1971-05-07

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
mr. Macdonald (egmont)-accuracy of hansard

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. I received yesterday's Hansard just a few moments ago so it was not possible to give Your Honour notice of my question. In looking at yesterday's Hansard I note that when the Minister of Justice replied to my question in which I asked him whether there would be a presumption of guilt, on the same basis as in the public order legislation, with respect to the bill of rights which he is shortly to introduce he said that the government was again going to pursue a presumption of guilt. This has been rewritten in yesterday's Hansard-I am not sure by whom, to read:
Mr. Speaker, the assumption is again wrong. We have always held the presumption of innocence as paramount.
I am sure that along with myself many other hon. members heard the minister yesterday afternoon when he spoke in the House, and while he may not have meant to say what in fact he did say, he did say it. I think that this trespasses upon the rights of members to have an accurate reflection of the debates and comments made in the House. I hope Your Honour will take steps to provide an accurate rendition.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the situation. It is rather difficult to change Hansard after it has been published. When the minister is in the House perhaps he might give an explanation. I might say in all honesty that what I heard the minister say was not what the hon. member heard, but I have not reflected on it at all, of course, and I may easily be wrong. I will listen to the tape which is available to the Chair. Perhaps that might be considered to be the authority, and eventually when Hansard is published officially the exact words of the minister will be reported accordingly.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege. Every Member in the House yesterday heard the Minister of Justice give his answer. He obviously made a slip of the tongue and as soon as the words were uttered he corrected them. He did so publicly and every member here heard him. Obviously, the hon. member is being very small.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, I am very grateful to have the Prime Minister's confirmation of the exact rendition of what did transpire. All I am
asking is that the correct rendition of what was said be reflected in Hansard. That is all I am asking for.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion which I consider to be of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns the amendments to the Quebec Agricultural Products and Food Act and the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Act, which go into effect immediately and enable the government of Quebec to close the Quebec borders to the farm products of other provinces as of now, and the failure of the federal government to assert and protect the principle of free trade between provinces which is guaranteed by the constitution.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner):
That in the opinion of this House the government should give immediate consideration to exercising its jurisdiction in this area under the residual powers of the BNA Act, until such time as the matter has been resolved by the Supreme Court or by this Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion which requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before we leave the order for motions I wonder if the

May 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister of Transport has any statement to make concerning pension changes by the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Mr. Jamieson:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in view of the startling reports that have prompted the provincial Minister of Health in Ontario to investigate the basic operation of the billing aspects of the medicare program in that province, and in view of the danger of a clear loss of respect both for the medical profession and for the medicare plan itself, can the Prime Minister inform the House exactly what measures are being pursued and exactly what steps are being taken so that the national medicare program will not be seriously abused and so that many needy people will not in this way be inadvertently deprived of the services of the medical profession?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on this general subject of shared cost programs like medicare, where the federal government pays 50 cent dollars-permits the provinces to spend 50 cent dollars-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you get that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime
Minister is being honest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the federal government has impressed upon the provinces the importance for them to keep these expenses under control. This applies not only to medicare but to post-secondary education, hospital grants, and so on. In all these areas where the federal taxpayer is paying 50 per cent of the cost of provincial programs, or of national programs which are administered provincially, we have constantly impressed upon the provinces the need to keep these costs under control. I am glad they are beginning-I should not say "beginning" because some time back they have indicated their strong desire to co-operate in this area.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact, as the Prime Minister indicated, that the federal government does participate on a 50 per cent basis in this program, can he indicate whether or not the office of the Auditor General has been directed to conduct a full investigation into the operations of the medicare program and, if the government has not directed the Auditor General to do so, can he at least assure the House that he or the

government will not impede the Auditor General from undertaking such an investigation should he think it necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Pepin:: Rewrite that now.


An hon. Member:: Back to square one.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport did not have a statement to make on motions, can he tell the House whether the Canadian Pacific Railway has advised the government of changes it is proposing to make in its pension plan and, in particular, will these cover an increase in the pensions of CPR employees already retired?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Canadian Pacific Railway to let me have the details but they have not done so up to this time. I can tell the House, however, as I am sure the hon. member knows, that at the time when we agreed to the extension and improvement of pensions in the case of Canadian National Railways I conveyed to Canadian Pacific Railway our hope that this would prompt them to do likewise and, similarly, we made other arrangements with CPR which would enable them to do this. On the basis of the announcement made I can only assume that they have in fact complied with this request. I shall try to get specific details on just what they have arranged and make them available to the hon. member early next week.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In granting extra time to the Canadian Pacific Railway to fund their plan and extending that time to 60 years, were any commitments given by the Canadian Pacific Railway that they would make some significant increase in benefits to those people already on pension?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. The move was simply made to put the Canadian Pacific Railway on the same basis as Canadian National Railways.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the fact that the plan announced by the Canadian Pacific Railway today did nothing significantly to increase pensions for those already drawing them, can the minister tell us whether he will take immediate action to make sure that the Canadian Pacific Railway will now move to do something for those people already on pension?
May 7, 1971


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my position in this regard must be that I put the Canadian Pacific Railway in the same position as Canadian National Railways in regard to making up arrears. Pension benefits are negotiable between employees of the CPR and the railway, not between the railway and me.


John Leroy Skoberg: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a final supplementary but I would remind hon. members that the question period is only 40 minutes in length.


John Leroy Skoberg: Since those people already on pension have no means of negotiating and since the Canadian Pacific Railway is now basing its pension improvements on years of service instead of years of retirement as is done by the Canadian National Railways, will the minister personally intervene right now to do something to help those people already on pension?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's further supplementary question is very much like the previous one.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since, according to the reports received this morning, it seems obvious that the MANIC Co. of Granby-the only Canadian company building sports cars-is on the verge of bankruptcy and that the government has already given that company a grant of $344,000 representing the direct federal tax of $319 per car for a minimum production of 1,000 cars in the first year, is the Prime Minister aware of that eventual bankruptcy and does he intend to take the necessary steps to avoid it and prevent once more a Canadian company from becoming the property of foreign interests and more specifically of American interests for lack of the small amount of $400,000 which that industry would need to avoid bankruptcy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a question but he may not make a speech.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to the first question is no, Mr. Speaker. As for the second one, I can only say that I will study the matter.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that questions have been put to him about the new Toronto International Airport and in view of the fact that yesterday one or more cabinet ministers from
Inquiries of the Ministry
the province of Alberta were here, did any discussion take place with reference to the international airport in the city of Calgary which is so important to the province of Alberta and particularly to the petroleum industry because of the travel of personnel between the United States and Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware there were no conversations in Ottawa yesterday with visitors from Edmonton. Discussions took place between myself and His Worship, the Mayor of Edmonton, a week or so ago, and during this present week there have been discussions in Edmonton between officials of the Department of Transport, the city and various other organizations in the Edmonton area.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has a decision been made at the federal government level about the international airport at Calgary, and has the matter now been referred to officials of the Alberta provincial government and officials of the city of Calgary?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to suggest that the hon. member is talking about the wrong airport. If he is talking about the industrial airport at Edmonton, as opposed to the international airport, may I say that the talks which have been going on have been related to the future use of the industrial airport in the city of Edmonton.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further quest: on. Perhaps the minister will not able to answer it. Has there been conversation between the minister and the hon. member for Calgary South about extension of Calgary International Airport and the building of a new depot?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask the minister whether he has had conversation with another member of the House.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I apologize to the hon. member for Calgary North. I misunderstood him. During the past week there has been a great deal of discussion about the future of Edmonton's industrial airport. I was under the impression that that was the nature of the question. So far as the Calgary airport is concerned, I have had a request from the mayor of Calgary for a meeting with him, which I propose to agree to next week. I believe that the Minister of Highways for the province of Alberta will be accompanying him to that meeting. I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE ON MARKETING OF RAPESEED FROM PRODUCERS AND OTHERS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat

May 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Board. As found on page 5158 of Hansard, I asked the minister if he would table in the House the contents of letters and other communications concerning the proposed inclusion of rapeseed, rye and flax under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Is he now prepared to table the contents of those letters?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have them here with me now, but I am looking into the matter.



PROPOSED TANKER ROUTE BETWEEN ALASKA AND WEST COAST STATES-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising from a statement made in Anchorage, Alaska, by the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the effect that Canada would be prepared to accept the west coast oil tanker route provided that full protection is given to the Canadian environment in adjacent regions. May I ask the right hon. gentleman what he would consider to be full protection of the Canadian environment if an oil tanker route were established between Alaska and the more southerly states of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question. He has asked the Prime Minister to express an opinion and I would not think that in those terms the question is in order. I know that the matter is important. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his inquiry.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rephrase the question this way: can the Prime Minister say whether Canada has officially indicated to the United States the terms and conditions which this country feels would be acceptable for the establishment of an oil tanker route on the Pacific between Alaska and other states of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am rather sure that Canada has not because we would not be empowered under law or writ to tell the United States how it can move oil on the high seas. I will have to look into the speech to which the hon. member referred and perhaps, ask the minister to answer the question in due course.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO REFERENCE OF CARR REPORT TO TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Mr. Jim McNulty (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if the Carr report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for study?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection to that procedure at the appropriate time. We have released the report generally for consideration and discussion. If, after some of these representations are in, it appears that there is merit in having it discussed by the committee, certainly I would be more than pleased if that were done.



WHEAT-TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he now in a position to inform the House when and how the $100 million will be paid to the farmers? Will it be paid on an acreage basis and how much per acre will be paid? Who will be able to receive payments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is before the House. When the payments are to be made will depend, of course, upon the passage of that legislation. I hope that the payments can be made very quickly after royal assent has been given to the legislation. The qualifications of persons and the basis of the payments are all contained in the legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to pursue this a little further. Will the minister not consider making the payments even before the legislation is passed? This money is urgently required before seeding, and the minister took so long to introduce the legislation. It should have been introduced months ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
*********



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is for the
Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to bring in amendments to the Official Languages Act to give effect to the recommendation of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board so that certain major urban centres in Canada which are now excluded from becoming bilingual districts may become bilingual districts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Secretary of State has explained to the House that, the report having been tabled, the government is now studying it and that no action can be taken before the expiration of 90 days. Until that time expires, the government cannot legally take any action. By then we will have studied the report, and we will make such announcements as are required in due course.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Does the Prime Minister not agree that, apart from the actual implementa-
[Mr. Murta.l
May 7, 1971

tion of the recommendations presently before the House, after the 90-day period has expired it is not impossible for the government to put on the order paper additional recommendations that will give effect to some of these recommendations specifically with regard to urban areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of a suggestion or submission.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the figures that have just been released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which show that net farm income in Saskatchewan has dropped by 56 per cent in the past two years and in view of the fact that bills before the House will do little to seriously alter that situation, is the Prime Minister contemplating any emergency action to try to improve the farm income picture in western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that he has invited the Prime Minister, or someone on behalf of the government, to make a rather general statement. He might inquire whether such a statement will be made on motions in due course.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In that case, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement indicating whether he is planning any legislation to improve the farm income picture in western Canada in a serious way?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Call the by-election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member for Crowfoot said a moment ago, there is a proposed sum of $100 million in the offing, if the opposition can get on with the business of passing these bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege. That legislation was first proposed in the House on October 29. Why did the minister not bring it in months ago? He did not have it drafted. We have not held it up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that during the question period we are now discussing legislation which is otherwise before Parliament. That is not in order.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: My question is for the
President of the Treasury Board. What action is the
Inquiries of the Ministry
government taking with regard to the fears expressed by Mr. Edwards of the Public Service Alliance and Mr. Barnes of the Professional Institute of the Public Service suggesting that the government's bilingual program for public servants is becoming bicultural and also that the use of delegated authority by government departments is compromising the merit system and introducing a form of patronage?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the conclusions drawn by the hon. member or the hypotheses of his question about the bilingual program are not well-founded. In relation to the second part of his question, I think the hon. member knows this was the subject of discussion in a parliamentary committee. The Treasury Board is now looking into it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council.
In view of recently announced policies of Quebec and Ontario regarding the marketing of certain farm products and since in my opinion Bill C-176 could have corrective effects and opposition parties are anxious to arrive at an agreement, would the President of the Privy Council approach them in order to reach an agreement to limit debate on Bill C-176, which would demonstrate our determination to serve the best interests of Canadian farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question sounds more like a submission or recommendation. I do not think it can be accepted as a question. I have some doubts whether or not we are straying somewhat from the recognized practice of not anticipating an order of the day.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to change the form of his question?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he could meet with the representatives of the opposition parties so as to decide, upon common agreement, to restrict the debate on Bill C-176?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue my consultations on this and other bills with the opposition.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE

May 7, 1971



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILL-SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the Prime Minister's answer with regard to Bill C-176, which he feels can remedy the present situation of no free trade between the provinces, I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to refer that bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether it is intra vires or ultra vires and thus confirm or otherwise the position he has taken in the House as to its constitutionality?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The bill is before the House. Surely the proper procedure is for the House to adopt the bill and then, if some citizens believe it to be ultra vires, they can refer it to the Supreme Court. The government of Canada obviously drafted the bill with the advice of its legal officers and we have presented a bill which in our view is fully constitutional. I find it strange that when we are being told by many provinces that this bill is needed to remedy the situation, the opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think I should interfere unduly, but it seems to me we are again, as we did yesterday for a good part of the question period, engaging in a debate on Bill C-176 which is otherwise before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one more supplementary question, because this is important. We shall not even have a parliament if confederation breaks up, and that is what we are talking about. I should like to put this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there are plenty of precedents for the government of Canada asking the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of legislation would the Prime Minister be prepared to take such a course-yes or no?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no. I must add, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to understand how, the government having proposed a measure which would precisely prevent the balkanization of Canada-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You will balkanize Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A request for marketing boards by the agricultural section of the economy has been made at least since I have been around, and now the government is at last moving forward with such a bill. The government has caused it to bog down for more than a year in the House and now they are suggesting it be delayed further by the making of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will be recognized, but we have to give others an opportunity to ask questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about slips of the tongue and I am told I made one a moment ago. Perhaps I might be allowed to correct it. It had to do with BiU C-176.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't misrepresent it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were right the first time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apparently I said it had been slowed down by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Everyone knows that it is the hon. member for Crowfoot in particular who has been slowing it down.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. As it is some time since I inquired about the intention of the government with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, may I inquire whether the right hon. gentleman is now in a position to give a progress report and tell us what the government intends to do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did say, the last time I answered the question, that the government had taken steps to make sure that each department was examining the report to ensure that its legislation and its policy reflected the studies of the commission. I might add that this needs co-ordination at the ministerial level, and I have asked the energetic Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing to ensure this co-ordination between the various departments.
* *



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Immigration. Does his department intend to extend right of citizenship through the mother as well as through the father to children who are in need of such status?


Otto Emil Lang: That question should properly be directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship when he is in the House.



