other occasions when the government has flouted the law. One example occurred when it produced the Blue Book of Estimates. If ignored an existing government department, the Department of Fisheries, because it was at that time the government's intention to abolish that department although the bill had not been passed making that change. Mr. Speaker, the law is not based on intentions; it is based on proper procedures. Changes in the law do not come about until the proper procedures have been followed. If those proper procedures have been ignored, we are no longer living under the rule of law in this country. That surely is one danger in the precedent.
This debate has a significance that goes far beyond this particular law, important as it is to the people concerned. We are going right to the heart of our parliamentary institutions; we are going right to the heart of political democracy. Mr. Speaker, this is the most dangerous single event or precedent that I have seen in Parliament in my day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is tragic that the precedent does not bother the minister. The attitude of these ministers is, in effect, to admit that they are lawbreakers but to deny that they have done anything wrong. If that is the case, by what right does this government presume to punish others who break the law, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: By what right does it pass judgment on individual Canadians who come before the courts? If the government can break the law why can others not break the law, Mr. Speaker? Surely, the government is giving an example to everybody in the country. It is what you can get away with that counts as far as this government is concerned. In acting as it has the government has not only downgraded the law, it has forfeited the respect of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I realize that this government does not like opposition. It finds opposition a nuisance. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the opposition that today is preserving the honour of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This government would like to use Parliament as a sausage grinder to turn out its own legislation. I think we are showing today that as far as the opposition is concerned, we have no intention of allowing that to happen. Furthermore, we are here to defend Parliament and through Parliament the right of Canadians and we are here to defend the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the government persists, it will have to answer to this Parliament and it will have to answer to all Canadians for the consequences. By its present attitude the government is endangering the orderly conduct of business in this House. That may not seem important to
Withholding of Grain Payments
some members of this government, but I think it is important to the great majority of Members of this Parliament, whatever their party stripe happens to be.
Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of what some members of the present government may think and regardless of what the present Prime Minister may think, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law are bigger than any one or all of us sitting here now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is our purpose in bringing this matter forward; that is our purpose today and we intend to keep fighting until we succeed or until this government goes down the drain where it belongs.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is possible for the minister or the government to play with words about what is now before the House. It is possible to try to play things down-"we intended to repeal it so what are you making a fuss about?" I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has properly put to this House, what this House is now discussing is basic to our system of government and is basic to democracy anywhere in the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I ask you to note Mr. Speaker that the Prime Minister of this country was a teacher of law, that the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) was a Dean of Law teaching law students the importance of observing the law, and they are now responsible for breaking it without conscience and without reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Everytime the Prime Minister has the opportunity to make a speech, particularly to young people in Canada, and I don't have to produce quotations, he tells them that our system is based on law and order. He boasts of the fact that Canada is a democracy where people are intended to obey the law; he boasts of the fact that he is strong enough to make people obey the law. However, when it suits this government's purpose, a purpose which is evil, then unhesitatingly they break the law and say to the opposition and the farmers of Canada, "If you don't like it you can lump it".
What the government is doing seems to me to be particularly reprehensible, unpalatable and unpleasant because it takes advantage of the fact that a particular act, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, brings the money to the farmer in a roundabout way. The money initially goes to the Wheat Board. The party directly affected is the Wheat Board. Because the Wheat Board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister in Charge of the Wheat Board it is not likely to take action against the government, either by laying a charge under section 115 of the Criminal Code against the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for failing to do his duty as an act requires him to do which might not land him in jail I suppose but in some place that the dean of law said he is ready to go, or to issue a writ

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
and a statement of claim against the government to collect the money for which the Wheat Board has issued an invoice. The government knew perfectly well the Wheat Board would not do it or go to the court and ask for a mandamus.
The government knew that the person-I use the term "person" in the legal sense-to whom under the act the money was to go directly was the Wheat Board, and that it could therefore with impunity sit back and not pay it. That is a cowardly act because it is the farmers not the Wheat Board, not the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who suffer. It is the farmers who suffer. In the last few years, because of government policy, the farmers have been placed in the worst financial bind they have been in for years and are now denied the money this Parliament voted them under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The government keeps this money without even batting an eyelash and is brave about it, as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board wanted to be. It is possible that this government will get away with this in the long run. I hope not. I hope the Assiniboia by-election will be the first instance in which the government will learn its lesson, and that the voters in that constituency, for whomever else they may vote, will vote against the government candidate because of this kind of shabby action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: But it is possible that the government may get away with it. I am somewhat of a student of history, as all of us are, and I have seen governments get away with a great deal. As the Prime Minister once said in his preincarnation before his present position of arrogance and power-I am not quoting but this is a correct representation-everytime anybody is deprived of a part of his right the whole of society suffers. I say to the government that what we are considering now is action by a government which is in breach of the law, which can be described as defalcation, theft or contempt of the law, and when the government acts in that way it is an indication to every citizen in the country to look with less respect upon Parliament and with less respect upon government in general. The people of Canada should look with disrespect on this government. But that is not the issue. The painful fact about this kind . of behaviour is that it does not hurt merely the government in power but throws a shadow over all democratic government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The painful fact about this kind of behaviour is not merely that one, two or three people were guilty of a misdemeanour but that when this behaviour is exercised by a government despite its attention having been drawn by Members of Parliament to the misdemeanour, a question mark is placed against democracy itself by the young people in Canada. Like young people all over the world, they have become disenchanted with the democratic process because it has been slow in producing peace, in producing justice, in producing human equality and in ridding us of the twists and turns that have beset our society. It has been slow in all these areas. We have to admit it has been slow, but we can still say, as I believe,
[Mr. Lewis.)
that democracy is the best way even though a little slow. However, it has been slow in many of these areas and the young people in Canada in large numbers have become disenchanted with the democratic process because of its slowness, because of its failure, because of its rifts and its divisions.
What will the young people say when they read and hear what has been said, and realize that there is a law on the books requiring the Minister of Finance to pay monthly since August 1, 1970 an amount which has been requested by the Canadian Wheat Board and with respect to which the government has deliberately refused to pay a penny every single month since August 1, 1970. That law does not say the minister may; it does not set out any conditions or any circumstances. This section of the act contains as clear and forthright a statement as can be. It simply provides, without reading the whole of section 3:
The Minister of Finance shall, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, pay to the Board for each day in that crop year an amount equal-
And later, it continues:
(b) in respect of any subsequent crop year-
That is subsequent to August 1, 1955.
-the total amount payable for the crop year shall be paid in equal monthly payments within such crop year.
I happen to be a lawyer by profession, but one does not have to be a lawyer to understand that clear language. For once, the people who drafted that particular law did not use legalese. It is almost English, as I read it. There is no doubt as to what it says. It says that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) shall pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a certain sum of money, the calculation of which is also made clear. It says that the Minister of Finance shall pay each month in that crop year one twelfth of the amount of money. There is no doubt as to what it says. What possible reason can the government have for not paying it, except its absolutely unlimited self assurance and arrogance that it can do as it pleases and get away with it because it has those rows of men who are governed by their loyalty to a party and to the bag man of the party rather than any loyalty of conscience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the accusation he made by saying that we are supporting the government because of some loyalty to a bag man. I reject that entirely. I support this government because I support its policies.


David Lewis: I was not talking in general about hon. members opposite supporting the government. I assume that members opposite support the government because they support its policies. I give them credit for at least that much. But I cannot understand how any person on the other side can with conscience permit the government which leads that party to break the law and yet not open his mouth.
September 23, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The combined opposition parties on this side form a minority in the House, but if the members on the other side, lawyers and others, who know perfectly well that there has been a breach of the law, that it is unforgivable and indefensible-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -showed the courage of their convictions and told their government that they would not stand for it, then the Minister of Finance and the ex-dean of law would have to do what the law tells them to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: There are some members of the House who suggest occasionally that I am a bit hard. I was told at lunch just today-
They say that I am hard, Mr. Speaker.

I make no apologies for saying what I did, even though I regard with the greatest respect everyone on the other side whom I have met personally. However, I say to them that there are times in Parliament when this kind of party loyalty should take second place to a clear duty of every Member of Parliament to protect the law and to make the government observe it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I say that the government is guilty of defalcation and contempt of the law. They are guilty also of blackmail because the reason for all of this is that they have put $100 million into Bill C-244, and combined it with a stabilization plan which is unacceptable to the farmers. In this way they have put on the farmers of western Canada and on farm organizations a double squeeze. They say "you give us the stabilization plan or you will not get either the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act or the payments under the stabilization act", and I say that that is clear blackmail which is unworthy of any government, unworthy of even the government under which Canada now suffers.
I suggest to you, Sir, that we can restore the place of Parliament, the place of government and the place of the law if the minister who speaks for the government in this debate does several things: first, if he has the sense of duty to admit that perhaps a mistake has been made, made in good faith originally I have no doubt. I do not question that. Originally, the government had a bill that was going to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and it thought it had a good bill. I remember when it was introduced with a paeon of praise as being the best kind of stabilization plan that had ever been conceived. The government may well have thought that therefore it would pass through the House quickly, and that the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would take place, as a result of which payments for a month or two might
Withholding of Grain Payments
be delayed. That may have been the idea of the government in good faith. But the minister now cannot hide behind that.
Fourteen months have passed since August 1, 1970, and for fourteen months the government has failed to obey the law. Therefore, the minister can no longer say "we intended that the act be repealed". Laws are not made by intentions; they are not repealed by intentions. Two or three months might be forgivable, but fourteen months of ignoring the law is surely indefensible. The minister should admit that originally it was hoped that in two or three months the law would be repealed and a new law would take its place. Even then, he would have been out a month or two. Now that he sees that a long time has gone by, that Bill C-244 has not yet passed this House let alone the other place, he should admit that an error was made and should undertake to pay the money out forthwith without any delay, not even the delay of a day. He should pay the money to the Wheat Board and enable the Wheat Board to make the money available to the farmers entitled to it.
Second, I again make a plea to the minister that he split Bill C-244, take the $100 million, the temporary transitional payment, as a separate item and put this to the House. So far as my party is concerned and I would be surprised if this were not true of the Conservative opposition, we would pass it without debate in half an hour, thus letting the farmers have the advantage of that money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Finally, a meeting is to take place, as the minister admitted during the question period, of the provincial ministers of agriculture of the three prairie provinces who have asked the minister to meet them on Bill C-244 so that they can make suggestions for its improvement. I suggest that it is indecent of the government to try to pass Bill C-244 without at least hearing what the provincial ministers of agriculture of the prairie provinces have to say. Therefore, it seems to me that the road is clear for the government. They should pay the money under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act without delay, all the money that is now payable, and if the government has the graciousness and generosity, they should split Bill C-244 so as to make the $100 million available as well.
I have had occasion to spend some time in the prairie provinces in the last few months. I have met many farmers and I know from personal observation, as do many hon. members, that the wheat farmers in western Canada in particular are in great financial distress. They deserve to get the money that is owing to them, not only under one act or the other but under both the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and under Bill C-244.
I regret to have to say that we cannot agree with the second part of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) because-and I say this with respect-it is simply inaccurate. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act has not been repealed, and the Revised Statutes do not claim that it was. In the schedule to the statute which sets out the acts which were repealed the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act does not appear.
I will therefore, without taking any more time, move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words "the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act" and

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
by substituting therefor the following words: "and this House calls on the government to pay forthwith to the Canadian Wheat Board the sums of money it is required to pay as specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the said act still being part of the law of Canada."
The amended motion would then read:
That this House, conscious that the government is bound by the laws of this Parliament as are the citizens of this country, condemns the government for its deliberate flout of the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and this House calls on the government to pay forthwith to the Canadian Wheat Board the sums of money it is required to pay as specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the said act still being part of the law of Canada.
In conclusion, may I plead with Parliament, hon. members opposite as well as hon. members on this side of the House, that what is in issue is the very status of Parliament in the eyes of the people of Canada, the very respect for government in the eyes of the people of Canada. As conscientious Members of Parliament we cannot allow the government to break the law with impunity and to continue to break it without a word from this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for introducing at this time a motion of utmost importance for western wheat producers, and may I also congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) for moving an amendment to clarify the situation from the legal standpoint and substitute the following words for certain others:

-this House calls on the government to pay forthwith to the Canadian Wheat Board the sums of money it is required to pay as specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the said Act still being part of the law of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from a trip out west where I had the opportunity of meeting farmers in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as the southern part of those provinces. In fact, I visited Weyburn, Rad-ville, Regina, Calgary, High Prairie and -Lethbridge. I met representatives of agricultural associations, among others those of the wheat producers. Everywhere, and I say this quite sincerely, I noticed that the people were not pleased at all with the government. This government is not very popular in western Canada because it does nothing concrete to help the farmers of that area.
I met farmers who are still waiting for the payments of the Canadian Wheat Board, people who have been forced to resort to banks and financial institutions to borrow rather considerable amounts at 12, 15, 18 and 20 per cent interest, while the Canadian Wheat Board is absolutely unable to help them because the government does not act on their behalf. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) blames the opposition. The latter demands that the $100 million referred to in Bill C-244 be immediately distributed to farmers. The government insists and answers that the opposition is to blame if

western farmers are not paid. If we want to take the government at its word, in short if the government, which has a majority in the House, is really tired of the opposition, why does it not invoke Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C that were adopted last year and does it not impose a vote on Bill C-244? No! The ministers, playing politics, wander throughout the country saying: It is the opposition that is holding us back! It is the opposition that is hindering our work! Let the opposition adopt the bill, then we will be able to distribute the $100 million.
That is truly intimidation. And this intimidation, the government believes that it will be able to convince western farmers that they will be its victims, but they are merely disgusted. Western farmers are now disgusted with the government because it does not carry out its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who always has something to say with regard to wheat, and I recall the time when he sat among the Credi-tistes here and spoke to us of the two-price system with regard to wheat for western farmers. His two-price system, today-


Erik Nielsen: He is not listening to you.


David Réal Caouette: I know he is not listening, and when he does he doesn't understand.
Mr. Speaker, as for his two-price system for farmers in order to help them sell their products, there has been no mention of it since he became Minister of Agriculture. When he was sitting on this side, he seemed to talk with logic but he does not have the right to do so any more and he says to farmers: Your business is good.
Mr. Speaker, when I met western producers last week, I found that the government or the Canadian Wheat Board were causing them a good many difficulties. A farmer had attempted for instance to sell wheat in another province and he was called a bootlegger. They threatened him with a heavy fine since it is forbidden to make transactions without going through the Canadian Wheat Board. When the same people ask the Canadian Wheat Board for assistance, the answer is: We cannot help you, we are waiting for instructions from Ottawa.
The people in Ottawa say: If nothing goes, the fault lies with the opposition. The aim is to make the opposition responsible and to play the political game, in order to attract farmers' votes in case there would have to be an election. I repeat what I said earlier: Farmers are not taken in by the troubles of the government. And, as it says in the motion, nothing prevents the government from using the existing legislation to give the Canadian Wheat Board the $100 million that will enable them, in turn, to make the necessary payments to farmers who are entitled to them and will then be able to meet their obligations and solve their problems.
Mr. Speaker, I also heard some farmers complain. Everywhere in Canada we hear the same old story! Out West, quite often we hear people say: If things are not going well, it is because Ottawa gives too much money to
September 23, 1971

the East. And in the East, we hear people say: If things are going all wrong, it is because Ottawa is giving too much money to the West. There is enough money for all Canadians, and we can help the farmers from the East as well as those in the West.
Out West people say: The government is giving grants to the milk producers, textile manufacturers, butter and cheese producers and tobacco growers in the East. That seems rather funny. The government subisidizes tobacco farming in order to enable the growers to make ends meet, and then it pays for advertisements telling the people: Don't smoke, don't use tobacco because it is harmful to your health. Subsidies are granted to promote production and later comes the warning: Do not use tobacco. Is there anything more stupid than that?
Mr. Speaker, there was no granting of subsidies to Western Canada. Farmers were told three years ago that too much wheat had been produced in the West, that there was a surplus, in short, that the elevators were chock-full. The farmers had so much wheat they didn't know what to do. Indeed, wheat was under the snow throughout the winter months.
Then the Minister of Agriculture told the farmers to produce barley. There was a great demand for it on an important international market. Many farmers stopped producing wheat and began producing barley. This year, they were told we had too much barley. But it seems that the wheat market is getting stronger. They are told to start producing wheat again. Farmers have been taken in like that for many years.
Mr. Speaker, on many occasions we suggested that the government establish a global farm policy for wheat and dairy producers, etc. We must make them sure that they will sell their production. The point is to build silos for storing wheat that could eventually be used to assist underdeveloped countries. Why not?
During the war, we built warehouses with a view to storing armaments, in case we had to take part. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy Bomarc missiles, in case we needed them. Today, we have to discard them because they are said to be obsolete and of no use.
However, wheat could serve a useful purpose, for instance, feeding two thirds of the human beings now starving. We could help those who hunger and thirst for justice, and this not only in Canada but also elsewhere in the world. And by helping these people, we would help our farmers and guarantee the sale of their entire production, not at ridiculous prices, but at prices which would enable them to live and enjoy the same standard of living as that of industrial workers and most other citizens.
It seems to me that no miracle is necessary to guarantee to the farmers the sale of their entire production; then western and eastern farmers would stop blaming one another. Not only would Canadian farmers be happier, but they would cease to always expect the government to adopt laws which quite often do not help them really.
It has been customary these last few years, to bring forward bills containing a lot of disparate and complex clauses.
Omnibus bills are introduced, because the government does not want to deal with a particular subject.
Withholding of Grain Payments
In this case, if we were to pass Bill C-244 providing for $100 million for the Canadian Wheat Board, we would also be passing a bill which provides for stabilization, which is unacceptable by and large. Therefore why not keep those provisions of the bill which provide for $100 million that the Canadian Wheat Board will give out to the western farmers who need it, if the government decides at last to abide by those provisions.
The government should take its responsibilities, which are not those of the opposition. I say this in closing: the opposition can be blamed, but there are means available to the government to secure passage of the bill it has introduced. The government could apply Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C which it adopted last year and which would oblige the government to call a vote on the bill within 48 hours. But it is afraid. It is pulling back and blaming the opposition. Insofar as we are concerned, I believe that in our capacity as members of the opposition, we can take our responsibilities, the first one of which is to tell the ministers what we expect from them, what the people expect from the government. And what the Canadian people expect from the government is that famous just society that was promised in 1968.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The minister knows that he may only ask a question if the hon. member agrees to accept it. Does the hon. member agree?


David Réal Caouette: Of course, I do.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If Bill C-244 were put, would the hon. member vote for it as it stands?


David Réal Caouette: With or without amendments, we will not support it, that is just what we are saying. We say: Give the Canadian Wheat Board the $100 million it is meant to get under the bill, and we will then debate the other provisions of the bill.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks this afternoon the Leader of the Social Credit party referred to something which I consider to be of utmost importance in this country. He said that in his travels in western Canada he heard the persistent theme that the government is doing everything for eastern and central Canada, and nothing for the west. I know that in the particular part of the country from which he comes, as well as in other parts, the reverse is shouted with tremendous volume. People say that we are doing everything for the west and nothing for the other parts of the country. I appreciate what the hon. member has said to this House because, in view of his own place of residence, his own interests in his constituency and so on, I find it extremely useful to be able to join with him in expressing concern about this and about its importance to this country. I have frequently found in western Canada that policies such as our textile policy are cited as examples of the help we give to eastern Canada. In Quebec, at the same time, these policies are considered to be inadequate for conditions there. That is a matter of

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
serious consequence, because it is of fundamental importance for this country that we, as politicians on the national scene, should attempt to unite the country by helping people to understand the difficulties in each area of the country. I, in my turn, try to express the problems of Quebec to my constituents, and the hon. member in his turn, helps to explain to his constituents the problems which western Canada faces. I, therefore, appreciate the sentiments he expressed.
The government has been considering rapidly and thoroughly many aspects of the problems facing western Canada. Indeed, since mounting our special efforts almost two years ago, there are few aspects of the problems concerning the grain farmer with which we have not dealt or which we have not considered seriously from the point of view of attempting to make improvements and bettering the grain producer's position. Many more measures which are under consideration will come forward before long. They relate to improvements in the situation with which farmers are faced.
When the stabilization bill proposals were enunciated in their final form on March 15, I indicated at that time in statements I made that the whole question of the income position of the grain farmer, which we were concerned about, needed constant examination. I indicated I was convinced that we had not done enough on the sales side, that is on the marketing side, over the years in going after international markets. We had not stressed that side enough. It seemed to me that there were only two sources from which income for the producer could come. One source was the proceeds from the sale of his product and the other was the treasury, or the rest of the people of Canada. I indicated at that time that although we were optimistic about our sales position, and in fact, that year turned out to be a record year for the export of grain, that we would have to look at all times at the income position of the farmer. I also indicated in the context of proposals which we were moving forward, which have now emerged in part and only in part as Bill C-244 which is before this House, that the package or proposals we were talking about was designed to increase treasury support for the prairie farmer by something in the order of $100 million in 1970-71 and 1971-72 taken together over what would have been the case if no improvement in programs had taken place. That indicated our recognition of the serious cash position of the farmer. Nevertheless, we believed that there would be a record year in exports.
In the course of considering those proposals, we looked at existing programs and offered new ones. We looked in particular at the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, which had been fairly seriously criticized by farmers over the years because of the manner in which it offered assistance to wheat only as against other grains which the very same farmers might choose to grow. That act was criticized also because of the way it led to the congestion of elevators on August 1 just before the new harvest was to be taken off. It was criticized also because, in helping with regard to wheat and in leading to a per bushel payment for wheat, the act helped large farmers very significantly more than it helped small farmers,-taken as a group; because it was the large farmers, of course, who might have a very large number of bushels of wheat delivered. They would get the same benefit per bushel as the opera-

tor of a small farmer who might deliver a much smaller amount of grain.
It was certainly our belief that for all of these reasons that particular statute was inadequate and undesirable. It was. our belief that because of the cash shortage we should try to take the money that was involved in that statute for the year 1970-71, which at that time was estimated at about $60 million, and add to that amount more money for a payment to be made that same year under the transitional provision of the stabilization act. But we proposed a payment to be made on an acreage basis so that producers of grain other than wheat would share. Payments were to be made with a limit on the size of the farm that would be able to claim. Looking at the interests of all Canadians and the needs of other interested groups at that time, we decided that more of the $100 million, which we felt was available at that time, would be paid to those with smaller farmers than if we had not put an acreage limit upon the plan. That was the proposal.
The proposal was very clear on March 15. It had been clear previously from discussions with producers that we thought this should be done for 1970-71 and a period beyond that time. Because the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was generally considered to be undesirable for those reasons, it was important that it be repealed and an improved method of payment be found as soon as possible.
In the debate on the bill, a number of hon. members opposite indicated their agreement with the view that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was generally undesirable, inadequate or led to distortion. This simply confirmed the view that was commonly held. At that point we indicated what we intended to do and subsequently did in producing for first reading on April 29 Bill C-244. In that bill, the stabilization program was to be established. Under that stabilization program, future commitments by the federal government to the western farmer are made.
In the short time available, I will not argue why that was bound to be worth more to the farmer in the future than retaining the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would have been. Rather, I want to make the point that at that time the government was introducing, as a proposal to the House, a package which we had discussed with producers, a package which we felt at that point, having adjusted it in significant ways as a result of producer representations, was a significant improvement over the law as it stood without these changes. At that time the bill clearly stated our intention, that we should propose in that way to Parliament the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act effective July 31, 1970.
It was surely clear to all members that when the bill passed, that clause would make the situation the same as it would have been had the act been repealed effectively and before that date in question. It was clear to the House that this was so. I gather from the remarks, in terms of timing, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party that they understood that, because under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in fact some progress payments would have been made to the Canadian Wheat Board even before that point of introduction. In other words, it was the govern-
September 23, 1971

ment's plan to test the will of Parliament on a substitution that we considered to be a better package, immediately adding approximately $40 million which is part of our total package, and adding a good bit more than that to the prairie farmers' income during the course of that two year period. That was introduced to test the will of Parliament.
It was clear to us from the consultations we already had with Members of Parliament that there would likely be substantial support in this House for that bill. It was never our intention to suggest that somehow neither the one set of benefits nor the other would be available to farmers. We were specifically discussing a new proposal more beneficial to farmers when compared to the law as it stood without these changes. We wanted this bill to progress through the House. I think the record on that is clear. Certain opposition members, when speaking with regard to agricultural legislation as many of them from the prairies do, take a tremendous amount of time to discuss matters irrelevant to a bill before the House and delay legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Otto Emil Lang: The record in the committee also makes this clear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are being fatuous.


Otto Emil Lang: It is clear as well that the political fact that there was an election in Saskatchewan, and the fact that there is a pending by-election in Saskatchewan, has been in the consciousness of members of this House. At all times I asked members of this House and members of the committee to allow this issue, whether the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act should be repealed effective July 31, 1970 and there be substituted therefor this other package of proposals or the other part of the proposals composed of the stabilization bill, to come to a vote to test the will of Parliament on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Otto Emil Lang: If the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act were to be fallen back upon in place of the measures now before the House, this would mean that the payments which ordinarily would have been made to the Wheat Board for transmission to the farmers would again be made. This would have amounted to something in the order of $62.1 million according to the most recent calculation of that figure. There have been other figures mentioned, but this one appears to be more certain. This is at the end of July. If this had been paid, $38.6 million would, in the ordinary course, have reached the farmers during the month of June. We recognize that if the House were not to approve that significant clause in Bill C-244 that we would certainly have an obligation with regard to this legislation and to this payment and, indeed, with regard to interest on it for the period during which this payment was delayed. It appears hon. members may have been following a different course, that is, talking endlessly without any intention of letting this question come to a vote.
Let me put the issue completely before Your Honour. The government has continued to give high priority to Bill
Withholding of Grain Payments
C-244 as an item in its legislative agenda. It has called the bill despite the fact that the competing priorities are of great importance. We shall continue to seek the approval of the House for Bill C-244. Several hon. members have suggested we should use on or other technique to close off debate. But members of the government are very loath to do so, wishing normally to give the opposition a generous and full opportunity to speak. The hope is, though, that members will speak relevantly and to the point, and in due course allow a decision to be taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The question of the alternatives has been discussed before by members of this House. In the committee, questions were asked about what would happen if the bill were not passed as of the end of the earlier part of the session. I indicated then that if that were to happen the government would have to look again at its attempt to pass what it considered to be an improvement to the law, and consider reverting to the law as it stood, without changes being made. In other words, not to rely any longer on the passage through the House of a clause which had already been approved on second reading and in committee repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as of July 1, 1970. Should the opposition continue to prevent the House coming to a vote on this issue-filibuster, my hon. friend says, and I agree with him-should the opposition prevent this issue coming to a vote in a reasonable period, we would have no alternative but to-


Mr. Benjamin:: Obey the law.


Mr. Horner:: Pay your debts.


Mr. Korchinski:: Plus interest.


Otto Emil Lang: -say to the farmers that their spokesmen in the opposition have prevented us from enacting what we consider to be an improvement in the law and we, therefore, would have to consider that Bill C-244 in all its parts was a dead issue, and, of course, immediately, at that time make the payment under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for that year and, indeed, for this. This would mean, Mr. Speaker-


David Lewis: More blackmail.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member says "More blackmail".


Mr. Faulkner:: The experts are speaking.


Otto Emil Lang: The leader of the New Democratic Party is, of course, very conscious of the fact that an attempt will be made by his colleagues fighting the by-election in Assiniboia to picture their obstruction of beneficial legislation for farmers as a lack of attention by this government to the problems of farmers. Where is the blackmail?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some tortuous sentences in my life, but never to one quite so tortuous as that.