HOUSING


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
May 7, 1971

Could he say whether, under the housing program for 1971, loans with a decreasing rate of interest may be provided for low-income people as regards the building of single dwellings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: We have entered into reciprocal or co-operative arrangements with some of the provinces in cases in which those provinces are applying interest rebates. The province of Quebec, for instance, has a program whereby it joins with purchasers of low income cost homes to provide a 3 per cent interest rebate and we are working out arrangements with other provinces along these lines. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
I do not think the minister understood my question. I am not referring to the interest rebates offered by the provinces, but to the loans at a decreasing rate down to 7k per cent granted by the government for the construction of apartment buildings or row housing.
I would like to know whether the minister may also grant loans at a decreasing rate down to 7\ per cent for the construction of single dwellings.


Robert Knight Andras: We have not made federal government loans through CMHC at the rate of interest to which the hon. member has referred. We have made loans at interest rates lower than market cost under section 16 of the act and, in some cases, under section 40 of the act, but never at rates lower than those permitted under section 16. Therefore, the interest rates to which the hon. member refers must reflect participation by the provincial government.



SPECIAL CREDITS FOR MUNICIPALITIES

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether the Union of Municipalities has asked the federal government to grant funds to municipalities for certain projects? I know that the minister responsible for housing is directly involved, and I was hoping that this morning he would give us an answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member should give the minister an opportunity to answer this question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot deal with the precise points
Inquiries of the Ministry
the hon. member has raised because I do not quite understand them. All I can say is we were successful in discussing last week in Winnipeg, with the provincial ministers of municipal affairs and representatives of municipal governments, arrangements and a commitment concerning tri-level consultation on a whole range of matters involving urbanization and urban problems. The question of grants, if that is what the hon. member is referring to, was not dealt with in any specific way.



FINANCE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to say whether or not data on the Canadian economy is being stored in United States data banks?


Edgar John Benson: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the hon. gentleman assure the House that the census data will not be stored in United States data banks?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into it. I suggest the answer given by the Minister of Finance will apply in this case, but I will try to secure confirmation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the long process of collective bargaining which has gone on with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada with regard to the scientific research groups, since August 7, 1970, can the minister say why Treasury Board has delayed signing the final agreement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there was any delay but I shall make an inquiry and advise the hon. member.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope the minister will reply because I understand some members who have shown good will in this regard are annoyed by the thought that this is another way by which Treasury Board is frustrating this method of collective bargaining.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question

May 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
relating to the establishment of bilingual districts as recommended by the advisory board. My question relates specifically to areas suggested for reconsideration such as the city of Thompson, Manitoba. If reconsideration is given to these areas suggested by the board, will this be based on the criteria of the Official Languages Act or will additional criteria be taken into consideration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer the question beyond what I answered a moment ago, that we have 90 days to study this report. I prefer not to hypothesize as to what the government might do. I apologize if I did not understand some subtlety of the question, but unless there is a specific supplementary that is as far as I can go.


Robert Simpson: Is the Prime Minister in a position at this time to say whether the government is considering any additional criteria to those contained in the Official Languages Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. It may be that the Secretary of State has a memorandum which he will submit to cabinet as a result of his study of this report, but as far as I know there are no further criteria at present before the cabinet.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Prime Minister a question which is supplementary to the one asked by my colleague the member for Churchill.
Why is it that the Commissioner has not considered the province of Ontario as one bilingual district the way he did with the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is provided in the act that a Board is to be established in order that the government be relieved from having to make such decisions on a political basis and in order that the Board may consider the problems objectively. The hon. member could perhaps read the report and then find for himself the reason why the result has been as published by the Board.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to take steps in order to protect the rights of French-speaking minorities in Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Official Languages Act which was passed by Parliament is precisely to guarantee the linguistic rights of French and English-speaking minorities throughout the country. The hon. member knows that this act provides that this must be done on a practical basis and that for that purpose it is necessary to establish bilingual districts. These bilingual districts will be established in the light of the report of

the Board, and I am sure that the hon. member will be invited to express his views at that time.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker,
in view of the resolution passed at the recent meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada calling upon the government to increase its surveillance of our east coast fishing zones, I should like to ask whether in fact surveillance by armed forces' air and surface craft is continuing and whether this surveillance will be kept up during this peak fishing season?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, surveillance is continuing, particularly by Tracker aircraft. In respect of the long-range intention, I hope to be able to speak at some length on this when the white paper is presented to the House.



WESTERN CANADA-GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM-MEANING OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It is based on a news release under today's date from his office. It refers to objections by the opposition to the Liberal government's agricultural legislative program and says that it would cost the western farmers $100 million this year if our opposition continues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) McIntosh: I ask the minister to elaborate on this statement by informing the House whether this is a threat of closure in regard to our actions in opposition to the agricultural program, or is it legislation by intimidation?



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the $10 billion program the United States government has initiated in respect of mass transit in urban areas in the United States, can the minister who reports to the House on urban affairs inform the House what, if any, program he has in mind for Canada along this line?
May 7, 1971


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, any consideration in respect of federal assistance for mass transit would involve many departments of the government, most particularly the Department of Transport. All I can say is that the whole question of urban problems, as I indicated a few minutes ago, including mass transit and many other factors, will be a subject of discussion and consultation and, ultimately, decision. There is no precise legislative program now that directly involves the federal government in financial participation for mass transit.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, in light of the right hon. gentleman's answer to my question yesterday about the whole matter of foreign ownership and the enunciation of policy, I would be helped if the Prime Minister would say whether it is now the situation that tax reforms, for instance, as part of the budget, will be introduced prior to any policy announcement on foreign ownership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is likely the sequence in which they will be presented to the House.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Transport on March 26 inquiring whether the government was taking any action on a federal-provincial recommendation in respect of special assistance in the form of subsidies. At that time the parliamentary secretary said the department was considering this and would probably announce something soon. Has a program for special assistance been drawn up and, if so, when will the minister announce it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I always have difficulty with this kind of question because there is special assistance of one type or another being extended on an ad hoc basis on a more or less day to day basis. In so far as consultations with the provinces are concerned, these are continuing. Within the last two or three days there have been consultations with the province of New Brunswick on one aspect of transport. If the hon. member has some specific form of assistance in which he is interested, I will do my best to answer his inquiry.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



STORAGE OF COMPUTER DATA ON ECONOMY IN UNITED STATES DATA BANKS-BANK OF CANADA RECORDS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked as few minutes ago by the hon. member for Spadina concerning the storage of Canadian economic data in computer banks in the United States. Will the Minister of Finance indicate whether his negative answer also applies to Bank of Canada records? If he is unable to answer that question at the moment, will he undertake to ascertain what the situation is in respect of the Bank of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the same answer would apply but I will check this out with the Bank of Canada. Perhaps I should extend my earlier answer by saying that data which is public can be stored by anyone anywhere. Data issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, for example, which is published can be stored anywhere by anybody who wants to do so because it is public data.


Thomas Miller Bell: If they are crazy enough.



SUGGESTED SALE OF SWORDFISH TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore asked me a question yesterday in respect of marketing efforts, swordfish and mercury content. My department has studied all major markets for swordfish to determine the possibility of sales. Most European countries have established administrative guidelines setting tolerance levels for mercury content in fish the same as we have in Canada. These levels would effectively prohibit the import of nearly all available supplies of Canadian swordfish. Japan is the world's largest producer of swordfish and is encountering difficulties similar to those which Canada faces.



AGRICULTURE


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to Bill C-176 and the impasse which he feels has been brought about by the hon. member for Crowfoot. Is he now prepared to sit down and meet with interested parties from across Canada to see whether or not the objectionable parts of the bill can be ironed out and agreement reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a series of meetings have been going on. I know that my parliamentary secretary was at a meeting a few days

May 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ago, which apparently was very successful, with the cattlemen. I myself the day before yesterday received a telegram from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asking the government to proceed with the bill as quickly as possible. So apparently opinions are divided on this bill. That is usual in Parliament, but we feel that as the division has lasted more than a year perhaps it is time to get on with the business of counting heads.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary and then we will have just about reached the end of the question period. However, I shall also recognize the hon. member for Broadview.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this is a quick supplementary arising out of the reply of the Prime Minister. With regard to counting heads, I wonder if he would now go along with the calling of a by-election in Assiniboia so the heads could be counted?


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



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. Has the minister considered the recommendation of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities with regard to the necessity of lifting the urban renewal freeze imposed by the government? Was this discussed in Winnipeg at the tri-level meeting and, if so, what steps does the government intend to take?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations from the brief of the CFMM were considered; it was discussed briefly during their presentation to cabinet a week or two ago. However, it was not discussed in Winnipeg because the Winnipeg meeting, by agreement of all concerned, was to deal with the basic fundamental decision with regard to entering into tri-level consultations and the agenda. Any precise program discussions were by agreement deferred until that precise question was answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was the member who was seeking to ask a supplementary and apparently you took it that is was the hon. member for Broadview. I wonder whether under the circumstances I may be permitted to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: That was not the point. The hon. member for Broadview had been waiting 40 minutes for an opportunity to ask a question, supplementary or otherwise. The hon. member for Spadina had his opportunity, and if he
will bear with the Chair and the House he might be given an opportunity to ask more questions and supple-mentaries on Monday. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, last evening in the few minutes I had at my disposal I was beginning to point to the extreme importance attached by this government, as well as by the grain farmers of Canada, to marketing and market development. It was with that priority in mind we established special credit facilities for the Canadian Wheat Board which allowed the Canadian Wheat Board to move into markets such as Brazil, an important market into which we had not been for many years, and into markets like Peru, Syria and the Philippines in order to make sales of grain and to develop new customers for the over-all good of the grain industry.
It was also because of this that we emphasized continually the need to be competitive internationally and the need for Canadian farmers to concentrate on the possibilities which exist in the coarse grains market and in particular, because of the nature of the Canadian production at the moment, on the barley market. It has been our view that this is a market which should grow for us in the international field. We have been talking to farmers about growing barley. This would enable the Wheat Board to go after our potential share of this market. It was also because of our belief that marketing is so important that a fundamental part of our present program included the setting aside on an annual basis of $10 million for a market development fund, which would allow us to pursue in a most flexible way the encouragement of new customers to look to Canadian grains. It would allow us to look to research into new products and development of better products for the markets, and to assist in a variety of techniques for gaining a Canadian foothold in markets which may not be available to us at the moment or available on only a limited basis.
The market development fund of course is new. Before very long, however, I expect the first announcement to be made of the use of this fund in creating new marketing opportunities. Of course, the emphasis on marketing comes at a time when sales have been going very well. Last July, in an attempt to give farmers a better idea of the year ahead, I was able to forecast the very real

May 7, 1971

possibility that our exports this year of all grains would reach a record total and would surpass the 685 million bushel level of many years ago. It continues to be very likely indeed that we will set this record, and that our exports may reach the 700 million bushel figure. At the present time, exports are running at a very good rate and stand well above the levels of a year ago. As of April 21, the total exports of grains stood at 430.9 million bushels compared to 267.1 million bushels a year ago. But, of course, in terms of the present year the important facts are the marketing program ahead.
The Canadian Wheat Board, with the co-operation of the railways and the elevator companies, particularly the terminals, has worked out a program which may well set a record both at Vancouver and at Thunder Bay in the course of the remaining months of this crop year. The block system is allowing a quick and efficient movement of grain when it is not impeded, of course, by forces over which we have little or no control. The delay in the opening of the seaway, one of the latest years on record, again has caused some concern in respect of our eastern program. But the Wheat Board is still confident that with the full co-operation which they have come to expect from the various agencies, 250 million bushels of grain will be moved from Thunder Bay to eastern destinations in the balance of the crop year.
noon)
This movement would be an all time record and would compare with the previous record of 221.8 million bushels which was established in the 1966 shipping season. This marketing has, of course, depended upon a sound movement of wheat and a record movement of barley as a result of our determination to be in this market, and also because of a very good movement of that new crop which has become such a successful contributor to income on the Prairies, the rapeseed crop. The record production is moving efficiently into market, and I pay tribute to all those who participate in making this market work so well.
While I emphasize the marketing aspects of our program, the fact that this year is an improved year, and that we will continue to strive for increased deliveries of grain into the markets of the world, the fact remains that there are strong forces at work which will create instability in our Canadian grains income in some situations unless measures like those before the House are put into effect.
The historic situation in regard to our marketing record shows why we must expect instability in grain income in Canada. World trade in grain is volatile. It is not at all unusual to see changes of 20 per cent or even close to 40 per cent in the amount of grain traded in the world, even in wheat alone in a given year. When one, for instance, looks at the figures for 1965-1966, one sees 2,298 million bushels of wheat traded in the world. Two years later, in 1967-1968, this figure had gone down in two stages to 1,876 million and one year later to 1,638 million bushels, a fantastic proportionate drop of 600 million bushels, or over a quarter of the total traded in 1965-66.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
In that volatile market, of course, Canada's stake is very large. We would expect again to be at levels in the order of 23 per cent of the wheat traded in the world this year, and we tended to be there except for those two very difficult years when we tried, with the full support of the producers, to maintain prices at the levels indicated by the then new International Grains Arrangement.
Not only is our share of this market large, but the important thing is that the income of our grain producers is dependent upon our export trade. Here again, only one or two other nations come close to Canada in the extent to which export trade in grain dominates the grain picture. This has always been true for wheat, or as long as we have been significant wheat producers. It is not at all unusual for us to see five or six times as much grain being traded into the export market as can be utilized at home. This means, of course, that the volatility in the export market, the ups and downs in export, will mean serious ups and downs in the income of our grain producers. This has been more true of wheat than of barley, but as we move in our determination to an export barley market of magnitude, the same factors will tend to exist in that market as well, although it is true that that market is somewhat less volatile than the wheat market.
It is also true that with our growing interest in rape-seed, we will be dependent again upon the export market and subject to the ups and downs which may exist there in regard to rapeseed. There is no doubt that the diversifying of our exports from wheat, as it was in the past, to wheat, barley and rapeseed in the future may have some effect in improving our stability. But the instability will tend to exist, as the historic pattern shows. There is no secret about the logic as to why this should be. If you put together good crop conditions in the most important producing countries in the world, the trade in grain will change very remarkably as compared with another year where poor conditions may occur in those countries. In these circumstances, our grain trade will swing up and down remarkably from the good year to the bad year.
In the past we have basically had only two mechanisms for dealing with this instability in our export trade, and both of them were very limited in their availability. The first, which came to be used from time to time, was the pulling of grain into the elevator system beyond what might be required for commercial reasons and beyond what made sense from a real cost point of view. But in the desperate situation in which grain farmers found themselves over those years, this was a technique which was used. It had some seriously bad effects in that it impeded the efficient operation of our grain handling system which became storage conscious, and indeed so full of grain that it was not able to handle grain at maximum efficiency.
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which was brought in as a method of offsetting some costs in the agricultural community in the grain sector and which, when C. D. Howe was speaking about the legislation was referred to as, in his view, a better solution than a two price system as a means of obtaining money for the grain farmer, turned out over the years to accentuate the move toward putting grain into the system, whether or not it