Otto Emil Lang: To the farmers, I say as I said on March 15: We shall, of course, have to examine ways of seeking to improve the situation. We shall continue to try to bring additional measures forward to help them.

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
The lack of support for the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was emphasized by the fact that when the farm organizations came before the committee, though they were generally quite free to express criticisms of what the government was doing, or not doing, for the prairie farmer-


Mr. Peters:: And did.


Otto Emil Lang: -and they did, because they were very conscious of the fact that as long as the prairie farmer is in a serious position he is not likely to be appreciative of things which were already being done; they were demanding, basically, that more be done. As leaders of farm organizations they might not have been willing to be satisfied with my undertaking to examine the over-all situation in which farmers find themselves. When they appeared before the committee they did not object to the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as of July 1, 1970, except to the extent that they came forward with alternative proposals involving the payment of money to farmers from the treasury. Basically, though, there was no objection to the repeal of the act. None of the farm representatives said the act was inherently good legislation. That is significant.


William Arnold Peters: They never even mentioned it, and I have been a member of the committee for 15 years.


Otto Emil Lang: Members opposite have tried to suggest that the bill before the House could somehow be dealt with in such a way that the parts which are very popular among the farmers, involving the simple payment of money, could be separated from the rest of the legislation. But the government is bound to come forward with packages of proposals which are intended to improve the farm situation. It is very easy for members opposite to say: We would like the good part of that, and the good part of this.


Gerald William Baldwin: What part of C-244 is bad?


Otto Emil Lang: It is easy for them to say: We would like more money for the people in our region. But, as I suggested to the leader of the Social Credit party, members representing the province of Quebec or other parts of eastern Canada might complain that the government was doing too much for western farmers as compared with what was being done for farmers, say, in Quebec.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government is robbing the farmers of money.


Otto Emil Lang: The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is agreed generally to be an inadequate piece of legislation.


David Lewis: It is still the law.


Otto Emil Lang: With the greater emphasis on the production of barley and rapeseed, it was inevitable that a substitute for it be found. It was important, also, that the elevator system should not remain clogged with wheat as in the past. As a result of the fact that this year the elevators are no longer completely clogged with wheat, it has been possible for producers to market grain in larger quantities in the month of August and the first weeks of September than for a significant period of time. Indeed, during the first six weeks of the crop year until the week ending

September 15, producers have marketed a total of 83.5 million bushels of grain compared with 46.3 million bushels in the previous year and 36.7 million bushels in the year before that. This means that almost as much has been marketed by producers this year as in the two previous years together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: At half the price.


Otto Emil Lang: This is partly due to the fact that in our attempts to help the farmer and our tremendous emphasis on marketing, marketing and more marketing, not only did we see the completion of a record year of exports last year but we are still seeing, on September 15, exports running significantly ahead of the same time last year. Last year, when we were on our way to a record year- hon. members opposite have been speaking of the poor years-90.7 million bushels of grain were exported. As at the same date this year 98.5 million bushels of grain have been exported.
I have explained the alternative that faces this House in terms of reaching the question on Bill C-244 and enacting a series of proposals that are a significant improvement in the situation facing the farmers on the Prairies. I hope that this improvement will soon be realized.
In addition, may I say that I will continue to work for improved and better programs for the farmers of the prairie provinces for whom, in my responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board, I have a special interest. I continue to hope that in presenting these proposals to the House they may gain the support of hon. members opposite.


Erik Nielsen: Obey the law.


Otto Emil Lang: I also suggest to hon. members opposite that it is extremely difficult for the government to put forward and to implement laws that benefit the prairie farmers as long as-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have made a tool out of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair wishes to bring the House to order and to ask the co-operation of all hon. members in letting the minister be heard and complete his remarks. I am wondering whether the minister has concluded. In any event, I think this rule should apply throughout this debate and all other debates.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we would be glad to obey your request, but would you also remonstrate with the minister by asking him to be relevant and to speak to the motion before the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed for the House the decision taken by the government to offer the House a package of proposals affecting the prairie farmers that is better, in my opinion, than anything that existed before. Included in that package was the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act effective July 31, 1970. The bill containing these proposals will continue to be debated. That
September 23, 1971

the repeal of this act was to be effective as at that date has been known to the House for many months. I ask the House, as I ask it each day that the bill is before it, to allow these issues to come to a vote in this House.
So that there is no misunderstanding about this, let me repeat that we would not feel, as I said to the committee on June 18, that we could necessarily go forward with these proposals, including the immediate payment of money to the prairie farmers, without the support of the House. We could not continue, without reviewing our position, to act as it would be proper to act, with the approval of the House, in repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act effective July 31, 1970. If that proposition is not in due and reasonable course permitted to come to a vote, if this filibuster grows and continues, then we would have no alternative but-


William Arnold Peters: Go to the country.


Otto Emil Lang: -to accept that our attempt to improve the situation of the prairie farmers under Bill C-244 has not been possible. We would say to the people that we believe that responsibility for the delay, for the obstruction, was that of the opposition in not letting these matters come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The minister knows that he cannot pursue his remarks unless he has unanimous consent to do so. Does the House agree to allow the minister to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not seem to be agreement. The hon. member for Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite cry "Shame", but I have been sitting here, as we all have, listening to the minister for the past 30 minutes and expecting to hear some defence of the unlawful actions of the government. I have heard absolutely no defence. For 30 minutes the minister spoke of reverting to the law as it stood, an astonishing statement coming from a dean of law. He spoke of the legislation being bad. I should not have to point out to this dean of law that, whether legislation be bad or good, it is still the law of the land. I know that he cannot be an example of the product of the law school of which he was dean. I cannot bring myself to believe that he is the sort of graduate that that distinguished law school turns out.
The justice minister issued a news release dated today announcing a national conference on the law. The opening statement of that news release is as follows: "Our legal profession must respond promptly and creatively to the fact that society is our client".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Get back to wheat.
Withholding of Grain Payments


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are not on wheat, we are on the law.


Erik Nielsen: If society is the client of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), this dean of law and this government, then I can only say it is deserving of much better counsel than it is getting.
The motion before the House states that the government is bound by the laws of this Parliament, as are the citizens of this country, and condemns the government for its deliberate flouting of the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I want to deal with some of the reasons that I believe have brought Parliament to its low level and to the low regard in which it is held by the people of Canada.


Mr. Hogarth:: With your contribution you should know.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) is very fond of interjecting while seated, but if he would have the spine to get up and take part in this debate I would think a lot more of him. However, I shall have something to say generally about the courage of hon. members opposite.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I do not doubt that. You are a great man when it comes to courage.


Erik Nielsen: I will compare my background and courage with that of any member on the opposite side, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I have spoken before, Sir, of the concern which I have had for the transformations that are taking place in our form of government, a concern which is being shared by ever increasing numbers of Canadians throughout this country.
The subject matter of this motion of non-confidence is another manifestation of the wilful and deliberate destruction of responsible government as we have known it and the emasculation of this House of Commons which is supposed to be the instrument by which our democratic way of life should be protected. The process of erosion began under the previous Prime Minister. I thought then that matters were approaching the danger point and that an aroused public opinion was required in order to bring to a halt the objective of that government to arrogate all power unto itself. That did not come about. In the course of the last three years, however, the rapidity with which the present Prime Minister accelerated the process of destruction presents, in my view, the single most dangerous occurrence which is concerning Canadians today. This is being brought about by a man who, in my view, is the most dangerous Prime Minister in Canada's history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: To quote him, he is a man who believes it to be:
.. . conceivable that a benevolent despot might rule wisely, establish a just order for all his subjects, and leave them enough freedom of expression.
The rub there is, by whose standards are we to determine whether his rule is wise? By whose standards are we to determine whether the order established by such a despot is just and by what and whose standards are we to

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
determine if his subjects are left enough freedom of expression?


Mr. Mahoney:: Read it all.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) interjects. He is the member who stood up the other day and said that everything about the economy of this country is beautiful, that we are getting along just fine. If the hon. member would like to borrow the publications-if he has not read them yet he is welcome to them.
Clearly this kind of philosophy and other Trudeau philosophies are transforming this House of Commons into a flabby, ineffective debating forum.


James Alexander Jerome: Right on, now.


Erik Nielsen: The forum is a flabby debating forum precisely because of that stupid collection over there, Mr. Speaker, the braying donkeys. It is a legislature which the Prime Minister barely tolerates and which he now uses as his own personal tool to accomplish his aims. This place is no longer the master, the master sits over there.


Mr. Boulanger:: Don't point at me.


Erik Nielsen: No longer does he account to Parliament for his actions.


Mr. Paproski:: You may not believe it Boulanger, but wait until you get on the road.


Erik Nielsen: Whatever the actions of his ministers, he must bear the ultimate responsibility. He is above the law, the Prime Minister who sits over there. Remember his promises? He did make a few.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What promises?


Erik Nielsen: One was the establishment of a just society. Another promise was to reform Parliament. Yet another was "the creative use of the law". We are certainly getting a reformation of Parliament. He has destroyed the cornerstone of the very essence of our system, the principle of accountability. The creative use of the law-he uses the law if it pleases him but if it does not please him or if he finds it inconvenient for his purposes, he ignores the law.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Erik, the only law you know is your mother-in-law.


Erik Nielsen: I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) could join the class of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. They seem to be on the same intellectual level as far as the law is concerned. The Prime Minister ignores the law, safe in the knowledge that he has a sufficient number of what he has been pleased to refer to as "braying donkeys" behind him to support his decisions.
Creative use of the law indeed! He has used the law to incarcerate innocent citizens for actions which were not crimes at the time but which he made crimes in order to justify his own benevolent despotism.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: A direct quote from the Weekend Magazine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order please, order please! Although hon. members may be enjoying this, it is the responsibility of the Chair to keep order in the House. I hope that hon. members would try as much as possible to refrain from shouting from one side to the other so that the Chair can hear what is being said.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only fair-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is rising on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only fair that people on the other side of the House should have a little more respect for the Chair. I concur with you, Sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair appreciates the remark from the hon. member and welcomes it. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


John James Greene: Get to the point.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) interjects. He tells me to speak to the point. He should have given that advice to his colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: My observation to the minister is that he is a minister whith very little energy left and very few resources.


John James Greene: It is always nice to see you in the House.


Erik Nielsen: We have a just society, a society in which the Prime Minister is the master, a society in which he is the government, a society in which he is accountable to no one and, now, not even to Parliament. He has made a fraud of this place. But there is still one feature of our system which requires his accountability, the people and the ballot. Once every four years, by tradition, he must account for his actions at the polls.
The most frightening aspect of all these events, however, is the woeful lack of knowledge on the part of the great majority of Canadians of what exactly has happened to their system of government under this Prime Minister since 1968. No one understands this more than he does and he uses that lack of knowledge, that ignorance, just as he uses this place. If every Canadian voter could see the open contempt that he displays for this place and with which he treats it, if they could see him shrug off his obligation to account for the actions of his ministers and himself during the oral question period, if they could hear his snide comments in reply to the questions of members-but this side of his character is not known to those Canadians who do not see him here. They only see him on television, a media which he uses as he does everything else.


Prosper Boulanger: What are you doing, your own
biography?
September 23, 1971


Erik Nielsen: I am criticizing the man who I think is responsible for the denigration of this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: He is quite another person on television and he knows precisely how to act in order to convey a superb television image. That is all it is, an image-cool, charming, articulate, wise-but it is still only an image. As one writer put it, television "may unmask one liar and transmit another as the very heart and soul of integrity. The results may have nothing to do with the real qualities of the man, only with his apparent qualities." This is his idea of accountability, to use television to charm people in their homes. But account to Parliament? He tolerates that as a necessary nuisance.
What of the rest, his cabinet ministers and his braying donkeys? No one in that cabinet dare speak out. Real freedom of expression does not exist. The ex-minister of communications knows whereof I speak. In an article in Maclean's magazine for July 1971, on page 32, the hon. member is reported to have said this:
You were always listened to with great respect, but nothing would ever happen. ... It was like a procession. You know, when the Pope gets down off the altar at St. Peter's and walks down the aisle the one thing you know is that he's going to get to the other end of the aisle. That's the way these things are. You can argue and argue and in the end the procession goes on its way.
So does the member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) know whereof I speak. These are two men of courage in my view, two men who were not prepared to adhere to the admonishment of the Prime Minister to "behave yourself and do as I think"; two men who dared to think for themselves and who were banished by a man who has taken absolute power unto himself.
Why, we ask, have we reached the point where Parliament enacts a law which is deliberately breached by the government headed by this Prime Minister? The people have a right to feel secure in the belief that such conduct could not possibly occur. Why? Because they say, "Parliament is there to protect us from that sort of thing and members in the House of Commons would not allow such conduct". As we have experienced, this House of Commons is powerless to do anything unless it be that some opposition members might hope to induce representatives of the media to attempt to arouse public opinion, as was done when the government attempted to muzzle the Auditor General.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: What could be more important a matter upon which to inform Canadians? If the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) would have the guts to get up on his feet and say things he might get a response from me.
What could be more important a matter to occupy the concern of all members of the House, not only we who sit in the opposition but all members? What could be more important a matter than for this House, acting in unison, to bring to a halt a Prime Minister and a government openly and brazenly violating the law of the land? Yet what action will be taken by the members of the so-called
Withholding of Grain Payments
Liberal party who sit in this House? Will they, by their vote, express their disapproval of a government breaking the law? Will any of them have the courage to say that laws are meant to apply not only to the ordinary citizen but also to Prime Ministers, Cabinet ministers and governments? Or will those members display their usual cowardice and meekly do as they are told by the autocratic leader of their party? Strong words, you say?
Let me tell Liberal members here that even stronger terms were used by their leader in the April, 1963 edition of Cite Libre in an article written by him entitled "The Abdication of the Spirit":
I would have to point out in the strongest terms the autocracy of the Liberal structure and the cowardice of its members. I have never seen in all my examination of politics so degrading a spectacle as that of all these Liberals turning their coats in unison with their chief, when they saw a chance to take power ... The head of the troupe having shown the way, the rest followed with the elegance of animals heading for the trough.
That is what their leader thinks of them, and that is the contempt he has for those members. So much for the myth of the integrity and independence of the Liberal members sitting in this place. Their own leader has described them far more accurately than could I and, I might say, his is an honest assessment and one that is still valid. They are a posturing, spineless bunch, making interjections, while seated, and attempting to make hypocritical speeches at home. Will any one of them have the spine to stand and defend the rule of law when this matter comes to a vote?
So, we have a cabinet composed of ministers afraid to speak their mind for fear they will follow the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Duvernay, and we have Liberal members following their leader like animals to a trough, braying like donkeys as they go. What then is there left to protect the supremacy of Parliament against this one-man despotism. The effectiveness of the opposition has been drastically weakened by a series of rules changes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is rising on a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. I have listened for the last 15 or 20 minutes to the hon. member for Yukon-


An hon. Member:: Twelve minutes.


William Warren Allmand: -perhaps for 12 minutes, slander Liberal members on this side of the House. He has questioned the motives on which we have voted in this House. He has suggested we have voted without using our consciences. I want to ask him to withdraw his remarks immediately. I wish to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 98, section 108(3).


An hon. Member:: Who is Beauchesne?


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't know.


William Warren Allmand: It reads:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity-

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
I suggest that the hon. member for Yukon has been questioning our character and conduct in our capacity as Members of Parliament and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw his remarks. As a matter of fact, I insist that he withdraw the remarks he has made in this House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. What I was doing, Sir, was quoting from a publication by his leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is quite aware of the quotation from Beauchesne read by the hon. member, but must say at this time that although the Chair has found difficulty in following the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon because of the noisy House this afternoon, it did not seem to the Chair that in his remarks the hon. member went to the point of reflecting on the House or any individual member of the House. It is very difficult for the Chair to evaluate the importance of insinuations and accusations which can be made from one side of the House to the other. Unless the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace wants to make a charge and quote some definite remarks of the hon. member for Yukon, the Chair does not see how it can ask the hon. member to withdraw anything he said.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in that regard may I point out that the remarks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has rendered its decision and the hon. member for Peace River should not be allowed to add to what has been said unless he wants to bring in another question.


Gerald William Baldwin: I just wanted to concur in the words of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, what then is there left to protect the supremacy of Parliament against this one-man despotism. The effectiveness of the opposition has been drastically weakened by a series of rules changes, again deliberately brought about by the leader of a government motivated by a lust for power. This is his promised reform of Parliament. He no longer has to worry about Parliament being an obstacle to his one-man rule. And the most astonishing reflection which may be made concerning the accomplishment of this emasculation of parliamentary strength is the fact that he has done it while leaving the impression that he has done it as an exercise in participatory democracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. I want to mention that the Chair has allowed the hon. member four extra minutes. Unless he receives unanimous consent he will not be able to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: Enough.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now, we are going to get the truth from someone who knows nothing. It is nice to see him back in the House.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am very glad to see that the hon. member is back in the House so that he can see I am in the House.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure I am happy about either one.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If I am allowed to speak, Mr. Speaker, I will not take long because I think the issue is a very simple one and there is not very much to say about it. What this country needs is action, not words, as I understand it.


An hon. Member:: Man the barricades.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is what some people are always saying, "man the barricades", and then they talk about the sanctity of Parliament from the other side of their mouth.


An hon. Member:: Wait until they get you in Winnipeg.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have a simple statement to make and it is simply this, that in my view the government has brought in a very sensible bill, Bill C-244, which is going through the normal process of passage in this House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the Wheat Board in your constituency?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mind your own business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The scene of the crime is in your constituency.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I thought that members of this House liked debate, the cut and thrust that takes place in this Parliament, which is supreme; but when somebody sets up to riposte a little cut or thrust, they shout him down. It is disappointing. I thought Parliament was supreme and the place where people were allowed to speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very sorry that I interjected and said that the Wheat Board was in the hon. member's constituency. I am sorry because it is in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must rule on the interjection which definitely was not a point of order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he may have the floor now.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It was a poor geography lesson. Most people who come from the west know where the Wheat Board is; they do not need to be informed of it and hon. members from eastern Canada do not care where it is. They know it is somewhere in Winnipeg.
My point is a very simple one. Bill C-244, by all the rights of logic, should pass through this House and should become law. It may have weaknesses, but by and large it is a good bill and it will benefit a great number of people. In anticipation of the passage of this bill, the government has taken certain action which leaves it at this moment, in my opinion, in default under the old act. As I understood the minister this afternoon, he made a solemn promise that he and this government would exert all pressure possible and reasonable to get this bill passed for the
September 23, 1971

benefit of the farmers who need the money; and that if he failed to do so he would, in effect, give the farmers a promissory note that they would be reimbursed under the old act, and if the session stops and the new legislation is not through, that interest would be paid. In my opinion, I would rather take the promissory note of this minister than listen to all the b.s. to which I have had to listen up to this point.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am absolutely certain that if, in spite of all logic and good sense, this bill does not pass before it dies on the order paper, the government will not renege on the farmers and will pay interest on whatever money it is owing.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They have reneged already. Let the courts decide.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Why does not someone take it to a court, then?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
Although the Chair said earlier that the House was in a good mood this afternoon, and although I have tried to be as lenient as possible, I think hon. members should remember that it is they primarily who are responsible for the good standing of this House. This can only be achieved by following as closely as possible the rules concerning relevancy and order, as well as other rules of this House. The Chair cannot be the sole person who has this responsibility, and I would ask for the co-operation of hon. members on both sides of the House.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am almost finished anyway. As I understand the point, the farmers at this moment have a promissory note solemnly given to them this afternoon by the minister that they will be paid under the old Act, if the government is refused passage of the new bill. If it is unduly delayed, they will be reimbursed with interest. What can be fairer than that? Should one be legalistic and follow through by paying under the old bill, even though he would be putting in with one hand and taking out with another? This is not a businesslike way of doing things. It would be a stupid procedure. The one being followed is in no way contempt of Parliament, as these hon. members have been trying to say.


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If it were contempt of Parliament, I would be as concerned as anyone else. I join my colleague who spoke a moment ago on a point of privilege. Whether or not the point of privilege was allowed, loose accusations help no one. They do not help the mood of the country, and they do not get a nickel nearer to the pockets of the farmers.
Hon. members opposite are speaking as if members on this side were in contempt of Parliament. If farmers do not get their money, I will be as concerned as any hon. member on the other side of the House and I will certainly hold the government responsible, but I have enough confidence in this government to know that farmers will get their money.
Withholding of Grain Payments


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you. You should know better. You are a phony grit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nystrom:: I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) would answer a question, since his time has not expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that he can only ask a question if he gets the consent of the hon. member who had the floor.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the hon. member a simple question to which he can respond probably by a yes or a no. I put my question sincerely. Does he think, regardless of all political arguments, that the government has the legal right to withhold these payments under the act before the act has been rescinded? Has the government that right, regardless of all political bartering, yes or no?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Even if I were a lawyer I do not suppose I would say that it has or it has not, yes or no. Lawyers make their living by making long, learned decisions.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are not a lawyer.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If you would just shut up, you would hear my answer. My answer is that if in a reasonable length of time the government did not pay out its obligation it would be held liable like anybody else, but the minister just told you that the money will be paid within a reasonable length of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: After the next election.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I ask a supplementary question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Again it is not the normal practice nor is it in accordance with the rules of the House-although a question may be asked with the permission of the hon. member-to allow numerous questions. I am ready to allow one more question if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre accepts it. However, following that, we will go to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that the hon. member referred to a reasonable length of time, and it is now 14 or 15 months since the payments were last made, could the hon. member tell us what he thinks is a reasonable length of time before he would act as we are acting on this side of the House?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear earlier. This session will come to an end and the bill will die on the order paper if it has not been passed. If the government has not persuaded the opposition by that time that it is serious about its agricultural legislation, then we have no recourse but to pay under the old act.
8118

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell at any length on the legal arguments that have been put forward so ably by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), because I think that part of this debate has been more than adequately dealt with, and has yet to be answered by any member on the government side. We may still get some kind of reply, and I will await with anxiety to hear if we do. But I do wish to say that as a layman, not versed in the law, I find it strange that not once in the minister's 30 minute address did he refer to the subject matter of the amendment before us.
I listened as carefully as I could to the minister's remarks, with some of which I shall deal. I only want to say about the legal aspects of the matter just what Mr. Bain said this morning in his column in the Globe and Mail, and I quote:
And the point was, and is, that it is Parliament, and not the government, which makes the law and that a law is not made until Parliament makes it, and is not unmade until Parliament unmakes it.
The minister says that in his view, and in the view of the government, Bill C-244 is a package beneficial to farmers. But the farm organizations do not think so, and the farm organizations have said so repeatedly. They have submitted briefs; they have asked; they have pleaded; they have met with the minister, and they have met with his officials. The three prairie governments do not think so either and, Mr. Speaker, the Members of Parliament on this side of the House do not think so. What is even more important, Mr. Speaker, is that farmers themselves do not think so.
I spent a great deal of time during the summer calling on farmers trying to get their opinions. I called on some farmers in the minister's own constituency. I have yet to find a farmer who would say to me that he thought Bill C-244 was good legislation. I have yet to have one farmer say that he is prepared to accept that kind of legislation in order to get an acreage payment this year. I do not know how the minister feels about the views of his constituents, Mr. Speaker, but the farmers in my constituency have got their message through to me very clearly. I consider myself instructed by the grain growers in Regina-Lake Centre to fight this legislation until hell freezes over and, Mr. Speaker, I think I have some obligation to pay some attention to the views of the grain growers in Regina-Lake Centre. Not only have I an obligation but, as a matter of common courtesy if nothing else, I should pay attention to every single grain growers organization in western Canada.
The minister can choose to ignore the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the three prairie provincial federations of agriculture, but I do not intend to do that, and no other conscientious member on this side of the House is going to ignore them. It is not too often that farmers and farm organizations are in full agreement on anything. It is a long time since I can recall an issue on which there was such unanimity by the farm organizations and grain farmers.
One sometimes wonders if the minister has read or even listened to the brief of the Canadian Federation of

Agriculture when it was being read to him. No one can call the CFA a bunch of wild-eyed, raving radicals. No one would suggest they are an irresponsible group bent on filibustering and obstruction. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture put the matter bluntly and very succinctly in one sentence in the brief which it presented to the government on May 7. Recommendation No. 2 of the Federation reads:
Aside from the "transitional" payment, the bill is not acceptable as it now stands.
That view is held by all the other farm organizations that I have mentioned. As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of September 21, the Manitoba Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Uskiw, said:
-Mr. Lang's plan doesn't deal with the current crisis of low farm incomes, but establishes a fund which might be beneficial by 1980.
I emphasize those words "might be beneficial by 1980".
"While the program would pay out $100 million to prairie farmers for this year only, he said, the government has held back nearly $90 million from the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the change amounts to "only a trade-off of programs."
Mr. Lang's plan doesn't take any account of increasing costs of production, he said, and in fact worsens the cash shortage problem because it is withholding payments that would normally be paid to farmers.
"It's like asking someone to open a savings account when his current account is far in the red."
I had hoped that today the minister was going to propose some improvements in the legislation. I had hoped he would say that payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, at least for the previous crop year, would be made for those 12 months; that the government still intended to press for the rest of the legislation, but that it was prepared to make some changes in it. Had that been done, the House could have moved rapidly on the legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, the minister still remains stubborn and intransigent. He will not listen to the people whom he claims the legislation is designed to help. But the very people he says the program is beneficial to are the ones who tell him and the rest of the members of this House that it is bad legislation, and that it is not acceptable. That cannot be made any plainer, but the minister will not listen.
Does the minister really think and expect that we will sit here and supinely accept something he says is beneficial but which the grain growers of western Canada and all farm organizations say is not beneficial? Does he expect us to abrogate our responsibilities as Members of Parliament? If he does, he has another think coming to him. About the only main thrust, and I suppose one could call it the climax of the minister's speech, was the threat that unless this package of his goes through in a reasonable time the government will have to withdraw the bill, make the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, leave everything the way it was, and blame members in the opposition parties for preventing the farmers from getting acreage payments.
In case the minister has not heard it, I wish to point out that last May and June, and at other times during the summer, a number of Liberal members were saying that the opposition parties were delaying, obstructing and filibustering. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the minister himself also said that. If the minister is right, and
September 23, 1971

if the people of the prairie provinces believe him, then it is passing strange how they conducted themselves in Alberta and Saskatchewan on a couple of dates in June and August. I say this was ah insult to the intelligence of the prairie farmers because they feel the same way we do, and we will not be blackmailed or bullied into passing legislation that the minister claims is beneficial.
If one of my duties as a Member of Parliament is to cave in because the fighting is going to be tough, then the best thing the voters can do in my constituency is defeat me the next time around. I will take my chances on that score, and I am sure the minister will, too. He will have quite a job.
.30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: He is going to the Senate,


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We shall miss him in the next Parliament. I should certainly like to see his figures. The minister claims that his package will provide more money than was provided under previous programs. I think the National Farmers Union says something about this in language that is polite for that organization. They allege that Bill C-244 as presently constituted is inadequate in the following respects, as set out on page 12 of their brief:
Bill C-244 is a vehicle enabling the federal government to abrogate a number of federal policies related to the expenditure of public funds for the support of agriculture without reciprocating its commitments to grain stabilization on a comparable basis.
The brief continues and the following reasons are given for that position:
(i) Ending its commitment to guarantee initial prices to producers for wheat, oats and barley ... In 1968-69 this guarantee for wheat resulted in payment by the government of $17,675,888 to the Canadian Wheat Board.
That was a payment of almost $18 million. Keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker. Another reason relates to ending the support of storage payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for wheat in commercial storage over 178 million bushels at the end of the crop year. That payment has averaged over $40 million a year, bringing the total to almost $59 million that the government will not need to pay. The brief continues:
(iii) Repealing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-
That will do away with $6 million that has been paid out annually from the federal treasury, bringing the total to about $65 million. The brief also speaks of-
-the discontinuance of the policy requiring millers to purchase wheat entering domestic human consumption at the basic rate of $1.95 4 per bushel.
This will result in an annual loss of between $12 million and $15 million to wheat producers at present price levels. All this adds up-I think my arithmetic is reasonably correct-to approximating $75 million that the government will not pay or require to be paid. Under this legislation the government will be committed to an annual amount of approximately $40 million. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is introduced purely and simply, not for the purpose of introducing meaningful programs for the western grains industry but in order to save the federal treasury between $35 million and $40 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
Withholding of Grain Payments


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I believe the minister is sincere. He made some valiant efforts with his cabinet colleagues to get more for the farmers than is contained in the legislation, and they turned him down. I believe he fought a hard battle with them last February or March for a two-price system, and they turned him down. I appeal to him to take another run at his cabinet colleagues and try to obtain, again, a two-price system. More important than that, I ask him to do something meaningful with regard to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
The minister was perfectly right when he said that all farm organizations have spoken about the inadequacies of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. There has never been any argument about that. The minister has chosen to use the act as a facade behind which he can hide, because he needs an excuse for repealing it. There are some good points about the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. It has relieved farmers over 14 years of the burden of several hundred million dollars in storage costs. The money has been paid to the Wheat Board by the federal government. The act established a precedent, if not a principle. I think it established a principle. It established the beginning of a good principle, that the nation as a whole, through the federal government, would participate in sharing the costs of grain storage.
As I said in an earlier debate, we could find $120 million to pay for the storage of uranium. I did not object to that. That payment will protect thousands of jobs and help some communities which would otherwise die. We can find that amount of money for the storage of uranium, but it seems that we cannot find about one-third of that amount to share in the cost of storing grain, a commodity which I submit is much more useful and necessary than uranium.