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
was required from a commercial point of view. This re-emphasized the tendency of having a full grain system which meant that grain could not be handled effectively, and it had the additional unfortunate effect that as the years went by it became more and more doubtful whether any of the good from the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was being passed on to the farmer because more storage space was simply being built to make use of the greater amount of money which might be paid out under the act. It is true of course that at present our storage system is perhaps still more full of grain than one might like.
There have been some comments in recent days about the amount of grain in storage, with the emphasis on wheat. But the fact of the matter is that the total amount of grain in the country elevators is not much lower than it was a year ago. On April 1, the figures showed 307 million bushels of grain in the country elevators compared with 312.1 million bushels the year before. The mix of grain was different, reflecting the new position of barley and rapeseed, and indeed even the good marketing conditions for Durum and flax in this particular year.
Wheat storage was down by 50 million bushels, but the other grains were up by 45 million bushels in total. In these circumstances, we may well want to see some further reduction of the amount of grain in storage because the point that has to be made is that grain in commercial storage is often grain in an expensive position. Some figures by the Canadian Wheat Board on the cost in 1968-69 compared with 1969-70, of handling and storing barley are very instructive in this regard. In 1968-69 producers had delivered to the Wheat Board 75,317,000 bushels of barley. In 1969-70 they delivered over twice that amount, 163,447,113 bushels of barley.
In 1968-69 the total costs of storage and handling, including the interest rates and all the administrative charges of the Wheat Board for the handling of barley added up to $7,933,000. In 1969-70 when more than twice as much barley was taken into the system and put through the system, the cost of handling, storing and administering that barley was actually a smaller amount in total dollars than in 1968-69. The total was $7,449,583. This meant, on a comparative basis, on a per bushel basis the 1968-69 cost per bushel of barley was 10.53 cents, whereas in 1969-70 it was 4.55 cents, almost 6 cents lower as a dead weight cost, gained by the better proportion of through-put to storing the barley in the subsequent year.
This meant that there was available to the farmer in the second of those two years 6 cents more per bushel on every bushel of barley he delivered to the Wheat Board in that crop year. This is what has led the Board to conclude it should not, in the farmers' interest, carry too much wheat. But of course this was not a very effective method of stabilization in any case, because once the system was plugged, and it tended to be plugged prior to August 1, it was not possible in another year to fill the system because the farmers' income situation was particularly bad. So, the only other technique available was the one which was used particularly in the last crop year,
and that was to make use of the cash advances system to allow the farmer to take more in advances than he would be able to repay in deliveries during the course of that year. This, as a way of getting cash into the farmers' hands, was in fact a tremendous help in the 1969-70 crop year, but of course the system of loans had its limitations, and indeed its difficulties from the point of view of the individual farmer.
We very much believe that the cash advances system still has an important purpose, but not by way of stabilizing income because we propose a different form of stabilization. The purpose, however, will continue to be one of obtaining cash for a farmer when delivery opportunities are not available. We foresee this happening less often because, as we see the system working now, we would hope it would not be plugged with grain as of August 1, and that grain deliveries during the harvest period, direct to the elevator, may be known again on our prairie farms.
What we propose to do, however, is to introduce through this bill a stabilization plan. This stabilization plan is effectively intended to make use of the kind of money which the government might otherwise in the past have paid out under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, although indeed it will involve more money from the government than would likely have been involved in the future under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act because of the intention and the necessity to maintain less wheat in the systems, and particularly on any August 1.
The stabilization plan is designed to obtain from the producer, on the basis of his marketing of the six principal grains, 2 per cent of their marketed value, and to match that amount with a 4 per cent payment by the government. The bill proposes in fact that particular formula for a five year period, subject to a review then to see how the fund itself is operating, but it does enshrine the principle that for every dollar going into the stabilization fund from the farmer $2 will go in from the federal treasury.
Because we have an alternative method for payment, or basing the payment on 90 per cent of marketings, the federal payment in any one year may be more than that. This really means, on the basis of the history of the past and on the projections of the likely stability in the future, payments to the farmer will tend to bring back to him $3 for every dollar he puts into the fund. In the first five years this will tend to assure, in other words, that whatever is the over-all level of grain income on the farms, the stabilization fund will mean that the farmers' income will be at 104 per cent, the 100 per cent from marketings, and the 4 per cent from the treasury, of what it otherwise would have been.
It is true we expect, as I have indicated, that our marketing thrust will tend to mean a rising level over a long period of time of gross receipts for grain. This means that the sales levels will generally be moving in an upward direction, as indeed they have in the past long period of time. But in that upward rising line of sales levels, history and logic teach us that there will be dips,

May 7, 1971

serious drops to lower levels than a previous plateau. This is why we propose the payments out of the fund will be made in each year when the total receipts from those six principal grains in the prairie region fall below the previous five year average.
Now, I may rush to say that in any year where it is exactly 99 per cent, or closer to 100 per cent than that-


Mr. Korchinski:: Dabbling in decimals.


Otto Emil Lang: -it is proposed that no payment be made. But in any year when the gross receipts are below 99 per cent, a payment will be made out of the fund to bring the producers' gross receipts up to 100 per cent of the average of the previous five years' gross receipts.


Stanley James Korchinski: Dabbling in decimals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should be allowed to make his speech, and it seems to the Chair it would be difficult for him to make his speech with this kind of interruption.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The five year average was selected essentially as a measure of a recent record of grain receipts in the prairie region. There is no particular magic about a five-year figure, but it seems to me to be the best judgment between taking too short a period, in which case the ups and downs might be too severe, or taking too long a period, in which case the earlier years, which on the whole tend to be lower years in total grain receipts and would have too much adverse effect on the basis on which we operate.
The payments out to producers are proposed to be made on the basis of the producer's own recent participation in the market, that is to say, the payments out are to be made to producers basically in proportion to their recent share of the market. Again, as a judgment on what that recent share is, we propose after the fund has been operated for three years, to use the current year and the two preceding years as the best guide to what recent marketings are. We chose the three-year figure as a balance between taking the current year figure as the most accurate reflection in one sense of a person's place in the market, which could have many ups and downs, and a longer period than three years which might have carried forward into the scheme too many factors which no longer exist in his producing picture.
We did not want to add a factor which would in any way discourage the need for a farmer to make the best possible decision about what to plant, about how to farm, in order to maximize in an ordinary year his marketing opportunities. Initially, we propose to put into the plan the $15,000 limit. This is referred to in the bill in terms of a figure which ordinarily will maintain within the plan approximately 90 per cent of the total receipts in the prairie region. It is anticipated that as need arises, the $15,000 limit which will be proposed for the first year will be adjusted to keep approximately 90 per cent of the total receipts within the plan.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Essentially, what we are saying to them is that those grain receipts produced by farmers on farms larger than a $15,000 delivery need not attract the treasury support which is contained in the stabilization plan. In other words, we are really saying that while we are delighted to see the treasury money, government money, going to the assistance of the income levels of farmers up to a certain size, and even to the operators of large farms up to that size, we do not propose that that same government money should go in a way which might encourage the farmers to grow more than may be required from the point of view from a basic, effective and efficient operation.
This leads me to say how much this emphasizes this government's real belief in the desirability of maintaining farming as a viable and effective way of life. It is very true that it is our belief that we should try to assure that the total system, where the government has any control, should be made as effective as possible to maximize returns to those involved in farming. I want to state, as a fundamental matter of our philosophy, that we do not in any way have the view that anyone should be made to move off a farm if he chooses to live on it. I want to state that most categorically, and I hope all members opposite will remember this firm statement of our view. The decision about how many people want to farm is essentially to be made by the people involved in farming.
I think it important and I urge hon. members opposite to give up their constant reference to some malicious intention on the part of the government.


An hon. Member:: That is pretty cheap politics.


Otto Emil Lang: I urge them to give this up because, not only is it cheap politics as my colleague says, but it is calculated to increase the despair and hopelessness in any group of farmers who know what their difficulties are well enough. I urge the opposition to recognize, as we do, that we should try to offer alternatives and opportunities to farmers in difficulty. We must offer to those who want to stay with farming the means to become more viable if their units are too small or where their need is for capital investment in order to diversify. We must also offer to those who want to leave farming, decent opportunities and information about what may be available elsewhere. I want to emphasize to hon. members, and the people of Canada, our belief that the men and women who want to continue to live on farms and raise their families there will do so with our assistance to make them more effective and efficient and with our assistance to put the whole matter of handling and transportation as well as the rest of the system as it pertains to them into the best possible shape.
In the bill before us there is a section dealing with a transitional payment which is related to the fact that in this Act we are proposing the repeal, for this crop year, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the government's obligation under it and the fact that the stabilization fund is not yet in effect. In our earliest proposals there was the implication that we might try to treat this

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act year as though the stabilization fund were in effect for the purposes of payout. In the long and fruitful discussions we had with farm organizations, and their leaders, however, we came to the conclusion that it would be better not to try to tie the payout to the stabilization fund formula this year. For one thing, the figures would not be available in time or in full, and for another it seemed possible this year to allow the payout to go not only to those farmers who had been marketing their full share but to those who had experienced special difficulties and, therefore, had not participated in the market as fully. It would be wrong to tie that kind of feature into a future scheme because of the way it might interfere with marketing judgments and decisions, but for this year it was possible. Here again, we believe it was right, in looking at eligible permit holders, to limit the number of acres upon which payment could be obtained to 640 acres per permit holder. This reflects not a scientific judgment about the size of a grain operation but a ball park figure which comprehends the wide range of sizes in the prairie region and is a figure related to the grain industry rather than those operations which are essentially involved in other agricultural products.
We propose that the payout be based on eligible acres, those acres in the six principal grains and in summer fallow. It would also include, however, those acres in new forage crops added last year because of the special encouragements in existence then. It would be unfair to declare those acres ineligible now. Essentially, the acres eligible are those acres which are related to the grain production involved in the stabilization fund of the future. On this basis, as soon as the legislation has received Royal Assent, we hope to issue cheques to all permit holders who had their permit books prior to March 1. We estimate at this time that the per acre payment may be $1.40 per acre eligible. This will result in an important infusion of cash into the prairie scene. I say this because, although grain deliveries have been moving at a much better rate this year than last, and even after allowing for the repayment of cash advances and the fact that the cash flow situation at this point of time is better than it has been on the prairies and will be much better in the remaining three months, there is still a serious backlog of cash deficiencies on the Prairies as a result of difficulties of past years.
The important thing that we see in the bill, however, is what it plans for the future. Under these plans a farmer will know that whatever may come to him in any year as a result of marketing conditions in that year, his income will not fall drastically; that, so long as he is participating in an average way with other farmers in that marketing, he will in those difficult years receive a payment from the fund which will bring his income up, along with that of others, to that level represented by the total five-year average of gross receipts from grain. Although we call this a stabilization plan, it is important to know that, really, it will stabilize matters in bad years by wiping out the low point. It will not destroy the high

points which can still come about. Very good years of marketing will still bring extremely good returns for the grain producer. It is the low points which are to be removed.
It was felt possible, in connection with this legislation, to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act over a three year period. We shall propose phasing out the 1 per cent contribution under PFAA, beginning with the 197172 crop year. Benefits under PFAA will still be available in that crop year and in the following year, as well as in those years in which crop insurance is not available.
It is our hope and for sometime has been our hope, that the very useful federally supported crop insurance plans will be more and more extended through provincial action to all parts of the prairie region. We see this legislation as another important part in our total plan to put agriculture on the Prairies into a better position. I urge hon. members to help in the passing of this legislation and to see that it becomes law, so that on the earliest possible date the cash payments involved may be made. Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to move the second reading of this bill and its referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's remarks about this bill. Contrary to what I said the other day, I think notice may now be sent to Mr. Thatcher that he can call an election. I understand that $100 million is up for grabs.
One ought not to be disillusioned too readily. Nevertheless, the amount of money to be paid out is not nearly as great as the government tries to pretend. This legislation is really a mirage in the making, or the result of excessive imagination. It is the result of the government's hallucinations. This government is capable of imagining things that are not correct. It suggests that it really wants to save an industry. I wonder. I remember what former Prime Minister Pearson once said. He said, "You know, when you have a half rotten egg, it is hard to know what part to discard? Which part of it do you discard?". That is precisely what this legislation is like. It is typical of the sort of legislation this government has brought before this House. This legislation is half rotten or half-baked and is typical of the legislation this government has presented to this House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And that is a half-baked argument.


Stanley James Korchinski: The point is that the appropriate message ought to be sent to Mr. Thatcher. Although I referred to the possibility of a grant concerning a pulp-mill, I think the government was actually trying to get out of a difficulty as a result of the controversy over Bill C-176 and other measures which have been brought forward.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Good Lord, what an argument.


Stanley James Korchinski: So, we find ourselves in this situation; the government is trying to buy votes on the Prairies, one by one.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Good Lord, what a thing to say.
May 7, 1971


Stanley James Korchinski: On the basis of my contact with farmers in western Canada, I am able to say that farmers have enough intelligence to read between the lines. I do not think they will be bought by legislation like this.


Mr. McBride:: Clearly, the hon. member does not want farmers to be helped. Why does he not visit my riding in Ontario?


Stanley James Korchinski: I heard my preacher friend across the way asking why I do not visit Ontario. I suggest that he might do well to listen to my remarks. I say that the government is paying out conscience money. That is all that this is, conscience money. According to Mr. Atkinson-


An hon. Member:: You don't know the western farmer, Stan.


Stanley James Korchinski: -and others who are in a position to make these observations, in the last two years western farmers have lost as much as $500 million as a result of government policies. The answer to question 1,020 in my name on the order paper suggests that the amount in question is over $600 million. In other words, that is the amount of the gross shortage in western Canada and the government is trying to make it up by paying $100 million to our farmers. I do not think for one moment that, in view of these losses, payment of this conscience money will remedy the situation in western Canada. I suggest that although Mr. Thatcher may call an election with the help of his blood brothers who will go to his province with salves and ointments, so to speak, to heal wounds, the situation will not be remedied. This legislation is a salve; it is not salvation.


Murray Arndell McBride: The hon. member is trying to give us hell and needs salvation.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is a salve. It is conscience money. That is the essence of the bill.


Murray Arndell McBride: Nonsense.


Stanley James Korchinski: If you take the $100 million out of the bill, what have you left?


An hon. Member:: Stabilized poverty.


Stanley James Korchinski: As my hon. friend says, we shall have stabilized poverty.


Murray Arndell McBride: The hon. member is afraid of being helped.


Stanley James Korchinski: If, for example, we had three years of depressed prices-


Mr. Boulanger:: If!


Stanley James Korchinski: We have had for the past three years. If the hon. member looks at the reply to my question 1020, he will see that it is not a question of "if"; it is a fact. I will quote the prices.


Prosper Boulanger: Do you have them?
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Stanley James Korchinski: The government whip does not think I have the figures. I will give him the figures. I have the figures for the equivalent receipts in each cash year from 1956-57 to 1967-68. In 1967-68, the figure was $1,092 million. In 1968-69, it was $744 million. There is another figure of $769 million. Those were the total cash receipts for all grains, including all those in the stabilization program. If the hon. member would study these figures for two days, he would understand the impact of what I am saying.
If you have a series of three years in which the government has to contribute toward the stabilization fund, for the next three years, regardless of whether there are great sales or not, you know what will happen. You will still be in abject poverty. That is what the government is stabilizing.