Mr. Gilbert:: Right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Those are some of the good aspects of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The main thing is that that act has set a precedent. It has begun a good principle, namely, that the nation as a whole shall assume some financial responsibility for the cost of grain storage. What about aspects of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act that are not so good? It applied only to wheat, as the minister said. It is backward legislation. Since it is Liberal legislation dating from about 1956, I believe, one would expect it to be a bit backward. After 14 years the Liberals do not know how to turn it around and make it a forward-looking piece of legislation. They want to repeal the whole thing. The minister is aware of the good aspects of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the bad, and his solution is to throw the whole act out or, as the old saying goes, to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I suggest that the minister consider the policy of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool regarding grain storage and listen to what has been said time and again by farm organizations and co-operative elevator companies. These organizations ask him to do something positive with regard to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I propose that he bring in new clauses to Bill C-244 that will make up what could be known as the Canada grain storage act and would include the six grains mentioned in Bill C-244.1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government should reverse the procedure that has been followed under the Tempo-
8120

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
rary Wheat Reserves Act and pay the cost of storing up to 178 million or 200 million bushels of grain, and anything beyond that amount should be the responsibility of the elevator companies and, eventually, of the grain producers. There is no doubt that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act tended to place too much emphasis on storage and not enough on handling.
If the minister really wants to get the best out of Bill C-244, I suggest that he ought to propose the inclusion in it of a Canada grain storage act relating to a suggested 414 million bushels carryover. I have a breakdown of the figures and would be glad to provide them to the minister. I am referring to a sensible carryover of all grains. This is what you would need for a basic minimum stock, with reserves being instituted for variations in grade and for unforeseen or interim sales: 320 million bushels of wheat, 17 million bushels of oats, 48 million bushels of barley, 6 million bushels of rye, 8 million bushels of flax and 15 million bushels of rapeseed, for a grand total for all grains of 414 million bushels.
May I say a word regarding elevator capacity in Canada. The country elevators on the Prairies have a capacity of 396 million bushels, the interior terminals and those at Churchill, on the Pacific Coast, at the Lakehead and on the St. Lawrence have a capacity of 276 million bushels and those at the Atlantic ports have a capacity of 8 million bushels. Therefore we have a total storage capacity of 680 million bushels. If you take the carryover of 410 million bushels and say the government of Canada pays for the storage costs on the first 200 million bushels, or pays half the storage costs-one may take it whichever way one likes-you will be left with a working capacity in the country elevators and terminals of 270 million bushels. Mr. Speaker, the minister evades these figures.
I agree that the payment of storage costs by the federal government under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act tended to help clog the system, whereas a sensible kind of carryover such as I have mentioned would mean that our terminal and country elevator capacity would be used to the extent of about 62 per cent of capacity. In short, there would be working space available for 270 million bushels. This space could be used for emergencies such as those occasioned by wet or damp grains or the need for specific grades. This has been proposed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the suggestion has been brought forward in this House a number of times. I do not claim credit for being the only one who has spoken about this matter in the House. Several other members have spoken of the concept under which the nation as a whole shares with the farmer the cost of grain storage. We all agree that no longer must we clog our grain handling system to such an extent that we cannot turn a wheel. We all agree we must utilize our storage capacity much more sensibly.
For the minister to attempt to repeal the act is wrong. It is one of the essential reasons why we are opposing, and will continue to oppose, this bill. His threats of political blackmail are not going to dissuade us from opposing it.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some measure of shame because in this House, our highest institution which is supposed to respect the law of

the land, I have to ask a minister of the Crown to respect a law enacted by Parliament on another occasion. It is somewhat presumptuous of me to think that I can persuade the minister that he should live up to the law, but it is my duty and I must do it.
I am not sure the people of this country realize the consequences of this type of debate. Many people feel this is a weak debate which centres around the prairie farmers and does not concern anybody else. I say to them and this House' that what is involved here is far more than a weak debate or merely something which pertains to the farmers. What is involved is the obligation of the government to live up to the laws of the land. It is not only the obligation of government supporters to back the government which says it intends to do certain things; the executive must realize that unless the laws of the land which have been fashioned by Parliament are held supreme, this Parliament should fold up. This Parliament should fold up if we are going to pass legislation and then have the Prime Ministre (Mr. Trudeau) or a minister responsible for a bill say that we must abide by the law as they see fit on a particular day.
I feel sorry for this minister. I do not think he is responsible for what is happening. I think he tries to carry out his ministerial duties. The fact is that the law is being broken by the executive which expects to pass legislation and then impose upon the country this or any other type of legislation. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we serve any useful purpose in this House. If we pass legislation, does it mean anything? I could argue the pros and cons of why we should pay certain moneys, but what concerns me is the fact that there are two sets of laws in this country, one for the executive and one for the man on the street. This bill affects the farmer. The next will affect the labourer, the third will affect the manufacturer, the fourth will affect the school teacher, and so on.
This is supposed to be a democratic society. If the government feels it has the power and authority to withhold or apply certain laws to certain people at certain times as it suits their purpose, then after 13 years in Parliament I want to walk away from this institution because I am no longer useful here, there is nothing I can do. On September 8, as recorded at page 7623 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) whether the law was being flouted. I received no reply. Fortunately, my colleague the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) raised the issue. He said this question is far more serious. Since that time I have watched the proceedings of this House with interest.
As an observer, I admire the fact that somewhere in this institution there is hope. However, there cannot be any hope for an administration like the present one. There is only one thing wrong with this institution, that is, the executive. The executive is led by the Prime Minister who has only one thing in mind, dictatorial power. I do not know what the rest of the cabinet does.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They say yes.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not have the opportunity to listen to their meetings. However, if the Prime Minister has the almighty power to tell a minister of the Crown that he has no business paying a sum of money which Parliament has authorized to be paid, what more can we do? What other
September 23, 1971

recourse do we have? I can only make a speech. I cannot stomp across the floor of the chamber because Your Honour will call me to order. I am very capable of doing that, but of what value would it be?
There is only one thing wrong. The arrogance of this government is obvious through its actions. There is only one way for the people to react to that type of arrogance. The only appeal is the final appeal to the people. If the minister from Saskatchewan wants to be helpful, he should convince his cabinet colleagues of this. On his behalf I appeal to his cabinet colleagues to give him an opportunity to live up to the law. The minister is from Saskatchewan. He cannot do what the farmers of Saskatchewan have asked him to do, because of the Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet.
What can we do in a situation like this? All we can do is appeal to the Prime Minister through speeches made in this House. I am very concerned. I feel sorry for the minister. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is in the chamber. I know that he is just as concerned. What else can I do but say to the Prime Minister that he is not a dictator yet. The law is the law and, by God, he has to live up to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: Why can the Prime Minister disobey the law? He can do so simply because his supporters far outnumber those in the opposition. But why should we assume they will all vote in favour of this legislation? Are all the members over there yo-yos?


An hon. Member:: What is a yo-yo?


Mr. Woolliams:: They are puppets.


An hon. Member:: Pulled by the Prime Minister.


Stanley James Korchinski: Since when has any minister the right to assume that every member of the party supporting him will in fact continue to do so? I remind Your Honour that it was once necessary to hold an election on the basis of one vote cast by a member of this House who reversed his position with regard to a particular issue. That is part of Canadian history. Why should we expect these members to be dum-dums, yo-yos, or whatever people want to call them? Are they yo-yos, or are they dum-dums? They are nobodies when they get 50 yards from the House, as the Prime Minister once told them. We accept that proposition.
In this Parliament there are 26 ministers, but the Minister of Agriculture cannot get his way because one almighty Caesar does not wish it. There is no way in which I can be convinced that even the cabinet has the right to flout the law. I raised this question early in September but it was shrugged off on that occasion. I do not feel slighted. I think it is a very good issue. I believed at that time it was important, and I couldn't care less whether it came up on that occasion or almost a month later. The issue is an important one, far more important than the $60 million due to the western producers although, by God, we could use the money. What is the use of voting one way or another on any measure if somebody in the administration can decide whether to live up to the law or
Withholding of Grain Payments
not? The Prime Minister has been accused of being a dictator.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Stanley James Korchinski: It is not as simple as that. But now we have positive proof. Because we in western Canada are smaller in number we are treated without the slightest consideration. The Minister of Agriculture just sits there and grins. If I were in the cabinet, if I were minister responsible for the Wheat Board, knowing that the law was in existence I would feel obliged to make this payment. So what about it? Let hon. members over there tell me they are not obliged to make the payment. I say to the minister, "Pay the $60 million for last year and we shall forget the interest on that amount. We shall forget the two months after that". From that point on, if the minister wants to stabilize farm income let him come through with a plan. I believe the minister is a reasonable man. I have had occasion to deal with him. I believe he wants to work it that way.


Mr. Haidasz:: Why criticize him, then?


Stanley James Korchinski: I wish you were in the cabinet. I believe you are also reasonable. You should be in the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member address his remarks to the Chair. Perhaps his use of "you" was rhetorical. However, the hon. member should address the Chair.


Stanley James Korchinski: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away. But I am as adamant as I was before. There is only one thing left for the minister to do, that is to appeal to his colleagues in the cabinet to allow the payment of the $60 million which was due last year. We have already lost one year. He could then go through with his stabilization bill. We have given evidence of our co-operation, our willingness to help the minister along with his legislation.
The government has the right to introduce and amend legislation, but it certainly has no right to flout the law. If the government insists on taking its present course I would point out that everyone will have the right to go the wrong way on a one-way street. Everybody would have the right to abuse the laws of the country, the executive having already done so. To whom can one appeal, if not to the highest level, that is, to the cabinet itself? They will not tell me for one moment that I have the right to refuse to pay income tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member but I would bring to the notice of the House the fact that he has about a minute and a half left. Perhaps the hon. member could finish his remarks with the consent of the House, it now being six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: I shall not labour the point. If the executive has the right to break the law, I invite everybody in this country to break the law, which I suggest is a bad thing. If that is what the government wants, they are encouraging it by this type of legislation.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks we have had the opportunity of discussing on several occasions the subject matter to which this particular amendment is directed. I am just as sorry to see the performance of the minister speaking in this House on behalf of the Wheat Board on this occasion as I have been on previous occasions. Just as in the previous debate, the arguments on this occasion have not been, as they were when we were discussing Bill C-244, whether or not western agriculture is better served by the implementation of that bill but, rather, whether or not a minister of the Crown has the right to break the law, as it is contended is the case. During all this debate the minister has not stood in the House and declared that he did not break the law. However, he has said that if certain things happen it may be necessary after a certain period of time again to apply the law.
I suggest that this is the kind of issue that probably can be settled only by an election. Obviously we are building up to that. If we had a minority government, I presume that we would sit down and decide the merits of Bill C-244. But I suggest that some of the members on the opposite side who have been talking about a majority are advising the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he should fight an election over this issue. Once the opposition has decided that the government is not going to obey the laws of the land, once they believe that the government has decided to call on its backbenchers to support the government be it right or wrong-it has on a number of occasions since I have been here-the only way to settle the issue probably is to take it to the country.
We are not now debating any agricultural issue. The issue we are discussing is how the members of the government can justify allowing a cabinet member to break the law without themselves becoming concerned about it. There are many lawyers on the other side of the House. They have studied law and are well aware how the law as we know it has developed over the years. However, I do not think there would be one of them who, having taken even an elementary course in law, would not agree that anyone who has been trained in the law pledges himself to support that law. If he does not, then he is excommunicated, or whatever it is they do to lawyers who do not toe the line; and I suggest that a lot of excommunications can take place.


Prosper Boulanger: Come on, talk to us about Schreyer in Manitoba.


William Arnold Peters: I would be happy to talk about my former room-mate, Ed Schreyer, but I do not see in what way he has anything to do with the issue we are discussing today or with the majority over there who have decided to break the law. If the Premier of another province breaks the law, I am sure the official opposition in the province would feel the same way I do, namely, frustrated knowing that the government cannot operate because the rules do not operate.
I do not understand this minister. He is sensitive, there is no question of that. He is well learned and highly

educated, or is reputed to be so. But obviously he has gone along with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and several other cabinet members who have declared that this legislation is so important to agriculture, from their point of view, that it should be put through the House come what may. At one time a Conservative government tried to do this and got itself into serious trouble. The Liberals tried it once before and they, too, got into serious difficulty. Both occasions concerned tax legislation and in both cases the government had pretty well run the gauntlet of its particular Parliament and had reached the stage when the law and the supremacy of this institution were no longer important.
The House leader is well versed in the law. He sits in the cabinet. With his knowledge of the operation of Parliament I would be surprised if he does not see the dissolution of this Parliament as a result of the government's action in refusing to obey the law. If the opposition decides that nothing the government does is honest, forthright or legal, then we might as well face the problem right now.


John Leroy Skoberg: They want a one-party system.


William Arnold Peters: This minister responsible for the Wheat Board is not only guilty of breaking the law and agreeing to break the law-


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Where is it the responsibility of this minister to proceed under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, this minister being Otto Lang? Where is his responsibility under that act? Where did he break the law?


Mr. Alexander:: You are nit-picking.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the operation of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is under the Wheat Board. Its operation provides that the money must be paid to the Wheat Board on a monthly, pro rata basis. This minister is responsible for the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board normally-


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. Unless the hon. member who has the floor wishes to receive questions we should allow him to proceed with his speech.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the second question as soon as I finish answering the first. Monthly payments are made once the total in the system reaches 112 million bushels, and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has the responsibility of billing the government for each of those additional bushels of wheat. That amounts to about 9 or 10 cents a bushel. These payments are pro rated and when due the request is made
September 23, 1971

to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance, by statute-not by his own decision but by statute-has the responsibility to rebate that money to the Wheat Board. Obviously, he gets the request from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Once the request is made, the responsibility lies with the Minister of Finance to administer the statute. I suggest there is a dual responsibility, one cannot operate without the other, but obviously the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is responsible to that body. Was there another question?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes. You have been talking about this minister breaking the law-


An hon. Member:: It is the government he is talking about.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: You have been talking for half an hour about this minister breaking the law-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you get up and make a speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that the hon. member said he would receive a question, but the hon. member who is asking the question should ask it through the Chair.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: My question to the hon. member is this: Where, under sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, which are the sections of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, has this minister broken the law? The hon. member will have some support for his position if he can show where this minister, Otto Lang, from Saskatoon-Humboldt has broken the law.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should think two facts are obvious to the hon. member asking the questions.


An hon. Member:: Don't count on it.


William Arnold Peters: One is that when a decision is made in cabinet, all those who are involved in making the decision must be responsible. I have indicated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-this does not leave the other ministers blameless-will not make that statutory payment until this minister bills him for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Until this minister sends in the bill, the Minister of Finance will likely let the account pile up. It is quite possible, with the efficiency of the Minister of Finance, that he may not know that we have a bill of almost $92 million under this statute.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: How much?


William Arnold Peters: Ninety-two million dollars. Add it up and you will find that this is about the amount. Every day this debate continues, Mr. Speaker, the amount increases and the credibility of the government decreases.
As has been indicated by members who have already spoken and by witnesses who appeared before the agricultural committee, there has been a great deal of
Withholding of Grain Payments
opposition to this piece of legislation. I have received about 2,800 or 2,900 letters and petitions from western Canada. I am quite prepared to say that the petitions were instigated by one or two organizations in western Canada. Most members will agree that farmers there are highly organized, they know exactly what is going on in their business and they know exactly what they will settle for.
Recently there have been elections in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, the provinces faced with the problems of wheat and cereal grains. Their Ministers of Agriculture and the previous ministers representing different parties have said that they are not satisfied with the stabilization bill and have made arrangements to come to Ottawa around the beginning of October to discuss it.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that members who really believed that the farmers of western Canada should be given a break would be pressing the government to shelve this piece of legislation and to make the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as required by law. The minister can lie all he wants, but we are only talking about $15 or $16 million at the most-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: -and, by my calculation, $7 million or $8 million. That is all the money we have to talk about in the arrangement that must be made in making this new bill operative and taking over from the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
Let me address a question through you, Mr. Speaker, to those members from Quebec who are interested in agriculture. Would they be satisfied to have the Minister of Agriculture or the minister responsible for farm operations in the province of Quebec make a decision on their behalf when their farm organizations were opposed to it? Of all the representations made before the agricultural committee, none supported the bill as it stands.
This bill has received a great deal of public attention and the government has flooded western Canada with propaganda about it. But if they are still of the opinion that it is the best bill possible and is acceptable to western Canada, they would be willing to wait for the representations of the Ministers of Agriculture of the prairie provinces. They would be as willing to listen to them as to the Ministers of Agriculture of New Brunswick, Quebec or Ontario talking about potato problems in those provinces.
I believe this cabinet has decided that they have a majority and that the law does not matter, that Parliament does not matter, that the people do not matter-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: -that they are supreme, and the only way they can be tested is with an election. If that is their desire, Mr. Speaker, let us not waste two or three months getting around to it; let's do it now.
It seems to me that no matter what proposition is put before Members of Parliament, it should be considered as being flexible. It should be amendable and it should be the kind of proposition that would be acceptable at least to the majority of the people who are to have it thrust

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
upon them. From the information which comes across my desk and from the petitions and representations I have seen and heard, the farmers of western Canada do not buy it. They did not buy it at $100 million, and they sure as hell will not buy it now that $92 million is owed to them under this account.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was here. I do not know what his role is in this matter. However, I believe all honourable men who are responsible for the administration of law-I do not mean only the cabinet ministers but every elected member of this House-should be concerned about this. More than that, all civil servants take an oath to uphold the law. Those responsible senior civil servants also have a responsibility to either see that the law is enforced or resign.
When speaking to a senior civil servant the other day he told me in a jovial manner that they had been giving bad advice. He was not only giving bad advice, he was giving advice that was dishonest, disloyal and illegal. We are not talking about something that happened just a few months ago. Here is a government which not only has not made the payment on this account this year but has not made it for a whole year.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is sitting here. He probably will be involved because this is a matter which may affect him. There will be an immense amount of unemployment this winter. The Minister of Labour will be faced, one of these days, with the proposition that there is no money in the unemployment insurance fund and he will find that people who have legitimately paid into that fund will ask for money out of it. The minister will have to make up his mind, not later but right then, whether he will ask Parliament to cancel the unemployment insurance scheme and go to another kind of welfare arrangement, or ask that the money from the treasury be paid into the unemployment insurance fund so that he can pay it out and honour the legislation for which he is responsible.
I have no question in my mind about what he would do. He would do just that: he would ask the government for the money, and if it were not forthcoming he would resign. I know it and I believe most members of this House know it. I believe the action of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board represents a dereliction of duty and makes him an immoral person and one whom I do not think is responsible in this Parliament or is a responsible cabinet minister.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long this evening because I know many members wish to participate in this debate. Also, I do not intend to be an apologist for the government. I decided to take part in this debate a few minutes ago and therefore do not have the volume of notes the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had. They seemed to read as though they were a collaboration of Patrick Walsh, Ron Gostick and Chiang Kai-shek.
Let me say that at this moment the government owes certain money to the Wheat Board but that under the circumstances this fact cannot be taken alone. I submit we cannot look at that fact alone but must look at all the circumstances. If we look at all the circumstances, I submit there are parties in this Parliament who are equally guilty or more guilty than the party in power. Let us go

back to last fall when the prairie grain stabilization act was first proposed. It underwent a period of discussion and certain changes were made to it with the approval of many people in western Canada. At that time the intention of the government was well known: it intended to replace that act with an act that would greatly benefit farmers in western Canada.
What I want to know, and what I am sure our friends in the press gallery want to know-because they have not accepted all the phony arguments of my friends to the left-is where were these people at that time? If it was illegal in June for the government to do what it is doing today, why were no motions put in respect of impeachment then? The political positions taken by the opposition are those which are favourable to the Conservative party and the New Democratic party.
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make any defence; I just wish to put a few points on the record. The other point I wish to make is that it strikes me that our friends in the opposition are the complainants in what they pretend here is a legal case.


An hon. Member:: On behalf of the people of Canada.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Fine; on behalf of the people of Canada or on behalf of the Queen-it does not matter on whose behalf they complain. However, they are complaining and they are in the same position as a person who puts a gun to the head of the driver of a car, tells him to drive 100 miles an hour and break the law and then complains about his behaviour.
In May and June the opposition prevented the farmers of western Canada receiving $100 million, and today they accuse the government of doing this. I submit that for one to be guilty of a crime the intention to break the law is important. I believe it is very clear to all observers in this House, and certainly to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who is one of the most independent members in the House, that the government intended to benefit the farmers of western Canada and made that intention clear last spring. It intended to pass better legislation early this spring and was prevented doing so by the Conservative party and the NDP. The intention of this government throughout was most honourable. I submit it is the actions of the opposition which are dishonourable in this whole affair.
I wish to make one last comment. They relate to some comments made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) during the extended debate that took place last Thursday evening. He referred to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) and the students of that minister. Since I am in the unique position of being the only person in this House who was a student of this former dean of law of the University of Saskatchewan, I can say I am very proud of it. I was privileged to be one of his students. We who were his students are proud of it. We are proud of him. What we need in this House of Commons is more people like the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and far fewer gutter politicians like those who sit in the opposition.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in the debate on this
September 23, 1971

first non-confidence motion between now and December 10. It has been a very lively and interesting debate. I do not propose to take the time of the House to go over the points that have been covered by other hon. members, other than to say that during the evening of the debate which Your Honour granted to the House on Thursday, September 16, I asked the following question of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang):
I am not a prairie farmer but I wish to ask the minister this question. Does he not agree that legislation passed by this House and now on the statute books of Canada should be enforced until such time as it is amended or repealed by other legislation?
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) interjected:
That is the question.
The minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, that is an easy, general question to answer in the affirmative.
Then he went on to make some observations. From the minister's answer to that question I have convinced myself, as I am sure all hon. members on this side of the House have, that this is the issue and such is the minister's duty and obligation. Not only has this government failed to pay a bill but they have also paid some bills with moneys which were not authorized by Parliament. I hope that after I have illustrated this with some examples, members on the other side will say to the opposition, "Forgive us for the things that we have left undone and forgive us for those things we have done".
Let us reflect for a while on the responsibility of the government. I do not mean just this government but all governments. In our form of government, a democratic, responsible government, the government through the executive is responsible to Parliament. Parliament makes the laws, the government does not make them. I think this was very well expressed by George Bain in an article which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail when he said:
-it is Parliament, and not the government, which makes the law- and that a law is not made until Parliament makes it, and is not unmade until Parliament unmakes it.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not seen that.


Alfred Dryden Hales: This government or any government that we may have in Canada is bound by the laws of Canada, made for the citizens of Canada. This government in particular has been whittling away at the authority of Parliament in many ways. I propose to direct my remarks to the treasury benches or the Treasury Board who have been whittling away at the authority of this House. In the Financial Administration Act, which deals with all our financial matters and which is the bible as it were for these transactions, section 25 provides:
All estimates of expenditures submitted to Parliament shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year.
That is very plain. But let us see what the government has been doing in this regard. In the 1969-70 estimates the following amounts were not required during the year and they did not lapse at the end of the year in compliance with section 35 of the Financial Administration Act which says that they must lapse at the end of the year. In the
Withholding of Grain Payments
Agriculture vote 17b there was a reserve for wheat inventory reduction payments. That was money for the Lift program. It was put in the estimates for that year but never used; it was allowed to lapse.
Then there was the Secretary of State vote 30 for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which was for $11,993,000. That was never used; it was allowed to lapse and was left for them to spend in any way they saw fit. The same thing happened with Transport vote 80 for $2,036,000. Then there was the Treasury Board vote 5a, the contingency vote for $58,656,000. All these amounts were included as expenditures in the year under the several votes which I have listed, although they were not expended but were retained to meet obligations in future years. I could add to the list.
At March 31, 1970, all the items that were referred to in the report of the Auditor General added up to $296.6 million. That money which was in the control of the treasury was spent without Parliament's authority in any way that the government saw fit. This is a whittling away of the authority of Parliament. All we have to consider is the contingency vote. Members of this House know how important that was. A few years ago the opposition had interim supply which it could use against the government if the government did not fulfil certain obligations. That was taken away from us. We thought we had a real weapon to use, but interim supply was sidestepped by the government who dug into the contingency vote to pay government salaries. Everybody will remember the rumpus that broke out at that time.
How are these things brought about? They are brought about by the special wording which appears in the Appropriation Acts. Who puts in this special wording? It is the Treasury Board or the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. He must account to Parliament for the special wording that was put in. Parliament has not been told that a change was made, nor were the words underlined when there was a change. These are cases which illustrate the fact that parliamentary authority is being whittled away.
There is another example of the government's obtained money without coming to Parliament. Certain departments have revenues coming in. They estimate what the department will need and what their revenue will be and we appropriate the difference. In many cases the revenues are either higher than they expected or their estimate is low, so they have a great deal of money left over to spend in the department and they do not have to come back to the House for authority. Therefore, they are able to pay bills without the proper authority of this House.
Now let us consider grants in lieu of aid. In 1969 there were seven grants and $131,440 was paid by the treasury out of vote 5. Then they produced supplementaries before the House, which were passed, but we were not even told by the government that the grants had been paid. It was all covered up. The least Treasury Board can do is to see that when supplementaries come before the House for the payment of grants which have been paid, a notation is made saying that the grants have been paid and that they are asking for the authority of Parliament. But this is a left-handed, backward way of doing it.
8126