An hon. Member:: Poverty.


Stanley James Korchinski: The government is stabilizing poverty because they want to maintain the farmers at a normal level. It is typical Liberal philosophy.


Murray Arndell McBride: Cheap politics.


Stanley James Korchinski: If it is typical Liberal philosophy, it is cheap politics. The hon. member admits that. I did not say it, he did. It is typical Liberal philosophy to maintain stability providing everyone is in abject poverty. Try to apply that philosophy to capital gains. What is the government trying to do?


Murray Arndell McBride: That is nonsense.


Stanley James Korchinski: I agree with the hon. member that it is nonsense, but so is this bill. All the government is trying to do is keep everyone at a minimum level.


Mr. Paproski:: They want to stabilize that by-election in Assiniboia.


Stanley James Korchinski: Many aspects of this bill are objectionable. I will try to explain these objectionable features in terms that even a Liberal member can understand.


Murray Arndell McBride: We won't understand it after you explain it.


Stanley James Korchinski: If the three year average is lower, then you take money from the consolidated revenue fund to maintain the average. It is not like it used to be. The wheat pool formerly received money from the federal government which it paid to the farmers. This will no longer be the case. The payment is going to be stabilized. In other words, it will be necessary to borrow money from the federal government and pay interest to the government. This is what we talked about when debating the other bill.
If you have three successive years of tough luck, you sell at a lower price. This is what happened in the past few years. All you have to do then is pay for it in the next three years. Even if you have an opportunity to sell at a better price, you have to repay your loan first. This is exactly what is meant by abject poverty. Stabilized poverty is probably a better term. This is where we are

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act heading under this bill. Stabilization of what? Stabilization of poverty.


Prosper Boulanger: You have said that four times.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stick around and he will say it four more times.


Murray Arndell McBride: This is nonsense.


Stanley James Korchinski: This is a very stupid bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley James Korchinski: I will keep repeating that statement until it sinks in with the Liberal members. Do members opposite know what this bill does? You have an average for the past three years. I ask members to apply that to their own salaries. How do they get off with that? All I am saying is-


Prosper Boulanger: Speak to the bill.


Stanley James Korchinski: I will speak to the bill. I suggest that members opposite apply this principle to their own conditions to see how they make out with it.


Prosper Boulanger: You poor western farmer.


Stanley James Korchinski: The cost of production, fuel, taxes, owning a tractor and depreciation, all keep going up. Although the cost of producing the commodity goes up, the government is trying to stabilize the income and keep it on an even keel. The cost of production keeps going up while the level of income remains constant. This is what this bill guarantees. What kind of guarantee is this? This is not stability.


Murray Arndell McBride: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the minister spoke earlier today, he was being interrupted. I thought it was my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members that the minister should be given an opportunity to make his speech. Members on both sides thought that was a good suggestion. I think the suggestion applies equally to the hon. member for Mackenzie, and he should be given an opportunity to make his speech freely without interruption.


Stanley James Korchinski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not think I was having any difficulty. Interruptions are most welcome because they are really inspirations.


Prosper Boulanger: They are the best part of the speech.


Stanley James Korchinski: The income is to be stabilized and maintained for a period of years. Who in this country would accept the principle that he should maintain a stabilized income? No industry, union or anyone else will accept that principle, yet this government, through this minister who projects the image that he does, intends to sell it in Assiniboia and other parts of Saskatchewan. The government has to tell these people that the costs of production have not increased. I suggest they check with Mr. Thatcher because he raised the price of fuel by 2 cents one year ago.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) intends to increase the minimum wage. How can the government rationalize the fact that the cost of production is increasing, yet the level of income is to be stabilized? That is not the point. What you have to do is consider the gross returns after considering the expenses. It is very easy to figure this out. If they had figured it out on that basis, because, you know, what do you call it-what is the term, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Net social benefit.


Stanley James Korchinski: Net social benefit, that's it. I am having trouble with new terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's all it is,
just a new term.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is a new term. They figure out the total cost of producing a bushel of grain, and so on. I know these are factors that can be figured out. In the end, you can see an incline in the graph, and if this were the type of scale the minister worked on it would be readily accepted by me and I think by members of my party.
I wish to go on to another aspect of the bill. It has been said that PFAA does not really matter too much in the over-all agricultural picture in western Canada. True, there are many people in my area who would say: Fair game; we paid into the thing but we are not so willing to fight to maintain it. Yet between 1939 and 1969, the amount the federal government contributed to the farmers was something like $176 million in excess of what the farmers themselves had contributed. This may not represent an important part of the economy, yet $176 million over a period of some 30 years amounts to about $6 million a year on an average. In some years there was a greater contribution and in others it was less. The point is that the government was committed to a contribution of this type.
There are many areas in my province which are not covered by crop insurance. Crop insurance will eventually bring some benefit to those who pay for it. The point is that farmers have been contributors over the years and this in itself has meant the syphoning off of a lot of money from these people, money which is not readily available. In order to be in a position to benefit from a crop insurance program, one has to pay a certain amount of money into it. Money has to be taken out of circulation and paid into a fund.
I have some figures here which might interest hon. members. Three-quarters of the amounts are paid by the farmers and the other quarter by the federal government. In 1968, the average premium paid by farmers in the three prairie provinces was as follows: In Saskatchewan, $200; in Alberta, $295; and in Manitoba, $214. In 1969, the average amount in Manitoba was $177. In Saskatchewan, it was $157 and in Alberta it was $260. We can readily see what has happened. As soon as a bad years is experienced the farmers begin to withdraw from
May 7, 1971

this program. A lot of people may say there is no benefit to be gained from PFAA. It seems there are certain pockets, certain areas, where people do not take out crop insurance. Most of the people concerned are farmers with small farms. They will either have to enter into a crop insurance program or do without any coverage at all. Saskatchewan does not provide for full coverage, anyway. This is where the minister is remiss. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has not insisted on full coverage being provided for the entire province.
What will happen to all those people who were inspectors under PFAA, you know, those patrons of the Liberal party who were inspectors? A place for them will have to be found somewhere else. There is a place for them. They do not need to worry. They will become inspectors of the feed mills.


An hon. Member:: They are all waiting for Lift.


Stanley James Korchinski: They will be inspecting the feed mills because this is exactly what the minister intends in later legislation. They will become a little more sophisticated. No doubt they will require an increase in salary because they will need to carry sophisticated documents, and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this important bill I should like to point out that it will have an underwriting effect on the economy of western farmers for many decades. I am disappointed that the $100 million was not kept separate from the total grains stabilization program. There is an urgent necessity to make this money available to the farmers. This $100 million could have been disbursed before the passing of this complicated and far-reaching piece of legislation to establish a stabilization program.
We must scrutinize this stabilization program carefully in order to improve on it. We must watch very closely the administration and its methods of putting this money into the hands of the farmers. It is not yet clear whether the right formula has been devised in respect of producer and government contributions. We do not as yet know whether the pools should be reimbursed as a result of losses on barley and wheat in any crop year.
In his opening statement, the minister emphasized what had been done to increase grain sales and improve the farm economy. A close scrutiny of this government's policy in the past will indicate that Canadian wheat producers experienced a disaster in the 1968-69 crop year. The actual figures do not give an accurate picture of the situation because they are based on sales of grain which had been stored from the previous crop year. The fact
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act that this grain was sold in the 1968-69 crop year makes it impossible to obtain a clear set of figures for that year.
Canada sold approximately 27 million bushels of barley from the 1968-69 crop year. This is an extremely small amount and most of it went to the malting trade. That trade varies only slightly from year to year. The genial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) at that time was in charge of the Wheat Board. I asked him about the Japanese market for barley and why it had been taken over by France. The Canadian Wheat Board was holding our barley at approximately $1.00 per bushet while the French were underselling our wheat. All that was admitted was that the Wheat Board and the Canadian government were protesting to the French that they were undercutting us in our markets and this was not according to Hoyle. Nothing came of this.
But in September 1969, the Wheat Board suddenly and without warning dropped the price of barley 23 cents in one day. It went down to 78 cents or 79 cents. This was an extremely large drop and was contrary to the rules of selling whereby if you must reduce your price you reduce it a nickel at a time in the hope that you will be able to save some sales on the way down. Subsequently, we have been able to sell barley, but in the spring of 1970 it was sold at an extremely low price, unfortunately, perhaps because the Wheat Board panicked. One cannot fault the board too much for this because it could not foresee that the United States corn crop would be suffering from blight and that the loss of corn would be substantial. Also, the rise in the price of feed grain was unforeseen. The Italians, who seem to be the early buyers of barley noted that feed grain would be in short supply, so they made sharp sales. They were thus able to accumulate a considerable profit and at the same time obtain a large supply of Canadian barley at a greatly reduced price. Since then, there seems to have been some attempt to recoup this loss by increasing the price in the eastern market or our own country.
Now, what has the government done for the grains industry in this current crop year? First of all, the floating of the Canadian dollar last May has meant an almost nine per cent discount in the price of all grains sold for export. This amounts to a loss of approximately $90 million. The Wheat Board, in its own statement, states that it had to reduce the price six cents to eight cents in one day with further drops as the Canadian dollar rose higher. This has had to be absorbed by the grain trade and in the final analysis the farmer will receive $90 million less than he might have had the Canadian dollar remained at its original level. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), during the discussion of the floating of the dollar, suggested that industries severely affected would be compensated and efforts made to improve their position. So far nothing has been done for the grain trade unless one could consider the $100 million stabilization fund to be an effort in that direction. However, in practice that amount will only meet what the grains industry has lost in the past year by the rise in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar. As well, the Canadian

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
government, by phasing out the $70 million or so that was paid out of the wheat reserves fund, is saving that amount of money.
To some extent I am in agreement with the phasing out of the Wheat Rserves Act, but I believe if the money is to be used for subsidies it could be used in a better manner. While the original purpose of the Wheat Reserves Act was good, it did become clouded through becoming involved in a storage problem. None the less, I should like to point out that the wheat reserves fund represents a large amount of money that the Wheat Board paid to wheat growers at the time the wheat was delivered and, in effect, represents a part payment in that the farmer would be paid for grain before it was sold. So, the government really is not giving $100 million. It is hardly recouping the farmer for the losses suffered due to the rise in the value of the Canadian dollar alone.
Then, we have the Lift program which was touted as an effective way to reduce the amount of wheat grown and in storage. There is no doubt it did reduce the amount of wheat. It was touted in the eastern papers that it would cost about $125 million. In fact, however, I believe the figure is somewhere in the order of $65 million. The result is that we have 10 or 15 acres per farm more in summer-fallow than ever before in western Canada. I must give the minister credit for introducing a new word to describe a certain type of summer-fallow. One does not often have an opportunity to introduce a new word into the vocabulary. I suppose in a normal crop year one may have ten to 20 acres more of stubble crop. The question, however, is whether this land will eventually produce a better crop.
What is the outlook in so far as selling Canadian wheat is concerned? If we study the picture, almost 60 per cent of our sales are to Communist countries or state-directed countries. These countries generally take our lower priced grain because their standards of living are low. They are dependent on aid programs and on long-term credit. As taxpayers, I am sure most of us are happy to extend these long-term credits and I do not find fault with this. I would point out, however, that these are somewhat artificial in application. The United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and so on have accounted for slightly more than half of our sales of wheat. This is quite a depressing picture. We are slowly losing out and may lose out very rapidly. For instance, we were able to sell approximately 36 million bushels to Japan, yet the United States has been able to capture sales of 100 million bushels and they have an inferior product to ours. So, in our assessment of wheat sales we find that the increase is largely the result of aid sales and credit sales, so we are not doing all that well in the traditional markets which can afford to pay for our higher quality grain.
Now, what about our barley sales? At the present time barley prices are very low. We are not selling as much barley for future commitment. Indications are that if Canadian farmers plant 15 million bushels of barley this year, with a possible yield of 50 bushels per acre which is not uncommon, we could end up with more barley than we know what to do with. The blight problem with the
United States corn crop does not seem to be as great now as originally indicated. Also, chemicals are now available to treat the corn in order to lower the incidence of blight, so we can expect to find increased competition from corn for our barley and other feed grains. The outlook for barley, therefore, is not all that rosy. The price for barley will certainly be low even if it moves in volume.
Finally, speaking of rapeseed, which has been an extremely good crop this past year, since the advent of the amendment to the Wheat Board Act by which the minister suggests that rapeseed, along with flax and rye, be put under the Wheat Board, there has been a drop in price from 45 to 50 cents. The activity on the exchange in the area where rapeseed is presently being sold is almost nil. Although the minister assured us that he has no intention at this time of putting rapeseed under the Wheat Board Act, there seems to be a substantial fear that he might, and at present it is upsetting the trade. I hope that before rapeseed is put under the Wheat Board, representations from farmers will be heard and there will be good discussions with the producers, the marketing people, and so on, to ensure that this move is advantageous to the Canadian rapeseed industry as a whole. We cannot allow this most promising crop, of which farmers expect 500 million bushels a year although this may be too great an expectation, to be mishandled.
Turning to the income plan promoted in the grain stabilization program, I should like to point out at the onset that 2 per cent of the gross receipts, although it may not seem high at first glance, is a relatively high amount to be deducted. Therefore, if this program is to function we hope that the payout will be adequate and will be channelled in such a manner that the producers will gain from it. When one considers that it is estimated that the net income of a farmer is only 15 per cent of his gross, 2 per cent of the gross income is a great deal of money. Like all businesses, farming in particular is run on a very narrow margin, so the commitment to deduct 2 per cent for every 4 per cent which the government puts in, has its advantage. It certainly indicates, however, that the producer will be carrying a large part of the burden.
What about the payout? It is with regard to the payout in the plan that I have most misgivings. First of all, payments are not to be made on the basis of an individual's loss but rather are to be based on the loss in the whole designated region, that is the prairie region, as against the practice in the past five years. Although perhaps people in other parts of Canada may regard the Prairies as one region, in practice they are three rather distinct provinces. My own province of Manitoba is considerably different from the other Prairie provinces. It's farm and grain economy differs from the Saskatchewan wheat district. It might happen that the province of Manitoba might experience a crop failure or a drop in sales but it would not receive any payment because the other two provinces may have a larger than normal sale of grain. Even though they might experience a crop failure but are able to sell wheat in storage that particular. Ritchie.]
May 7, 1971

lar year, they would not be entitled to a payment under the plan. The payment is not even to be made on a regional basis. The plan might have something to commend it if the payment were to be made on a regional basis.
Under the previous plan as well as under PFAA, payments would be made on the basis of the need of an individual person. I suggest that the minister look at the possibility of making payments to crop districts into which areas are divided. Then, he might consider an equal distribution of payment to individual farmers. At least in that way, although a farmer in a certain area might have a good crop, the crop district as a whole would receive a payment if a crop that year were generally poor. In fact, the only way in which the plan could function fairly would be if the individual producer could receive a payment according to the condition of his crop, even though the whole area had a good crop that year and there were no general payout.
This is a blunderbuss type of payout. Under this legislation, payments will be made to farmers who do not need it and who may well have had the best year of their farming lives, while no payments will be made to individuals or areas which have experienced crop losses. Even if a whole province had little to sell that year, it still might not meet the qualifications for a general pay out.
As I understand the intention of the minister in this legislation, a farmer who in the third year has guessed right so far as the market is concerned and has sold more than an average crop will be rewarded, and this would make agriculture more efficient. There may be something to be said for this, but I think the plan is too nebulous and farming is still too variable. It cannot be refined to this extent. The receipt of a payment would depend too much on the luck of the draw. It seems to me that under this program payments will not be made to those who need or deserve assistance.
It is obvious that the grain stabilization plan is in no sense a crop insurance plan. It is purely a general income plan whereby when the income in a whole area drops, money will be put into the area according to a certain formula. I believe that this plan is not sufficiently refined to be adequate. Since considerable money will be paid out, I hope that some thought will be given to improving the plan so that when an individual farmer receives a payment his needs will be more related to the payment. The minister in his statement suggested that the government policy was designed to keep small scale farmers on the farm. In speaking to this very point, I should like to quote in part an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Otto-Man Empire". I reads:
The admitted objective of Bill C-176 is to depopulate farms at the lower end of the economic scale. Under it, the stabilization clauses will drain income from these smaller farmers, and will have little benefit for them. At the other end of the farm economic scale, the quota system could easily bankrupt viable farmers who have heavy capital investment in their farms. They must be free to produce to the maximum in order to pay interest, and amortize their debts. If their quota does not permit them to do this, their earnings will not be sufficient to meet payments.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
The minister suggests that the objective of the government program is to keep the small scale farmers on the farm. According to the Canadian Dairy Commission,
25,000	producers were phased out in 1968, of whom 75 per cent were in western Canada. Nearly all of them were small producers. I doubt that phasing out the dairy quota was a proper way to keep farmers on the land, but that is what the minister has suggested.
In the grain stabilization program there is a provision dealing with pool payments, stipulating that pool payments will be made out of the fund to take care of any pool losses incurred during the crop year. I am sure this is a harmful provision. If enacted there would be little incentive for the Wheat Board to make sure it did not have pool losses. Further, it is wrong to take the payment out of the fund to which farmers may have contributed, even though at the time the losses are incurred they do not have any grain in the pool. It is a provision that we should examine very carefully.
I hope the government will consider changing this provision. If this is to be an income stabilization program it should not be a stabilization program for pool accounts, to make up losses when those concerned have made errors and over-estimates. There is enough instability in the grains industry, and the minister took great pains to tell us about it this morning, without adding the further instability of taking money out of the fund in order to make up pool losses.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this bill is increasing the regulatory powers of government, of bureaucracy, over the grains industry. When this program is fully implemented the grain farmer will be so regulated that he will not know which way to move. The minister proposes to make it easier for the Wheat Board to reach its commitments, because having reached a goal of 20 bushels per authorized acre it will have no stimulus to increase sales beyond that, unless such increased sales just fall in its lap. So, Mr. Speaker, we are headed into a very regulated, regimented type of grains program, judging by this and other legislation on the order paper. I hope that when the bill is considered in committee changes will be made to make it more workable, and particularly make it more effective for the producer in a time of need.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this proposal by the government undertakes to chart the future of the grains industry, not just of the wheat industry, but of the total grains industry of western Canada for some years ahead. Even more than that, it proposes to pattern the lives of people and of the communities within which they live. Taken with rail line abandonment, which will come about in full force in another three or four years, it may very well change many of the communities and much of the pattern of living in western Canada.
I suppose I should not be surprised that before the debate got properly under way the minister's office issued a press release accusing the opposition of deliberately
5610

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act working against the interests of prairie farmers by delaying passage of important new grains legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen how the minister at times chides the opposition. It depends upon his mood. If the minister is a bit more put out than usual, he lets off a blast at us. If he is not really very much put out he rises in his place and chides us in schoolmasterly fashion for not being as willing and able as he to get on with the business, and for not being good boys. I can tell him he does neither himself nor the government much service adopting that approach.
The government can be charged with tying the proposed payments this year to this bill in order to force its passage through the House, and denying a full opportunity to those of us who are interested in farming to examine thoroughly what the bill will do. We must first examine the situation the bill is intended to deal with, and that situation is the present condition of grain farming.
Grain farming is seriously depressed, and one has only to look at the figures to verify the fact. Returns from grain production in Saskatchewan have declined steadily from 1967 to 1970, the last year for which we have official figures. Over all it declined in round figures from $976 million to $690 million in 1970. Those are the kinds of averages with which the proposed stabilization fund will be dealing. To put it another way, I quote a speech made by the minister last October:
Prairie farm cash receipts from the six major grains (wheat, oats, barley, rapeseed, flaxseed and rye) were $878 million in the 1969-70 crop year, down $270 million from the average of $1,148 million for the preceding five years.
This is the point of departure, Mr. Speaker. It is from here that we proceed. The minister is bringing forth a proposal which he says will meet that shortfall, or will enable farmers to meet that shortfall. If it is not a policy to meet that shortfall, then I do not understand how the government can introduce this bill as a measure to meet the needs of prairie farmers. This should be the first consideration of the government, but I doubt that it is. The government is looking at ways to keep a system going rather than to keep farmers going. This program makes the assumption that, at the level which the government is talking about, farmers will survive. I question whether that assumption can be made in light of the figures and information given by the minister himself in his statement to the House.
When you look at the deductions and the contributions they are proposing-$1 billion at 6 per cent produces roughly $60 million a year and this is supposed to run the stabilization program

you wonder if it is even actuarily sound. Although the minister has been asked, he has not chosen to release any of the figures or working papers from his department to show how they arrive at the assumption. Perhaps when we go into it in committee the minister will be able to come forward with figures to show how it will work.
Clause 15 of the bill provides that this fund will also be charged with any deficits in the pools operated by the
Canadian Wheat Board. If the government carries through its intention to put rye, flax and rapeseed under the Wheat Board, then it will cover the total grain industry. The assumption that this sort of program will ensure that the industry will survive is not well founded for the reasons I have stated. The bill takes no account of the cost of production. We are expected to believe that in an economy where banks, industry, labour and the professions seek increases at least commensurate with the increase in cost of living, the agricultural industry in western Canada will survive by stabilizing its income on the level of the previous five years, even if that trend continues downward.
The whole trend of the pricing assumptions in this bill, and the approach by the government follow the direction and the policy of the agriculture task force recommendations. That policy was to sell grain on world markets for whatever it would bring and, if possible, to clean up whatever crop came forward each year. This is the thrust of this bill. It also makes the assumption that we can carry on without a storage policy because it makes no provision for assistance in storage. It does not say how the farmers are going to carry the storage charges without any financial aid. The minister's document of last October states clearly that it is the plan to encourage adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size. This is definitely a part of the policy. We do not know how many farmers will be able to remain in business and this information is not given.
A press release today quoted the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as saying in committee yesterday that the Farm Credit Corporation would be used as an instrument to adjust farm size and to provide the credit for adjustment of the agricultural industry. We tried to get information about the amount of money involved in this program but we still have not got it.
The bill ignores the importance of farmers as consumers as well as producers. There is no consideration of the necessity to maintain the earning power of farmers as consumers or to maintain their communities. It accepts the fact of the irregularity of demand for grain in the overseas market and the minister has accepted this in his statement. The bill rejects the need for storage and an inventory program so that we can have the capacity to hold grain in position to meet the irregularity of the market demand.
If he wishes, the minister may say that the storage program for wheat under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act caused some distortion but is the answer to throw it out, lock, stock and barrel and not put anything in its place? The storage system of this country has always acted as a sort of bank for the export market. Now, the minister chooses to say that it is either no longer necessary to have this function performed or that the farmer is not going to be assisted to carry it, or that he can carry it himself. The government leaves grain storage and the transportation system, and all that is involved in them, home-free and says to the farmer that he can carry whatever costs are involved.
The government accepts the fact of irregularity of weather and drought in this country or if they do not,

May 7, 1971

they have not been around long enough. However, they ignore and destroy the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and put nothing in its place. They say, "We will carry it on for 1971 and phase it out in 1973 and governments can move in with crop insurance programs." There has to be a reason that the crop insurance program has never taken hold in the Palliser triangle, the great semi-arid wheat growing region of western Canada, but I wonder if this government knows it. The reason is that the premiums are too high in comparison with the risk, so the system is ignored in that area. The government could have used the PFAA and adjusted it to an effective crop insurance program for that area, but instead they wanted to lay their hands on every dollar they could to bolster this stabilization program so that it would not cost the government any more than it is costing them now. They wanted to grab the money in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the amounts out of the crop insurance program and to recover some of the cost of subsidized interest programs in selling grain overseas. They wanted to lay their hands on all these things and put them into a total package which they could present to the people saying, "We have a program; we are doing something really big." In fact, they are only juggling figures and destroying, without thought of replacement, at least two programs that have served the farmers in many ways in the past, instead of updating these programs and making them function.
The decisions to be made will be important. They will control of the Wheat Board and there are no provisions for farmers to participate. There are charges in the quota system which the farmer will have to live with. These are significant changes and will require significant adjustments on the part of the farmer. We are left with the assumption that all these decisions are to be made in Winnipeg and Ottawa, that there will be no machinery set up enabling farmers to participate in these decisions in order that there may be some feed back and communication. If in five or six years from now there is unrest in the country over the total program, the reason for that in part will be that farmers will not have been participating in the decision making process.
When contemplating the last appointment which was made to the WTheat Board, the government ought to have appointed someone from one of the various farm organizations who would have been closer to farmers and had a background in farming. The government chose not to do so. Instead, it reached back into one of the Federal government departments and appointed a man from that level.
The decisions to be made will be important. They will affect farmers day by day, their income and how they live. I heard some useful comments in this area at a seminar in Saskatoon under the auspices of the University of Saskatchewan. It was made by one of the people who has worked on the program. At the seminar there was an assistant professor named Storey, an economist with a farming background. He made some comments
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
which I do not suppose will affect the course the government is adopting, but in part he said:
I believe that income fluctuation is a problem but it is not the major problem. The Income Stabilization Plan is directed at reducing the problem of income fluctuations but it does little or nothing toward solving the problem of an adequate level of income, whether stable or unstable over time. There appears to be little or no additional money for the farmer in this program because the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act were given up so there would be government money for this program.
This statement was made at the seminar in Saskatoon by a professor at the University of Saskatchewan. That was an opinion expressed at that meeting by an intelligent observer. He was right. Although we hear on the news and are told by farming organizations that farm income has dropped by 50 per cent, the government persists in its parsimonious and ill advised course of action and ignores the plight of the farmers of western Canada. Of course, if the minister does not want to heed the remarks I have just quoted, perhaps he would care to listen to the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, Dave Steuart.


An hon. Member:: A great Canadian.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: For you he may be a great Canadian, but for me he is slightly less of a disaster, so help me, than this government. Here, the important decisions are made and the provincial people make the secondary ones, then stand in their places and cheer the stabilization bill. Why? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. They cheer because $100 million is coming in their direction. But what will that do for our farmers in the future? Hon. members can cheer that provincial government. I do not blame them. They are stuck with it but I am not, and that is the essential difference between us.


An hon. Member:: Hon. Members over there can have that provincial government.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: According to a statement put out by that provincial treasurer, farmers in Saskatchewan owe, on the average, between $1,070 and $1,250 in respect of cash advances. They are in debt to that extent, and this government proposes to stabilize them in that condition. This bill is designed to make sure that they will remain in that condition. It is designed to get the government off the hook so that farmers and provincial ministers cannot come back and say, "But you should do this or that in terms of sales, assistance or storage. This bill is designed to get the government nicely off the hook. They will be able to say to farmers in western Canada, just as they have said to the big cities of Canada, "This is really not our concern; it is a provincial responsibility, and you people can struggle with it." That is the position into which the government is putting itself. They will distribute the $100 million, but the program will not really be tied to grain other than through the permit book. In many cases, the money will not be distributed properly or fairly.
Over the week end a farmer in Saskatoon said to me, "How will this work out?" He said that he has two sons
5612

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act in partnership but that the Wheat Board will only allow them one permit book. I ask, what will be the position of the corporation and of the co-operative? I am speaking of the sort of corporation in Manitoba and Alberta in which a father and two or three sons jointly operate a farm. There is no provision in this bill for them and I can foresee considerable difficulties. I do not know if the minister has something in the works to look after these things. He did not say he had when he spoke but then, of course, he referred to the more attractive parts, if there are attractive parts, of this program.


An hon. Member:: There are attractive parts.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Does the hon. member think so? I want to tell the hon. member something, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: It's about time.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the people of Canada were paying what they should be paying for wheat produced in western Canada, which is at least another $1 a bushel, we could put as much money into this program every year as the government is proposing to put into it, and even more. We could do that if we were paid for our wheat what we ought to be paid. We could put more into the program. A Winnipeg Tribune story says-and the minister may deny it-that the minister was in favour of establishing higher prices for wheat sold domestically in Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Has the hon. member read clause 32(4) which provides that in the special case where a couple of producers or more farm together under one permit book, a bigger share is to be allowed them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the government is to do that, that will be helpful.


Mr. Osier:: It is in the bill.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is good.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The bill the hon. member is talking about.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is to be found at page 19, beginning at line 10.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: There will be more problems if-


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is there in English and in French.