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
I think, too, of the abuse of a grant that was paid, an illegal grant. I am talking of money that was paid to the Winnipeg games during Expo year. There was a deficit on those games and it was paid out of the contingency fund. The legislation setting up the Fitness and Amateur Sport Council stipulates that its expenditures should not exceed $5 million a year, yet the authority went ahead and paid money out of the continency fund instead of coming to Parliament and seeking our authority to pay it.
Not only has the government failed to pay a bill that it is obligated to pay under the statute, but it has whittled away at the authority of this House until it can be said that it has paid some bills without the proper authority to do so. My time has almost expired. I just wish to say that as an elected representative in a democratic country where the government is responsible, through the executive, to Parliament, it is my solemn obligation and the solemn obligation of all hon. members to see that the government of the day is held responsible for its actions. I do not care what party forms the government. I am here to defend the law in the highest court in the land. This is basic to our system of government. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this vote of non-confidence in a government that does not obey the will of Parliament.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Will you close the debate?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I will not be closing the debate. I understand it will be continuing until 9.45 tonight. There are two aspects of the motion before the House with which I would like to deal. One is the allegation that the government has done something wrong or immoral or illegal. The other aspect concerns the consequences to the people affected whether or not this bill is passed, whether the payments are made in accordance with its provisions or whether the opposition prevents the government and the House making a decision on the bill, thus requiring the government to revert to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and make the payments under the provisions of that act.
Dealing with the first aspect, Mr. Speaker, it was no secret to the members of this House nor to the farming community that the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was part of Bill C-244. On October 29, 1970, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) sent details of a proposal to members of this House and to the farming community at large in western Canada in which was included the stabilization bill-generally the provisions that are now in this bill-and, in addition, the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. What happened following that?
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board invited the farm organizations and everyone interested to make representations to him and to Members of Parliament respecting the proposal in that document. Many representations were received. There were some who expressed disapproval of the general proposal and there were others who expressed approval in principle that government had finally come to grips with the over-all problem of rational-

izing the totality of the grain handling and marketing systems, but they had some reservations about certain details. We admit that.
A lengthy period of time was provided for such representations to be made through the proper channels and, as I say, representations were made. Following all the discussion that the responsible minister had with those organizations, that I had with many of the organizations and, indeed, that other members of the House had, we introduced Bill C-244. There was debate in the House on it. The minister candidly and freely admitted that some suggested amendments had come in even following all that, which he was prepared to consider in the standing committee when the bill received second reading.
There were some amendments made in the standing committee. But the point that I think is essential in the context of the want of confidence motion now before us is that all through this procedure which went on for months it was known, well known, that the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was part of the proposition. There was no secret about that.
As a matter of fact, when witnesses from the Canadian Wheat Board appeared before the standing committee they were asked how much would be paid out under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act if the proposal incorporated in this bill were not acted upon. For anyone to say in this debate that there was something immoral, secretive and deceptive about all this procedure is most ridiculous.
In the remaining, brief time at my disposal I would like to speak about some of the consequences to grain producers in western Canada if the opposition forces us to abandon this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Pay your bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, despite all their squealing and screaming, if the opposition refuses to pass this bill the government will be paying-as the minister said, with interest-about $40 million less than it would be paying for the farmers' benefit under Bill C-244. What is even worse is that hon. members from western Canada, particularly those from grain growing areas, who know how this money is distributed know that the main burden of the loss of that $40 million will fall on the smaller producers.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The proposal under Bill C-244 is to pay out about $1.45 per acre, up to 640 acres, to all producers equally on that basis. Without Bill C-244 it means that farmers are going to be paid on a per bushel basis. Those who have not delivered a large quota during the 1970-71 or 1969-70 years, or for any reason have not had enough grain to fill their quota, or indeed had a small quota, will get proportionately much less than the larger producers.


William Arnold Peters: But that is the law.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Now, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 23, 1971


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -the responsibility for the disappointment of thousands of small farmers across western Canada who are not getting $1.45 times their acreage lies squarely on those people who have prevented this bill from passing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The responsibility lies squarely on the government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not only that-


An hon. Member:: Pay up.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -but, as was stated by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, we were prepared to pay it last May.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We were prepared to pay last June.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you pay?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Why? That is the most asinine question I have heard in all the arguments that have been advanced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is asked, why didn't we pay it? After the speech of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), that is the most asinine question I have ever heard. We do not have any authority to pay it unless the bill passes through this House.


Mr. Ricard:: Surely the minister admits that the law is there.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Alfred Dryden Hales: No, to ask a question. I ask the minister, is the statute passed by this Parliament not his authority to pay the bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: When is the minister going to stop breaking the law?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Regarding the question that was asked a moment ago, I am sorry if the hon. member's hearing is defective and he did not hear why we cannot pay the $100 million under this bill.


An hon. Member:: No, that is not the question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The reason we have not paid it is that we have not the authority to pay it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. members-


Stanley James Korchinski: You are a liar and a crook. You are a damn liar and a crook.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Withholding of Grain Payments


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).


Stanley James Korchinski: You are a damn liar and a crook.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will contain themselves because I am going to be giving them the facts of life for only four more minutes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why doesn't the minister start?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister calls them the facts of life.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The opposition may get a great deal of fun out of this matter because they may think they have made some political hay, but the sad part is that there are thousands of farmers, I think something like 170,000-


An hon. Member:: Pay up.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -in western Canada who are expecting, and who have every right to expect, the distribution, based on an acreage calculation, of $100 million. They have been waiting for it since May. They waited in June. We brought this measure on again, notwithstanding pressure to get other legislation through, when we came back and the opposition still continues the filibuster. It is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. I would appeal again, in conclusion, to the opposition to set aside some of these political, partisan considerations and think for a minute about those small farmers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -who are expecting distribution of this $100 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Keep a straight face.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Because unless they lift the filibuster and pass this bill we simply cannot pay the $100 million that we as a government are committed to pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rising on a point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask a question. The question is very simple. I will repeat what I asked the minister last summer, before that part of the session ended. Will the minister, on behalf of the government, bring in an estimate for $100 million? It will pass this House in half an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to bring in another $100 million supplementary estimate, since we already have a request for the statutory payment of $100 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: Any bills that pass here are not worth anything.
24319-26 i

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my first remark is that what I am about to say should not be said by anybody in this House.


An hon. Member:: Don't say it, then.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The situation has become so deplorable under this government that I feel these words have to be said. I noticed today in a news release which came across my desk that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has announced a national conference on the law. It is high time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Justice has failed to uphold the law of Canada in more than one instance. He failed to uphold the British North America Act, as a result of which a province was forced to take a case to the Supreme Court. That was the result of a despicable action by a completely despicable government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This conference is to be held from February 1 to February 4, 1972.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggest that one more topic ought to be added to the subjects to be discussed in the plenary sessions and workshops, namely, "Government and the law".


Gerald William Baldwin: Or "How to break the law without really trying".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack), who has carried out research into these matters, pointed out to me what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on September 27, 1968, as reported at page 498 of Hansard. The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, the estimates which were tabled the other day obviously make it clear that expenses which are not controllable by the government have risen beyond any expectation. It is obvious that we cannot break a statute or an agreement which has been reached with the provinces, and that these expenses have exceeded everyone's expectations.
He went on to say that the government had tried to compensate for that "by cutting very seriously into all the controllable expenditures." Clearly, when the Prime Minister took over in 1968 he had retained enough of his legal learning to know that we ought to keep within the law and obey statutes passed by Parliament. There is no doubt that the Temporary Reserves Act calls on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to pay money. Section 4 of the act reads as follows:
4. The moneys payable to the board by the Minister of Finance under this act shall be paid as follows:
(a)	in respect of the crop year commencing on the 1st day of August, 1955, one-half of the total amount payable for the crop year shall be paid forthwith upon the coming into force of this act and the balance shall be paid in equal monthly payments for the remainder of the crop year; and
(b)	in respect of any subsequent crop year, the total amount payable for the crop year shall be paid in equal monthly payments within such crop year.

That is clear. Now, how much is really owing? There seems to be some doubt about the figure. Many figures were bandied about. On page 15, issue No. 58 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Treleaven of the Canadian Wheat Board is reported as saying:
The $60 million was due as of August 1, 1970, of which $40 million would be applied roughly against the 1969-70 pool account, and the other $20 million applied against the 1970-71.
Since that time another $26 million is to be applied against the 1970-71 pool. We are now in what is commonly called the 1971-72 crop year and the payments to go up by $2.5 million a month. By February of next year there will be $92.5 million owing to western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Pass the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is one unmistakable fact that these people who holler "Pass the bill" are forgetting. I said that under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act this year the amount payable goes up at $2.5 million per month. Next year it may go up at a different rate. Will there be $100 million available for the government to send out next year? There will not be any money. It is a bribe. It is a one-shot goal using the farmers' own money.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) spoke about the conditions in agriculture. Let us look at that situation. I refer to the July Dominion Bureau of Statistics' index of farm prices for agricultural commodities based on 1961 equalling 100. In 1967 the index for farm prices in the province of Saskatchewan was 106.9, almost 107. It is now 89.7. Farm prices in the province of Saskatchewan are now down to 89.7.
What about the revenue? One can look at the farm cash income. Yesterday I showed these figures to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). He said, "Yes, that is true; but net income has dropped." In 1968 the farm income in Saskatchewan was $582 million. Last year, 1970, it was $194 million. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said, "Jack, those figures are not really accurate. They fail to take into consideration the amount in storage." That is quite right, but the realized net income does not fail to do that. That picture is no better. In 1966 the realized net income in Saskatchewan was $464 million. In 1970 it was $193 million. By grouping the three prairie provinces, the realized net income is down 44 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Isn't it shameful what this government does? The government talks about prices. On January 1, 1970, wheat at Vancouver went down 5-7/8 cents a bushel. At Thunder Bay it went down 7-1/8 cents a bushel. Prices are down. The minister quoted glowing figures to show that grain deliveries are improving. Because there was talk of a fall election the elevators were being emptied, and now they are attempting to fill them. Referring to fiscal and monetary policies, on March 2 the Prime Minister said:
The member knows that in recent budgets we did in effect apply fiscal policies on a regional basis, and we intend to continue to apply these tools in the future in one form or another.
September 23, 1971

There is no doubt in my mind that the Prairies are getting the short end of the stick. Western Canada is getting the short end of the stick. The government can have all the regional fiscal policies it likes, but I wonder why the Minister of Finance is not paying these bills.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He is breaking the law.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is breaking the law. Also, he does not like the Prairies. In front of 40 other people last June the minister told me that he did not give an s-h-i-t about the Prairies.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In front of 40 other people in the room he said loudly that he did not give an s-h-i-t. Is there any doubt about why he does not make payments, with that kind of attitude? If that attitude continues there is no recourse for western Canada but to separate. I do not want to separate. I am a Canadian. The roots of the Horner family are well founded all across Canada. They are well founded in the province of Quebec and there is a member of my family in nearly every province. How can you expect to have a vibrant, growing, industrious, energetic part of Canada when it is not being treated fairly by Ottawa? What can you expect, when the Minister of Finance makes remarks like that to me in front of 40 other people? How can western Canada be expected to absorb that? This bill deliberately flaunts the law.


Mr. Deachman:: The word is "flout".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I ask every member of this House to answer this question. If the Temporary Wheat Reaserves Act had anything to do with money for the province of Quebec, would the government not be paying it? I ask every member to answer this question from his heart. I have to say yes, the government would be paying it or bringing in another act to make another payment. Let us be truthful.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When I am through you may ask a question.


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


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to know if I could ask a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It does not seem the hon. member will permit a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A surcharge was recently placed on goods entering the United States. What did the government do? It made available $80 million for industry, most of which is located in central Canada. It has not brought in any measure for the agricultural industry. The minister made a great speech. He said the government is going to do something with the stabilization board. The government has not done anything with the stabilization board since it took over. They dropped the demands on the steel and ship industries. They have not done anything for the agricultural industry to meet the surcharge. The effect of the surcharge upon the agricultural industry are well known.
Withholding of Grain Payments


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are stabilizing poverty.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are stabilizing poverty and they are stabilizing the growth of western Canada.'They are not helping it in any way, shape or form. There is no doubt that the government is oriented to helping eastern Canada. It does not give one hoot about western Canada. The government does not even care about the lumber and timber industry in British Columbia. It has made no attempt to help out the pulp industry today which is mainly centered in the two extremities of Canada. It has been concerned about the niceties.
As a Canadian taxpayer, I can honestly say that the amount of money that the government is pouring into Quebec is paying off. There is some levelling of unemployment in that province. I hope they can sustain that situation. In 1968 the government said to the people of Canada that unity was the question confronting our country. It then came forward with a regional fiscal policy and deliberately flaunted the law and did not put money into any region.


Grant Deachman: "Flout", not "flaunt".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Flout. You fellows do not pay any attention whatsoever. The government deliberately breaks the law. The insult of all insults was when the Minister of Finance, who has a responsibility to obey the law, told me in front of 40 people that he did not give an s-h-i-t for the Prairies.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: You have already said that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I may say it several more times. I am going to Assiniboia next week, and I will also say it there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The time has come for stool-pigeons like the Minister of Agriculture. He is just a "stoolie" running around trying to please the Prime Minister. I was disappointed in the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky). He made a speech tonight in which he said nothing, really. I suppose he is vying for a job as parliamentary secretary.
I feel sorry for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). He just sits there looking like a good boy, probably because he thinks the mantle of power will be assigned to him as long as he keeps his hands clean. Why does he not defend the law? He calls for a great seminar on the law. He outlines the plenary sessions and the workshop sessions which are to be held-"Sex and the family and the law", "The media and the law". Purely seeking publicity for himself, that is all he is doing. He does not really mean to accomplish anything. If he did, there would be one other subject there-''Government and the law."
The chicken-and-egg war was the result of the government's failure to uphold the law. The government is making every chicken producer and every egg producer battle the law for them. The British North America Act is the constitution of this country. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice to see that the law is upheld. But he sits there with his hands folded and tries to remove him-

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
self from the scene. Mr. Speaker, he is part and parcel of this situation and he has to take his share of the responsibility.
I feel sorry for the members of the Wheat Board because there is not enough strength in the cabinet to demand fair and equal treatment for all parts of Canada. The Minister of Agriculture is finished. They have no respect for him in Western Canada because they cannot believe his word any more, and once a man's word is no good he is no good himself. I still have faith in the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) and in the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). They are fighting. But they must have help, and if the Minister of Justice, as a prospective leader of his party, does not help now, his silence will be well remembered in western Canada when he starts his campaigning. He ought not to think that just because he attended university and danced with Princess Margaret in Vancouver this will get him much support in western Canada. He must get up and defend the law. He ought to get up and force this government into obeying the law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. In the opinion of the Chair, the noise in the chamber has increased while the hon. member has been speaking. We are talking about law and order and respect for the law. I wonder if we could have a little respect for the rules of this House and for the rules of order and relevancy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thought I had the attention of the House and I do not for one moment believe I was not paying attention to the rules. I did not complain about a certain amount of heckling.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Holy, holy, holy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) is making remarks again. In my opinion this is the most serious debate upon which the House has entered. The Canadian Wheat Board has long been upheld as an independent body serving the farmers. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board did something the like of which I have never seen done, even in the days of Jimmy Gardiner.
The Wheat Board, undoubtedly with the minister's approval, sent out a notice to every farmer telling them how much money they would receive under the government's proposals according to the acreage on their books, if the bill passed through Parliament. This was a deliberate use for political purposes of a body which has long been upheld as a farmers' body. In fact it was never that. The appointments were always political and there are no farmers on it. Charlie Gibbings is one, if you like, but he is not, in my eyes, any more. He has been working for advancement. He was very disappointed that he did not get the chairmanship, and I suppose he still wants it.
In any case, this is a glaring example of abuse. The Wheat Board has been made use of and in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of many farmers, the board will never regain the statute it previously enjoyed in western Canada. Its machinery, its mailing services, its knowledge of farm acreage were all used for political purposes involving the passage of a particular piece of legislation. This is one more aspect of the efforts of the Liberal party
to hold power by any means. Power is what the Liberal party seeks and its supporters will stop at nothing to get power and maintain it.