An hon. Member:: He can read neither language, e (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think it would be helpful
if hon. members engaging in the debate would direct their remarks to the Chair.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I try to be as courteous as possible. The minister wanted to draw attention to something in the bill which I had overlooked and I appreciate his doing so.
I will get back to the point I was making. This approach overlooks many of the practical things which

could have been done to meet the need which exists because of low farm incomes in western Canada. I am afraid that there will be insufficient participation by producers and more decisions in the pattern of those which made up the Lift program. After the event we see the mistakes and try to correct them. There will be a real distortion in price patterns.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You change your philosophy every day.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am sorry; I did not hear the minister. We could have done just as much by getting a decent price for the product the farmer is selling. We shall move away from the position we occupied previously of looking at initial prices from two points of view-first, what the market will return and, second, the need of the farmer for income. This is one of the most serious aspects of the government's approach. I do not think it is realistic or practical to expect the Canadian grain farmer to compete in world markets against subsidized grain exports of other countries without aid in meeting his cost of production, without the benefit of subsidies.
I have serious doubt that we can maintain a viable working and capital structure within the grain economy no matter how much adjustment the government is able to force on the farmer or persuade him to accept. I do not think there will be sufficient total income forthcoming to enable us to maintain a viable farming structure unless marketing conditions improve drastically within the next two or three years.
I should like to move an amendment seconded by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That Bill C-244 be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the said bill should be withdrawn and that the government should consider introducing in its place two separate bills, the first of which would deal exclusively with the proposed special transitional payments, and the other with the principle of prairie grain stabilization payments.
I move this amendment because I believe the House should have an opportunity to consider objectively the full implications of the stabilization legislation the minister has brought before us. I do not think the opposition should be placed in such a position that if and when it debates the bill it is accused of preventing the measure from passing the House and, by implication, depriving farmers of the amount the government proposes to distribute.
If the minister believes the measures he proposes are sound and in the interest of prairie farmers, I challenge him to separate the $100 million payment, which is merely the recognition of the desperate situation of prairie farmers, from the rest of the bill. Then let him bring in the measure he proposes and let it be debated on its merits in this House and in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. If he follows this course, hopefully it will be possible to make some amendments, certain revisions, so that the bill may serve the purpose which it should serve.
The concern should be not only to stabilize the prairie grain industry but also to ensure that farmers in western
May 7, 1971

Canada have sufficient income to maintain a viable industry with an adequate working capital. The figures I have quoted today and which the minister himself quoted in his statement last October tell anyone who reads them that we face a situation in western Canada in which farm capitalization and the farming structure generally will no longer be viable. The minister will not have to worry about helping people to get out of farming; they will be going. The sad fact is that they will be going out broke. It is fine to say they can be retrained, but I do not know where the government intends to send people from the farms when there are at present 700,000 unemployed in Canada, many of them with skills and training. I do not know if he intends to do anything about it. I do not know what advice he got from farm organizations, but at least one press release from the National Farmers Union suggested it did not have undiluted enthusiasm for this bill.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool indicated on March 16 that the board of directors contended that 2 per cent of gross receipts from producers as a contribution is too high in relation to the plan's benefits. The board also suggested the plan should include features to take care of steadily rising costs of production. Within the last month we have experienced an increase in the price of fuel. This apparently is being ignored. The government must think that a farmer is some kind of a magician who can pull dollars out of a hat and continue to live and function on the income figure the minister has quoted. Surely the minister should pay some attention to these facts pointed out by the directors of the wheat pool.
The assessment of 2 per cent of the gross income of farmers is perhaps the worst way to collect money. It is in effect a total production tax. It does not amount to a contribution; it is a production tax of 2 per cent. This is like a property tax on your farm; you pay it whether you make money or not. Why did the minister not relate the tax, or the contribution, to income? Apparently there would not be sufficient return if it were based on net income so the minister decided to base it on gross income.


Otto Emil Lang: How do you figure it?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is not difficult. A contribution of 2 per cent on gross income is 2 per cent on the gross. If there is another way of putting it, I would be glad to listen to another interjection from the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: I should be delighted to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For what reason is the hon. minister rising?


Otto Emil Lang: I am rising to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member seems to know how this can be done, calculated on the basis of net income, I should like to ask him how we are to distinguish between appropriate premiums in respect of well operated farms and poorly operated farms? How do we distinguish between different types of land and operations and a thousand and one other things I could list?
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I tell the minister that if I were going to devise a method to help out people in an industry which was known to be in serious economic difficulty, I would not start off by taking money away from them. That is my first point of departure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some observations about the procedural aspect of the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). If there is consent that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar should continue, I will recognize him.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I express appreciation to hon. members for extending my time. I do not want to say a great deal more. I will wind up my remarks very quickly. If I wanted to take 2 per cent of someone's net income, or the net income of a group of people, I expect I would do the same as the minister has done; I would say to some of the boys in the back room, "Figure out a way to make this assessment based on net income. Tell me how to do it".


Otto Emil Lang: They said it was impossible.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I suggest in all sincerity that it is wrong in the first place to make a deduction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Get some new back room boys.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All I can suggest is that the minister has ignored the major problem outlined by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. I have in mind the increase in production costs. This over-all program ignores that fact; nothing is mentioned about production costs. There is nothing envisaged in this bill to meet the short fall which now exists in the farming economy or the increase in production costs which exists throughout Canada and which in all likelihood will continue. That is all I can say to the minister.
In closing, let me tell a story about a chap who delivered grain to an elevator. The farmer hauled his grain to the elevator and the agent made up a little ticket. The farmer asked what an item on the ticket was for and the agent replied that it covered dockage. The farmer asked what the next little item was and the agent told him it was to cover shrinkage. The farmer said, "I do not understand dockage and I do not understand shrinkage but I know there is too much 'takeage' ". That is your problem, Mr. Minister.


An hon. Member:: Ho, ho, ho!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Chair recognizes another hon. member perhaps I should make some comments in respect of the procedural aspect of the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
intend to invite the hon. members to assist me in deciding upon its acceptability. It might be helpful if I read the motion, which is as follows:
That Bill C-244 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the said bill should be withdrawn and that the government should consider introducing in its place two separate bills, the first to deal exclusively with the proposed special transitional payments, and the other to deal with the principle of prairie grain stabilization payments.
Without making a judgment, I should like to point out that the proposed motion does not oppose the principle of the bill but suggests that it be divided. Hon. members will recall what was said last evening by the Chair in respect of a point of order dealing essentially with the same question.
The matter of dividing a bill seems to attach conditions to its passage. The Chair must decide first if the amendment is acceptable. The Chair must keep in mind the factors enumerated last evening in respect of dividing or separating portions of a bill. I would also invite hon. members to assist me in respect of the suggestion that a reasoned amendment should be declaratory of a principle and, of course, must fall within the four corners of the bill.
Let me refer again to the words of the motion. It states that the bill should be withdrawn and the government should introduce, in its place, two separate bills. With respect, it is my feeling that the hon. member is not opposing the principle of the bill but is suggesting another way in which the government could deal with essentially the same subject matter. Having said this, I invite hon. members to assist me on this procedural question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have covered most of the essential points I should like to make in objecting to the form of the amendment. It is clear it is in effect an attempt to bring back in, or to bootleg in a different way the point of order which was rejected at the beginning of the debate on the bill before us. Further, it would seem to me a fundamental objection that the motion to bring it back in two bills, apart from being unacceptable on the ground Your Honour mentioned would in effect direct the bringing back of bills which would require at least in one case, a form of resolution and in that sense it would affect the former resolution. This would be a rather exceptional way for an opposition amendment to effect the spending of money contrary to the rules of this House.
It is also clear that throughout the debate and the consideration of this matter before the bill was introduced, the parts sought to be separated have been clearly labelled as inseparable from the point of view of government policy and principle in respect of the bill and therefore the separation, if it were effected, would have the effect of defeating the bill. If the hon. member wishes to defeat the bill he can do so by voting against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to decide for myself what

kind of a mood the minister is in today. I saw the press release he put out this morning which I do not believe was designed to speed up things. Now he accuses the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) of doing some bootlegging and then sits down having said that members who are opposed to the bill can vote against it. I do not understand this kind of mood and perhaps I should stick to the point of order.
I say to you, Sir, and to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that there is quite a difference between the Chair ruling as it did last evening that it does not have the authority to instruct that a bill be separated into two parts, and the House deciding on the basis of its authority that this is what it wants done. The fact that the Chair ruled last night that there is no procedural basis on which to insist it be divided does not prevent the House from deciding that that is what it would like.
The minister just now repeated that point and then made the statement that the government has decided that these parts are inseparably bound together. We have a Speaker in the chair with certain responsibilities and we have a government with certain responsibilities. However, we also have a House of Commons which has certain rights. I submit it is within the prerogatives of the House of Commons to request that any step be taken. The manner in which that request is made must be procedurally proper, but I submit that the decision of the government that the different parts of this bill are inseparable, and the decision of the Chair that it could not demand the splitting of the bill, do not stand in the way of the House of Commons deciding this is what it wants done. Of course, it would require not only that the motion be procedurally proper but also that the mover of the motion could obtain a majority of the votes in the House for that to be done.
The minister also said he thought the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar contravened the rules about a private member's motion involving the expenditure of money. That, again, falls to the ground pretty quickly because the amendment suggests the government should consider introducing in its place two separate bills. It has been established time after time that although a private member cannot move anything involving the expenditure of money, he can move that the House ask the government to consider doing something even though, as I say, it might involve the expenditure of money.
Now we come to a couple of points raised by the Chair. The Chair wonders whether the position taken in this amendment is one of opposition to the principle of this bill. Well, what is the principle of this bill? We on this side are impressed by the fact that its principle, as it appears to us, is to combine two things which we think ought not be combined. We think it is pretty fundamental that we are being asked to vote at one and the same time on a $100 million hand-out and on a long-term stabilization program. We feel we have the right to oppose that principle of asking us to vote at one and the same time on two things which we do not think should be put together.
May 7, 1971

I might also point out what is said in citation 382 of Beauchesne. This citation has been read from the floor and the chair so often that we ought to know it by heart. It is a citation which contains a good many clauses and therefore is like some things in the Bible; you can prove anything if you read it the right way. Citation 382 reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill-
That is my hon. friend's suggestion. He has special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of this bill. The citation continues:
-to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-
I think he is doing that in that he is opposed to the principle of putting these two things together. I underline these next few words:
-or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction-[DOT]
That describes this amendment perfectly. The hon. member is expressing an opinion on the circumstances connected with the introduction of this bill, namely, that it includes in it two things which ought not to be there together. The citation continues:
-or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress-
When we look at citation 382 we see that although it has many clauses it is clear that for an amendment to fall within its terms it does not have to meet all of them but certainly has to meet some of them. I submit it meets the condition of being opposed to the principle of putting these two things together, and is also critical of the manner in which this bill is being introduced and the manner in which its prosecution is being sought. I suggest, therefore, that the member should have the right to put this request to the House in the form of a motion.
I come back in my concluding remarks to the point I dealt with at the beginning. There are a number of things which arise in this House which can be decided in one or other of two ways. If a member seeks to move a motion for adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, the Speaker has the complete say on that and if he rules against it, that is the end of the motion. But if a member seeks to move the same motion the next day under Standing Order 43, it is not the Speaker who makes the decision then but, rather, the House. There are other examples of the same situation, and I think that is what we have here.
We accept the ruling that the Chair made last night that the Chair does not have the right to direct that the bill be divided, but that does not deny to the House the right, if it so wishes by a majority vote, to call upon the government to divide the bill. There is no question that that is in essence what the amendment is, an attempt to divide the bill so that two parts which we do not think are related can be dealt with separately. But it is our contention that in terms of the requirements for an
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
amendment on second reading, this one should be allowed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If no other hon. members would like to assist the Chair, I would be prepared to make a ruling on the amendment of the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave).
I indicated initially, before inviting comments and assistance from hon. members, the questions that the Chair had in mind. I thank the minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for assisting me in deciding whether or not the amendment is procedurally correct. Perhaps I did not emphasize that one of my main concerns was that the amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill. I think it does oppose the form of the bill. Whether or not the bill is in a form in which members would like to consider it may be a matter of argument among hon. members, and I do not pass judgment on this. I do suggest, however, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I do this with great respect-that citation 382 of Beauchesne on which the hon. member relies to a great extent deals with the matter of the principle of a bill. I should like to read the citation as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principles adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill

It seems to me that for the amendment to be acceptable procedurally it must be in opposition or adverse to the principle of the bill, not to the form of the bill. That is what gives me a great deal of concern. In essence, the hon. member's amendment says that the bill should be divided. It does not quarrel with the principle of the bill. It does, however, quarrel with the form in which the bill is presented to the House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre argued very forcibly that there is a difference for the Chair to take into consideration as between the point of order which was before the Chair last evening and the reasoned amendment that the Chair now has before it. I say with respect that I find some difficulty in following the argument of the hon. member to its conclusion.
It seems to me that the Chair has a responsibility, whether the question is raised on a point of order or by means of an amendment, to determine whether or not it is procedurally correct and one that can be put to the House. The question last evening was whether or not the motion for second reading of the bill could be put to the House. This was raised on a point of order. I cannot see too much difference between the two methods from a procedural standpoint. It is the procedural question, of course, with which the Chair must be concerned, whether it is raised on a point of order or in the manner suggested today by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar in which he proposed that the bill should be divided and put to the House in a different form.
So I suggest, without repeating my initial concern but adding to it these remarks, that it seems to me the opposition to the bill as set out in the hon. member's

May 7, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act amendment is an opposition to the form of the bill and is not an opposition to the principle of the bill. He is suggesting that the way in which the House should deal with it should be changed. Again, that is a matter of debate but it seems to me that it is not acceptable as a reasoned amendment. Therefore, I must rule that I cannot accept it.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have waited a long time for an opportunity to speak this afternoon and
1	am glad now to be able to speak on Bill C-244, an act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sales. I would like to say at the outset that I believe that a form of stabilization of farm grain sales is popular among prairie grain producers.
I should like to deal with one of the most important aspects of the program. I believe that it is basically designed to establish a policy with an initial interim payment of $100 million to western farmers in the current crop year. It is designed to hold cash farm receipts at a predetermined level. The fund itself will be on a two to one ratio, the government contributing 4 per cent of the total receipts for each year and farmers contributing
2	per cent of their total up to an average cash receipt of $15,000 payable from any one farm. This will mean the total that any one farm will end up paying in any one year is $300.
At first glance, the idea of having a relatively stable income in the grain industry has a basic attraction, although the plan does have faults, one fault being that it ignores completely the cost of living or the inflation factor. We all know that the cost of living has risen rapidly in the past few years. I believe that the inflation rate quoted by a good many economists is now 4 per cent to 4| per cent a year. If this plan were to be implemented in the form proposed by the minister, this inflation rate or factor would be completely ignored and the burden would be on the agricultural producers who were unfortunate enough to be affected in this way.
In other segments of our society, when there is bargaining at any level this is one of the costs that is automatically built into the bargaining mechanism, but because the government is dangling $100 million in front of western Canadian farmers in the current crop year they feel they can accept such a plan. In reality, farmers will find that when the plan is in effect they will end up in a situation similar to the present one. If the plan is to be of any real benefit to the grain growing community we should consider this aspect when the legislation goes to committee.
The plan does consider the industry as a whole but, I suggest, only on a gross receipts basis. As I mentioned before, it does not take into consideration the costs of production, inflation, etc. One of the real faults of this kind of legislation is that it ignores the individual farmer or grain producer. This could happen in Manitoba where due to weather conditions farmers might have a small crop but under normal conditions they would qualify for a stabilization payment. But if Saskatchewan, which produces most of the grain grown in western Canada, had a good crop, and Alberta also, thus keeping the average up

to the point where there was no need for a stabilization fund, Manitoba farmers paying into the fund would receive no real benefit whatsoever, when in reality they should receive some payment.
That is why this legislation is similar to Bill C-176, the marketing boards bill, that we have all been talking about. Basically, it is poorly drafted legislation in that it ignores the rights of individual producers affected by it. It gives the power and control to the government, to the civil service, and takes it out of the hands of the producer. When the legislation is being considered in committee, an alternative that could be examined is a plan devised on a net income basis, as suggested earlier this afternoon, thus allowing for variations in cost factors. As we all know, cost factors vary greatly from the Red River Valley in Manitoba to central Saskatchewan or to a spot in northern Alberta.
I do not believe that there are many western farmers who would not like to have their income stabilized at a reasonable level, although there are a great many farmers who do not believe that the proposed grain stabilization program will adequately meet their needs. It was felt, and I believe rightly so, that if contributions were to be made by grain growers to the stabilization plan, they should be based on a maximum of 1 per cent of their gross sales, of course with the assurance that PFAA was to be discontinued, and as we see in this legislation, it is to be discontinued.
If we are to look at some form of government stabilization for the grain industry, then I believe the government should be paying a greater percentage than it is. I say this in light of the kind of legislation with which we are dealing. If the government is bound and determined to meddle in the affairs of farmers, then the federal treasury should be prepared to shell out more money than is proposed in this piece of legislation. Payments from the fund could then be matched by the government on a one to six ratio, meaning that for each $1 that the farmer contributed, the federal government would pay $6.
I would also like to see a provision that contributions by producers to the fund would cease when the fund had accumulated $100 million at any one time. Then, of course, interest could be added to any balance in the fund. As I stressed previously, payments to producers from the stabilization fund should include a factor directly related to the changes in the cost of inputs into production. A program such as this should be subject to a complete review annually, Mr. Speaker. I suggest it should not be reviewed by the civil service and by the minister himself. It should be reviewed at the local farm level, giving people directly affected by it a chance to voice their criticism or praise of the program. In this connection I refer to clause 22 of the bill which provides:
The minister shall establish an advisory committee consisting of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by him from among producers and representatives of producer organizations.
(2) The advisory committee established under subsection (1) shall
(a) meet at least once a year; and
May 7, 1971

(b) advise the minister with respect to the administration of this act.
I do not think this is good enough. I think the producers affected by the legislation are the people who should have some say with respect to how they believe the act is working.
These are the questions that this program raises, Mr. Speaker. Should a farmer be able to get all or part of his equity out of the fund if and when he decides to stop farming? An example of this would be a farmer who had paid $1,000 into the fund. On retiring from farming, should he be repaid that $1,000 in equity? Here I refer to a portion of clause 5, on page 5 of the bill, which stipulates that if a farmer ceases to farm, or dies, two years must elapse before the money he has accumulated in the fund can be freed. After the program is in operation, Mr. Speaker, how will someone just beginning to farm be able to participate in it? These are just some of the many questions that programs such as this raise in my mind and in the minds of a good many grain producers in western Canada. I hope we will be able to deal with them more fully at committee stage.
One of the real fallacies of the plan concerns the $100 million that the government will give the farmers in the coming year. If one looks at the plan a little more closely, one can see that the $100 million is made up in part by the termination of the Wheat Reserves Act and also the termination of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Out of the $100 million to be paid by the government this year, I believe the cost to the treasury would be $42 million, counting on the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as paying out approximately $52 million, plus a 1 per cent deduction under PFAA to be turned over to the general revenue fund of $5 million.
So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what the minister has been stating from time to time is not completely true, particularly when he says that the government will be paying out $100 million to the farmers. In reality, a good portion of the amount to be paid to the farmer will be money that he has coming to him. Instead of looking at a figure of $100 million coming from the federal treasury, we should be looking at a greatly reduced figure. This program should be explained to the Canadian people in its proper light.
As mentioned by a previous speaker, clause 15 provides for deficits on pool accounts to be met from the grain stabilization fund. In this connection I would like to quote briefly from a speech made by Mr. Frank Hamilton, at one time chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, who said:
We have to level out the yearly ups and downs in the grain industry. Farmers must be able to plan ahead and not just be stabilized at a poverty level. I read with interest an Ottawa release about a $100 million payment into the western economy this summer. I think that's great and I'm all for it. It went on to say, however, that losses on grain pool accounts will be recovered from the stabilization fund. I just wonder how many producers in western Canada realize that the last pool account- wheat 1968-69-required $119,548,299 from the government of Canada in order to break even. If you doubt this, take a look at the supplementary report of the Canadian Wheat Board, 1968-69. It puts the $100 million in its proper perspective-$20 million short on that particular pool.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
I am in basic agreement with the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act because I believe that act has had a tendency to create an overabundant supply of wheat simply because of the nature of the act itself. It is still not completely clear in my mind whether the abandonment of the Wheat Reserves Act would create storage problems for producers and elevator companies. I believe that the present facilities have not been used to the maximum. This was accentuated in the rail tie-ups that took place across the country some months ago.
The consideration must be that with the termination of the storage payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, elevator companies will be short of income. If the co-operative and private elevator systems are to be modernized and rationalized as I believe they must be, earnings will have to be generated and in all probability the farmer will pick up the costs through an increase in elevator charges. The prairie grain stabilization program is for the most part an effort by the government to lock the farmer into one particular segment of his own grain industry.
Mr. Speaker, instead of the government thinking in terms of the average cash receipts over the past five years, or the last three years, I would rather see it take a more positive attitude and project sales into the future with the outlook of increasing our grains sales to other countries. It has been shown in the past through various trade commissions to other countries that the potential is certainly there, potential that we have been ignoring for many years. I believe a far more positive approach, and one which would put money into the hands of grain producers in western Canada and would be better than asking the farmers to subsidize themselves, would be a longer range outlook so far as selling our grain is concerned.
I suggest that the minister and the government are ignoring one of the basic assumptions of farming. It is a fact that the minister must deal at all times with individuals, not abstract numbers or quantities. One of the greatest concerns of a program such as this is that it has a tendency to look at the whole of the grain industry and not at the individuals within it. I am anxious to see this piece of legislation go into committee because, while the idea of having a relatively stable grain industry for western Canada is a good one, there are parts of this legislation which I believe should be brought more into the open so that agricultural producers may have a better chance to voice opinions on it.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not have time this afternoon to finish the comments I want to make on this bill, but I shall make a start. The minister wondered how anyone could work out a contribution system on the basis of net income. I agree it would be difficult. The net income of farmers in western Canada is low and some of them went into the red in tre past few years. If the minister is not aware of this, he should go out into the country and listen to the farmers.
I had a question on the order paper about the amount of income tax paid by Saskatchewan farmers, but unfor-
5618

May 7, 1971
Transport and Communications tunately the figures for two important years, 1969 and 1970, are not yet available so I am not in a position to prove just what happened. I am sure the minister is aware, apart from any awkwardness in proving what the net income is, that there is not very much net income. We have today heard Dominion Bureau of Statistics' figures quoted which show that net income is down.
I listened very carefully to the minister this morning because I hoped that somewhere in his remarks on payments and stabilization of income he would talk about the relationship of income to cost. If he made any such comments, I did not hear them, so he must have said them very quietly or just thought them. Any discussion of agricultural income without a discussion of agricultural costs would be as ridiculous as it would be in regard to any other industry. Obviously, costs will increase. A royal commission has studied the cost of farm machinery. However, costs have increased so much that by the time we receive the commission's report the data will be "old hat." I suggest to the minister that any discussion that does not take costs into account is no good to the farmers and I hope the farmers in his constituency tell him so.
It is obvious that the stabilization plan will increase the costs. One per cent of $15,000, on the basis of the old PFAA, was obviously $150, but now at 2 per cent it is $300. I use the figure of $15,000 because it is the maximum allowed under the plan. I give the minister credit for accepting the principle of limitation of payment in respect of any one farmer. I think this is one of the problems in the United States with stabilization of income or agricultural subsidies-it has got out of hand. They would not have had as many complaints from taxpayers if they had accepted this principle and done something about it. I think there is a valid reason for doing this and I would be prepared to accept it. I will not argue whether $960 is adequate, but if we are to subsidize anybody let it be these with the greatest need.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like the consent of the House to revert to motions so that I may move the reference of several reports to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the minister have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the Air Canada annual report, 1970, the Canadian National Railways annual report, 1970, and the auditor's report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December
31, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to agree to this motion. If the minister would like to add to it the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Pacific Airlines, we would agree to that as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader confirm the business for Monday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that the business I announced shall continue, namely, agricultural stabilization, with the Wheat Board following. Tuesday and Wednesday are opposition days, and on Thursday there will be a debate on the reference to the special committee of matters relating to public order legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Gérard Laprise: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure allowing the spouse of a person receiving a pension by virtue of the Old Age Security Act to be entitled at the same time as his partner to the pension even if his age is lower than the present act demands.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I am introducing this motion with the hope that ensuing discussions will bring this government to follow up on it with an amendment to the Old Age Security Act, in order to enable husbands and wives-generally, it is wives-to receive the pension at the same time even though both have not yet reached the age now set at 65.
During debates on a similar motion a few years ago, one member said that if no age limit was established for this pension, this could perhaps encourage some men to abuse, that is, they would marry younger women in order

May 7, 1971

to receive the pension. This could still be very crucial today since our Prime Minister recently married a very young lady and could also be tempted to take advantage of such a measure.
The reason I did not mention an age limit in my motion is that I think it should be provided in the bill introduced by the government. This limit could be set at 55, or ten years less than the age required to receive retirement pension and later, when the government lowers retirement age to 60-which I hope it will-the act could be changed so as to allow the wife to receive the pension upon reaching the age of 50.
Of course, the arguments and considerations which lead me to introduce such a motion again this year, are provided by the many people who request this legislation and are justified by the conditions in which our senior citizens and pensioners have to live. Even if these are social measures which outwardly seem to indicate that our senior citizens are well provided for, actually it is not so. A few people are perhaps gaining some advantages from the situation but it so happens that our social laws, especially with regard to old age security, are not what they appear to be in the eyes of the public.
Generally speaking, our society complains about the ever-increasing cost of living while professional people, semi-professional employees and all classes of workers are getting together and creating associations and unions, and while union leaders are calling for strike after strike. Within this confused situation of requests and requirements, there is one group of people that are not making any noise and which accordingly are left completely to their own resources. This group of people includes all the small pensioners over 65. They worked hard for 40 or 45 years at a time when wages and the cost of living were at a low level, at least at the beginning, and when pensions plans were rare. And when, by chance, it happened that some employers offered their employees a pension plan to which both parties made contributions, serious-minded employees tightened their belts in order to make sure that they would get a monthly income of $100 or $150 after 65.
In those same years, especially during the Second World War, the government appealed to patriotism to urge people to buy victory bonds. The wage earners tightened their belts and, because they were good patriots, they managed to get some small bonds by monthly instalments of $5. Later on there were provincial savings bonds and Government of Canada savings bonds.
What happens now is that beneficiaries of a small pension who own a few savings bonds are, to a certain extent, being penalized for their efforts to ensure a retirement income. They are penalized because now that their income exceeds the limits set by the government they are not entitled to the $55 added last April to old-age security pensions of needy persons with no other source of income.
In many cases the pension, which is fixed at $135, does not exist. When there are two spouses, the maximum per person is $127.50. Beneficiaries of small pensions also have to pay premiums on life insurance they may have, 24107-
Old Age Security Act
otherwise when their small savings have dwindled away they would have nothing left at their death. That might be a good way of obtaining funerals at government expense.
In most cases, beneficiaries of small pensions, however old, still have some family responsibilities, which does not help their lot, and this happens, in most cases when the wife is a few years younger than her husband. If the beneficiary of a small pension has worked without respite over many years in order to own his house, he still has to cope with municipal and school taxes which never reach a point of saturation. In repairs because imperative, he has to pay for services of electricians or carpenters, the cost of which is constantly increasing.
If the "small pensioner'' does not own his house, he has to live in an apartment or in a room and there again rents are not decreasing! How can he afford lodging and food with $135 a month if he is the only one to receive a pension?
At this rate, should all the "small pensioners" go in senior citizens' homes for the rest of their days and be indirectly dependents on the state? These institutions are full and they have endless waiting lists.
I would like at this point to digress a little and indicate what is now happening in the province of Quebec in this regard. Before the guaranteed income supplement was increased in April, a couple was receiging $226.82 a month. I take as an example a couple who is living in a home for the elderly. In the province of Quebec, this couple had to pay $166 a month for board and lodging. They had then $60.82 left. Since April, because of the increase in the guaranteed minimum income supplement, the same couple now receives $255 a month, but they have to pay $208 to their boarding home instead of $166. Therefore, they have $47 left each month, that is $13.82 less than before the raise.
As regards couples who live in homes, people seem to believe that the pension these aged persons receive has indeed been increased, but through the action of another government which tries to finance itself directly from old age pensions, the pension did not go up but decreased by $32.80 a month. Such is the unbearable situation now in the province of Quebec.
In those cases where only the head of the family, for example, receives a pension, the maximum he may get is $135 per month.
Now, it was customary in the province of Quebec-I speak of Quebec because that is where I live-for the government, under the public assistance legislation, to grant an additional amount to the wife in order to allow the couple to live decently. But since the increase in the guaranteed income supplement paid by the federal government, Quebec has practically abolished all additional allowances granted to the wife. Sometimes, an amount equal to that of the increase granted by the federal government is deducted but, often, the amount deducted is greater than that increase.

May 7, 1971
Old Age Security Act
So, that is another aspect which is not very attractive and which is approved by the Quebec government that advocates co-operative federalism. In fact, it is rather a backward federalism, one that is not acceptable to the citizens, at least to those of Quebec.
Now a couple living on one pension must face very great difficulties because they have to pay rent or if they own a small house which they finally bought through savings of all kinds, they must keep it up.
It is impossible to make both ends meet with $135 and to provide for two and quite often three or four people since, in many instances, such couples have in charge 15-or 16-year-old dependents. So these young people attend school and it is rather costly to support them.
My request is altogether justified. It covers those couples, including the head of the family who used to be the breadwinner and must in one way or another-if it is not of his own free will, he is forced to do it-retire, and when no income comes into the home, it is the difficulties which do come in.
During the active years of a worker, the government has taken from him what he could have saved for his old age, through income tax and other taxes of all kinds. So in most cases when the worker reaches 65 years of age his savings are very small and often do not allow him to lead a normal life.
I say that saving is penalized, and I have in mind a concrete case. This is about a widower who, last year, decided to work for a month, so as to improve his financial lot, and the federal government immediately penalized him by decreasing the amount of his pension, so that he only gets $70 a month. And this, merely because he had worked before or after the establishment of the Pension Plan. He is drawing $10.08 from the Quebec Pension Plan, and the Welfare service pays him an allowance of $7, which only gives him-and that, from three different sources-$87 a month. In these circumstances this old person cannot think of going to live in a home for the aged, because this would cost him $104 a month. He must stay in a boarding house, at cost of $20 a week, and since there are sometimes five weeks in a month, one can imagine in what trouble this man finds himself. He had to stop smoking and can no longer buy clothes or enjoy his hobbies. He cannot even afford to buy a newspaper!
I wanted to put those considerations before the House this afternoon, in order to show as much as possible the numerous difficulties experienced by old people even if quite often they seem covered by some legislation. As for the legislation, I compare it to a cake which has failed. When that happens, it is iced and it looks good. But when it is cut, then one realizes that it is not so good. Most of our social legislation is somewhat like that. As long as we do not need it, we imagine that everything is perfect, but when we get a taste it, we realize that there is not much under the icing.
That is why we ask for improvement on those laws to allow elderly couples of which only one has reached pension age, to lead normal lives without having to beg.
I hope hon. members who studied the motion and listened to my arguments will speak in favour of the motion and ask the government to introduce a bill that will clear up the situation.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). He aroused my curiosity so much that I wondered if the speech he delivered in such a masterly fashion would not fall in the darkness and void of times and if the Quebec National Assembly would not have been the more appropriate place for it.
Since the problems he set forth are, I believe, administrative problems under the jurisdiction of a certain province I am sure that his speech-and I am happy for him-will not fall into the darkness of times because he will be able to give it to one of his friends from the Quebec National Assembly. The hon. member dealt with our every day problems in the province of Quebec,-he referred to nearly all Quebec social security programs, including welfare-and we know there is an administrative unrest at present that will eventually be corrected.
But I agree with his remarks on social security programs. So I advise him to have his speech retyped and sent to one of the Creditiste members in Quebec who will be able to call the attention of the National Assembly on that problem.
Older people surely have a fairly deep feeling of insecurity, although that group more than any other group of citizens gets assistance at the present time through public programs. When older people retire, their income decreases while their needs often greatly increase.
I quite understand the object of the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi and I admit that allowing the wife of a pensioner to be entitled as well to the pension would perhaps improve for a while the conditions of retired couples, but I also claim that such a measure would not be in accordance with government policy.
This is what I mean. Our policy consists in channeling available resources toward the improvement of income security benefits for older people who live in dire poverty because of a very low income. If we examine the position of older people, we realize that older married couples are much better off than single persons.
It is an undeniable fact, shown in statistics, that poverty is more widespread among single persons than among married couples.
In fact, without some guaranteed income programs for the aged, about 72 per cent of single people over 65 would obtain less than $1,500 whereas 55 per cent of married couples would get less than $3,000.
It should be noted that the new programs have reduced such percentages to 53 per cent for single people and to 31 per cent for married couples in the over-65 category.
This proposal provides on a standard benefit of $80 for all wives under 65 whose husbands have reached retirement age. Of course, this benefit would do injustice to