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


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is a tough act to follow, but I will do the best I can in the circumstances. I really did not expect to speak in this debate and I might not have done so had it not been for the attitude taken by the news media, which is that the government is not really interested in the farmers. Let me assure the news media that this is not the case. We are just as concerned for the farmers as anyone else in the House.
As I understand the stabilization bill, its primary objective is to stabilize the flow of cash receipts in the prairie provinces from the six major grains by establishing a fund, sustained by contributions from the federal government and grain producers, from which payments will be made to producers in years when cash receipts fall below an average based on the cash receipts for the previous five years.
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, which the government proposes to repeal, applies only to wheat. What were the reasons for bringing in Bill C-244? Prairie grain farmers have historically been subject to sharp and substantial swings in the level of cash receipts from grains. Receipts from the six major grains have varied from $377 million in 1945-46 to $1,353 million in 1966-67. Severe liquidity crises arise from the combination of high investment inventory and low cash receipts. These affect not only the producers but many other major sectors of the Canadian economy. Basic market factors outside Canadian control have been the major cause of this instability in the past. Coupled with this has been the fact that Canadian producers are competing with heavily subsidized producers in other countries.
Unless action is taken to counteract these factors the Canadian grain industry will not be in a position to compete in world markets. Thus, the multi-million dollar Canadian grain industry and, in particular, the producers, will continue to be subject to the severe effects of market swings upon stocks and income. What could be more clear as to why we need such a bill?
We have heard a lot about the legal position. To me it appears that the intent and purpose is the important thing. The purpose has not changed and the intent has not changed. Believe me, the money will be paid to the farmers as soon as the opposition ends its filibuster and agrees to let the bill go through. We on the government side want to help the farmers and I ask members of the opposition; "Why don't you?" The issue is not the question of legal or illegal acts on the part of the government; it is a question of providing the farmers the help they need.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the shoe fits, steal it.


William Kenneth Robinson: I have listened to a filibuster by the opposition for a long time and have witnessed the delay this has caused. I have observed the apparent disregard of

September 23, 1971

the members of the opposition for the farmers they represent. I think this is a very important point to make. The members who are objecting to the bill are the very ones who represent the farmers. I have been a member of the agriculture committee for some months and recall that when Bill C-176 was first introduced members of the opposition said, "Let us travel around the country and we will pass the bill".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Kenneth Robinson: We have all heard of "Have gun, will travel". Well, we travelled and it cost the taxpayers of this country a lot of money.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder whether Your Honour would call to the hon. member's attention the fact that he should be relevant to the subject under debate.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) talks about being relevant. Let me just suggest to him what the facts are. On many occasions in the agriculture committee I was required to stand on a point of order and point out that the hon. member for Crowfoot, who I am sure will recall this, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and other opposition members were being irrelevant, repetitive and not material to the issue. That is exactly what the position was. They filibustered the bill all through the committee, and even now the bill has not been passed. If they have their way, it never will pass and the only people who will suffer will be the farmers.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


William Kenneth Robinson: I heard the hon. member for Mackenzie say, "Pay out the money and we will pass the bill". I am wondering to what extent we can believe what they say on the opposition side. I am wondering to what extent we can believe what the hon. member's party says. We know what they said and did with regard to Bill C-276, and we have no reason to think they will do otherwise with this bill. They just do not want to help the farmers, and that is all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A lot you know about the farmers.


William Kenneth Robinson: I have listened to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for Mackenzie and many other big, fat-cat farmers and wondered just who they represent. Who is it who gains the most from this bill? I suggest to the opposition and their fat-cat farmers that the people who gain most from the first bill are the little farmers, and that is why they do not want to pass it; they will not get much out of it. I suggest that these big, fat-cat farmers should try to help the little farmer instead of helping themselves, as they are trying to do at the present time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Call him to order.
Withholding of Grain Payments


William Kenneth Robinson: The other day I heard the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) make an impassioned plea and he buttressed his remarks by saying that, if necessary, he would go to jail for the farmers. I think many of us feel the same way. If necessary, I would be prepared to go to jail for the farmers too. I think the farmers need help and we on the government side want to help them. So to the opposition I say, "For heaven's sake, why won't you help the farmers?"


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleiord-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker-


J. Michael Forrestall: Now we are going to listen to a farmer for a few minutes.


William Arnold Peters: To a big, fat farmer.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) and others talk about the value of things the farmers need, about the value of Bill C-244 and what it would do for the farmers. I am a farmer, and it seems odd to me that we have a former dean of law drawing up plans for farmers. But I am only a farmer. If I were a dean of law I think I would use as a classic case, when teaching a group of students in class, Bill C-244, one of the bills introduced by the government to. break its own laws. I can see law classes of the future being told just that.
I do not want to talk about the law. I should like to talk for a moment about the motion before the House and talk as a farmer because I know a little about farming. I feel somewhat sorry for the minister over this bill. He reminds me of the United States President who finds himself caught up in the war in Viet Nam. He cannot win, he cannot afford to lose and he does not know how to get out of the situation. The minister has been unable to sell this bill, or the conditions that go along with it, to farmers or farm organizations. Let me read what one farm organization had to say to emphasize this point. The Federation of Agriculture said in its brief:
The "transitional" payment must be made immediately and not be made conditional either upon acceptance of the rest of the bill as it stands or upon its rapid passage.
Aside from the "transitional" payment, the bill is not acceptable as it now stands.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is able to tell me which farm organizations accept the provisions of Bill C-244 and some of the conditions laid down therein- apart from the $100 million payment-I should like him to give me chapter and verse what they say. He made a speech this evening but did not name one organization that supported the bill. If the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) could tell me which farm organization accepted and endorsed the principle of Bill C-244 and its conditions, then I would be happy to hear him. In fact, I would be quite happy to give him some of my time.
I sat in the Committee on Agriculture and heard the testimony given by various farm organizations, such as the Federation of Agriculture, the wheat pools, the National Farmers Union and others. I should like the minister to point out to me which of these organizations accept the conditions laid down in Bill C-244.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-

September 23, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) rising on a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted you to note my difficulty in attempting to rise, having already spoken. But I would be glad, if I have general consent, to make a comment on the hon. member's challenge.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up all my time until a quarter to ten, and would be glad to hear the minister. May I just say something about Bill C-244. As a farmer, the bill will cost me $300 a year, assuming that I am able to grow 10,000 bushels of grain a year. In a ten-year period I could have five more crops yet receive nothing from the bill, assuming that the crops and the income on the Prairies were adequate in that ten-year period and that no payment was made. We could use for example the Peace River area of British Columbia and Alberta, where they have had several poor crops and resultant low income. These people would be charged, but in the last three or four years they might not have received anything although the rest of the Prairies had a good income. That is the best example I can give.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board complains because we do not give him credit for some of the good things he has done. I would be prepared to give him credit, but because he has done some useful things-


An hon. Member:: Like what?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: -does not mean he has the right to force on us something that is unacceptable to the agricultural community. When the prairie governments, the farm organizations concerned and the Members of Parliament who know something about the problem all say it is not adequate, then I suggest to the minister that he should at least listen. I do not think he has.
Mr. Speaker, let me mention three or four items in the bill which I find objectionable and then I will be happy to listen to the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
Although the Chair has been quite lenient in this debate, I would hesitate to allow the hon. member to open up a debate on the details of Bill C-244 which is not before the House at this time. The Chair does not mind the hon. member referring to the bill and generally touching upon aspects of the bill related to his opposition to the existing legislation, but I would ask the hon. member not to open up a debate on the bill itself and certain provisions of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Everybody else did.


An hon. Member:: The minister did.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going into detail on the bill; I just wanted to mention two or three points in passing. I am sure everyone else in this House has spoken in this context. I feel that this bill, related to the fact that the payment has not been made, has some objectionable features. Speaking as a farmer, I do not think it will work. That is why we on this side of the House have filibustered,

if that is the right term. We have objected because we do not feel that the bill is an adequate solution to the problems.
In the first place, the bill is too expensive. For it to work adequately there would have to be an adequate crop insurance program. And it is not 2 per cent as the minister suggested; it will cost 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent for an adequate crop insurance program. With agriculture in its present position, we cannot afford that. There is no cost of production feature in the bill, but I will not go into that question. It pays only on a complete Prairies basis. As I indicated earlier, it is a little like unemployment insurance being paid only when all Canada is suffering a depression, or all Ontario, or if the whole automobile industry is suffering unemployment. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) can appreciate that. If a factory closes down the people in that factory receive unemployment insurance. That is not the way this bill will work. It will work only if all factories close down. It will work on a different principle. I am sure the Minister of Labour would not find it acceptable in industry. We as farmers find it unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to tell us which farm organizations support the principle and conditions inherent in this bill.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I feel our debate of today has given us an opportunity of explaining to the Canadian people that our present government has really assumed its responsibilities and that the problem of agriculture has indeed been one of those given priority.
All kinds of unfounded accusations have been brought forward this afternoon. The hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) has even taken advantage of the situation, Mr. Speaker, to tell us about the omnibus bill.
Many examples demonstrate how well the present government has assumed its responsibilities. I have here the report submitted on March 23, 1969 by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which gave committee members the opportunity to travel specifically to consider the problems of western grain producers. We met more than 18,000 farmers in the western provinces, and we were made aware of their problems. It is certainly this proves that the government wants to know about the problems and solve them.
The bill now before us is one solution, in my opinion, and I believe that all the associations that appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture have agreed in principle on the merits of this legislation. I want to recall here that this committee held 19 meetings to consider Bill C-244. At those meetings, we heard all the associations that wanted to submit brief. I have here several members of the proceedings and evidence of that committee. During those sittings, the minister made constant appeals to the co-operation of all members, stressing the urgency of passing this legislation so that the Western farmers may get their due.
I have in hand the proceedings of June 15, in which can be seen in what terms the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) appealed to the committee members. I quote from page 26 of this report:
September 23, 1971

Division
I really urge members of the Committee to get on with the work of approving this bill and let us get this money out into the farmers' hands and get the stabilization plan in place for the future.
Unfortunately, all those requests have been refused. We have continuously had to face filibustering with regard to all bills deferred to the Committee on Agriculture.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mentioned earlier some of the difficulties that exist in agriculture; we are trying to establish a planning policy aimed at the future. It is regrettable that we cannot get the co-operation of the opposition. In order to show how much members of the Committee on Agriculture and the present government wish to establish farm legislation capable of solving problems, I shall point out that the committee sat until 7:30 on the morning of March 23 last, for the very purpose of facing the systematic opposition of the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). The latter did their utmost to hinder the progress of the committee that wanted to adopt a bill establishing a national marketing board. That legislative proposal has not yet been adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the commitment made by this government to the farmers was made on April 29 last, when motion for first reading was moved. And it is since that date that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board has been appealing to the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, after having met with all agricultural organizations, in order to have that bill adopted.
I shall not dwell on the subject any longer, but I wonder what interests some of the members of the committee mean to fight for. Those of the producers or those of the grain elevator owners? It would appear that their sympathy lies with the latter.
The present policy of the government promotes the sale rather than the storage of grain. Today, the minister alluded to the increase in our export markets this year as compared to last year's. Our exports improved considerably last year, more specifically by 10 per cent, over past years. This proves to what extent we do not encourage the storage of our grain in elevators, but want to adopt a dynamic policy that the farmers' grain might be sold to allow them to reap the benefits to which they are entitled.
This bill must be passed without further delay. It is the government's wish. When we vote in a few minutes the whole of Canada will know who the true friends of the farmers are.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the one minute left I want to say that I have never heard so much whining, whimpering and screaming about a filibuster. The debate, until this bill came back, had taken just over 12 hours in the House. There are 16 amendments before the House. These amendments are wanted by the farming community of this country and we intend to debate them.
Some day hon. members and the government opposite, if they do not do something about the economic conditions in this country, will have a filibuster which is recognized as such. This is not a filibuster. These are amendments offered on behalf of the farmers of this country, and it is about time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) recognized this fact.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was challenged to enter this debate and was more than happy to do so. Only the expiration of time prevents my answering the nonsense of the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Section (9) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the questions necessary to dispose of the motions now before the House.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.16 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Prud'homme
Reid
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smith (SainWean) Stafford
Stewart (Cochrane) Sulatycky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London-East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Watson
Whelan
Whiting
Yanakis-112.

Friday, September 24, 1971