May 7, 1971

single women in the same age group since, not being married to pensioners, they would not be entitled to any benefit.
In that group of single women, we should include those who were never married and those who head a family, and we know that there are now more and more of them. The woman who acts as family head, if she works, can rely only on her own earnings, that is earnings on average lower than those obtained by men. Often those family heads are widows or deserted, separated or divorced wives, with dependent children. On this account, those women are reduced to an even more precarious and disastrous situation socially and financially.
If adopted, this proposal would mean granting a new demogrant, before the regular pension age, to the wife of a pensioner. The demogrant or the guaranteed income are acceptable means to provide sure income, since conditions for eligibility are simple. It should be noted, however, that this scheme is extremely costly since the same benefits are paid both to high income people and low income people.
To understand the federal government policy in the area of senior citizens income maintenance, it is important to be aware of all the current measures which cover this group of people. I can well imagine the chaos that this motion, if adopted, could cause since it would permit an old man to marry four or five times merely to have young and pretty girls get lifetime retirement payments. And, once the retired husband has passed away the pension will continue and the tearful wife will be able to try her luck again because she will not be too old yet.
I want to say that if we decided to discontinue the pension proposed under this motion, we would be faced with many more problems since those people would keep increasing in number. Moreover, we would have many complaints from those people who, for a period of time, would have enjoyed a certain level of income which would be interrupted overnight.
As I said earlier, this would be an injustice to the other group of citizens who are considered as unmarried and who, in fact, are not. They are widows, deserted women, divorced women, etc.
We know that the future has many surprises in store. From our current sociology, and mainly taking into account the present trend in society, it seems that divorces will become more and more numerous. When debating a motion such as that of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) we should understand the government social security measures intended for our senior citizens.
Social security measures for the aged include the guaranteed income, assistance benefits and social welfare services, as well as the guaranteed income from private pension plans.
The guaranteed income legislation covers first of all, the old age security allowance; secondly, the guaranteed income supplement; and thirdly, the pension benefits granted through the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan.
Old Age Security Act
All those who meet the requirements with regard to age and residence are entitled to old age security benefits. In addition, old age pensioners whose income is lower than a set amount are entitled to a supplement, as I have just mentioned, by virtue of the guaranteed income supplement plan. Contributors to the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec equivalent are eligible to pensions granted through those two plans, and these also provide for survivors' benefits. Such income maintenance measures are designed to guarantee only a basic minimum income; the government expects that the party concerned will have in due course taken steps to have at his disposal a more important income at the time of his retirement. If this income is inadequate to meet his basic requirements, he can apply for public assistance in his province.
Speaking about public assistance and various income maintenance measures, it might perhaps be useful to explain that those who have reached retirement age can apply for instance, to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. It is also useful to explain that the contributors to those two plans get a pension at the time of their retirement.
The plans were designed to provide workers with a retirement pension related to earnings, and they cover roughtly 92 per cent of all workers.
They also provide for benefits to disabled contributors and their dependents. Upon the death of a contributor, his widow and children are also paid a lump sum and monthly benefits.
The Canada Pension Plan is not in force in provinces where a similar scheme is operated. Hon. Members know that only Quebec provides for such a plan; the Quebec and the federal plans are closely related and are actually operating as one plan. Many thought the Quebec Pension Plan was not identical to the federal plan. On the contrary it is. If an employee insured under the federal plan moves his place of work to Quebec, or if a self-employed worker moves his residence to Quebec, their contributions to the Quebec plan will entitle them to the same benefits as if they had been paid into the Canada Pension Plan and vice versa.
One contribution is enough to ensure entitlement to a retirement pension, but in this case the pension will normally be very low. To be entitled to a disability pension, the contributor must obviously suffer from a disability which prevents him from being gainfully employed. In addition, he must have contributed during at least one third of the years during which he could have contributed, or ten years, whichever is the less, but in any event, he must have contributed at least ' five years.
In order to ensure that the person was a member of the labour force until fairly recently, the requirements are that he must have contributed during at least five of the last ten years, during which he could have contributed before coming disabled. So that the survivors be entitled to benefits, a person must have contributed during a third of the years he could have contributed or ten years, whichever is the less, but never less than three years.

May 7, 1971
Old Age Security Act
a (4:30 p.m.)
A retirement pension, as everyone knows, is payable to a citizen between 65 and 70, if the contributor ceases to have a permanent job. If he earns $900 or less, he is considered as retired and can apply for pension. Those who take a job after they receive a pension are subject to a means test. If the income from this job is between $900 and $1500 a year, the pension is reduced by half the amount earned over and above $900, the maximum reduction being $300. If the annual income exceeds $1500, the pension is reduced by $300 plus the balance over $1500. However, no reduction will be made for the months when the pensioner's income is not more than $75, regardless of his annual income. After 70 years of age, however, the pension is paid in full. Whatever the earnings, the limits mentioned above will vary according to the changes made in the pension index.
In its white paper on income security published a few months ago, the federal government proposed several changes to improve this plan.
The proposed changes cannot come into effect before January 1973. It is a mere technicality, because the provinces must be consulted and since the law provides, as I said a while ago, that a three year advance notice is required before any change is made. The main amendments are as follows:
The maximum pensionable earnings will be gradually raised from $5,500 in 1972 to $7,800 in 1975.
Benefits will be based on a maximum average of pensionable income of $7,800 (benefit under the unamended program). The maximum will reach $162 in 1977, from $121 in 1976 when the plan comes into force, over and above old age security benefits.
Disabled persons will receive a maximum of $199 a month in 1973; they now receive $114, which will be increased to $249 by 1977. Wives of disabled contributors will receive a flat amount of $80, when the disabled contributor is less than 65 years old, with dependent children. Widows will receive a maximum of $170 per month in 1973; they are now receiving $71 and will receive $208 by 1977, whatever their age.
Some special adjustments will be necessary. Those receiving pensions as widows or wives of disabled contributors in 1972 will have their benefits adjusted in 1973 according to the scale of increase.
We could go into more detail about old age security. Under an amendment to the 1951 Old Age Security Act, the federal government is paying a standard rate of $80 a month to all persons who meet the age and residence conditions. The old age security system protects almost all aged people, except the few citizens who do not meet the residence requirements.
The old age security system offers a basis on which all Canadians may rely on for their retirement income. This is the standard rate basis on which the guaranteed pensions have been established for the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. It is also the base on which the guaranteed income supplement is calculated.

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to take more of the time of the House to remind the hon. member for Abitibi that I insist that he asks his colleagues to give in the Quebec National Assembly the magnificent speech he has just delivered. I hope the Assembly will take the matter into consideration since the issue that the hon. member has just raised in the House falls under provincial jurisdiction. We have basic security plans, but their application is left to the provinces, as it happens with the Canada Assistance Program, which allows to do a lot of things, but unfortunately the provinces do not seem interested in using it. They had the opportunity to do so, because it is up to them to decide on the implementation of this plan. Again, we have an assistance plan which in my view is extraordinary, which could meet all the needs, and again I hope the hon. member's speech had been made in the Quebec National Assembly.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate in order to support
the principle of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). It is also a pleasure to speak on behalf of that group of people whom I believe are the most deserving in our society and, tragically, in many instances are the most needy. I could not help smiling at the remarks of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) when he reminded the hon. member for Abitibi that he should make sure his speech is drawn to the attention of the National Assembly of Quebec. It would seem to me that a member representing the government party would be much more able to give such advice than a member who sits in the opposition in either the National Assembly or in this House.
Although I support this motion in principle, I cannot support it in its detail, in that the hon. member suggests the pension should be available to the spouse at the time of the passing away of the other half of the family who was eligible. This would make the spouse eligible at a younger age than 85. I agree with the principle, but let us consider this example: Suppose the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should have a normal life span of three score years and ten, and after he had been eligible for the old age pension for five years he should pass away. That would mean that his surviving wife would be eligible for the pension at 41 years of age.
I do not really think it is necessary to make a surviving spouse eligible at such an early age. Perhaps it would be better to set a minimum age such as 60 years or something similar. I am sure this would meet the need the hon. member has in mind, because I know that very often the surviving spouse is in great difficulty. So in principle I believe this motion represents a real need.
a (4:40 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, apart from that there are several other points which I think are logical, which could well be implemented without any great cost to the government or to the taxpayer and which would substantially help our senior citizens who are eligible for pension. I think there should be an increased exemption
May 7, 1971

so far as tax is concerned, not only for old age pensioners but for all Canadian citizens. If Parliament was justified in 1949 in setting the exemption at $1,000, with the decreased purchasing power of the dollar and the increased cost of living if we were to set the same standard of exemption today it would be $2,500 rather than $1,000. Perhaps this is not possible so far as the tax budget is concerned, but certainly the $1,000 exemption is not enough. The group in our society that has this problem more than anyone else is composed of senior citizens who are pensioners. There should be an increased exemption for them, although I believe it would be only social justice for the increased tax exemption to be applied to everybody.
There is another way in which I think the pensioner can be helped. Again, I do not think it would cost the treasury much money but it would help the old age pensioner. I think the old age pension should be tax exempt. If we believe that pensions belong to our senior citizens because of their contribution to society and to the nation as a whole, then their pension should be exempt from tax.
I am confident, based on my experience across Canada, that the people who suffer most as a result of inflation and the increased cost of living are not really the unemployed or even those on welfare-although I do not take away from the need of many of those in that category- but are the working poor. There are many people who work the normal 40 hours a week. Suppose they get $70 a week: they earn $280 a month and deductions come off that amount. How can any family live on $260 take-home pay? There are many in that category. Even those earning $100 a week, meaning that the family is trying to live on $400 a month or less because of deductions, are below the poverty line laid down by the Economic Council of Canada.
It is in this area that we have the greatest responsibility. Senator Croll and his Special Committee on Poverty made it very clear that it is in this area that the greatest need exists. There are probably 4J million people locked into the classification of the working poor. When you project them through the later years in life, what is a difficult situation normally for those in the middle-age bracket becomes much more difficult in the upper-age bracket.
One of the things the government has done, and I agree with it, is to improve the Canadian Pension Plan. Its present projected benefits constitute a far superior type of pension to any previous plan. If the plan proceeds as planned to 1978, a very sizeable pension will be available to anyone who has contributed for up to ten years if their income has been such that they contributed the maximum amount. There is now an indication from the government that they will increase the minimum amount on which tax can be paid, which will result in an increase in benefit to those who earn more than $5,000. But this does not really help the middle group, the working poor, whose income is less than $5,000 a year. It is to these people that the Canada Pension Plan means less because, their contribution having been smaller, their returns are smaller.
Old Age Security Act
So again I think it is very important that the basic pension be broadened to help these people as they enter into the senior citizen group. I believe that this is all part of very legitimate reforms which should be brought in by the government. After all, it is their responsibility to bring about the social justice which they have talked about so much and which certainly belongs to our senior citizens more than to any other group, apart from those who are unable to earn a living or who are incapacitated. Apart from the points which I have raised, I think the principle involved in this motion is a very legitimate one. I hope that the House will give support to that type of legislation.
There are two more comments that I should like to make in closing. It has long been my political philosophy, so far as social responsibility is concerned, that it is sound for anyone in politics, and basically sound as a principle, for us to accept special responsibility for two particular groups in our society. First let us remember our senior citizens, including our parents and those who have reached advanced years, because when we were young it was they who looked after us. Let us also remember the special responsibility that we have to our young people to provide them with an opportunity to earn a gainful living and also to save and to contribute through the productive years of their lives for the time when they become senior citizens, because when we become old it is they who will be responsible for taking care of us.
I think a very sound approach to this area of responsibility is brought before us in this motion. Senator Croll made a very important statement in the first report of the Committee on Poverty when he spoke about the over-all welfare system. He said:
I think we ought to be able to scrap the system completely. We could actually repeal every one of our social measures, with the exception of the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canada Pension Plan and the unemployment insurance plan, and meet every requirement under the basic definition of "need" in the Canada Assistance Plan, modifying it to some slight extent so it would Tt under an umbrella rather than as now under a tent with 200 or so measures.
This is not the time to talk about welfare, but I wish to draw to the attention of members of the House the fact that the one area which he felt should not be included under a new approach to welfare is the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Assistance Plan, because I think that in these two areas we are looking at a very special need.
I am grateful for the opportunity to support the hon. member for Abitibi in principle. I hope government members will allow this motion to go to the committee. We cannot be expected to pass it here this afternoon but in committee it could be discussed in a realistic way, to make provision for those in this area of special responsibility. It would not upset the treasury too much, but it would help more effectively to achieve social ' justice in our land.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words about this

May 7, 1971
Old Age Security Act
motion, because I agree with my triend the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
I agree even more strongly in English. The motion is really a very simple one. If I heard him correctly, I think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) did not quite get the point. The motion does not have to do only with the pension being continued after the death of a pensioner to that pensioner's widow, but more specifically it requests that when man and wife are both alive and one of them is of pensionable age and the other is not, the younger of the two should also draw the pension. I think this is a very commendable proposal and I think it should be supported. And since the motion is only a request that the government should consider the matter, I do not see why we cannot allow it to come to a vote this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Then Margaret would get the pension at 36.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting bit of byplay about the Prime Minister's young bride, but the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) made it quite clear that his motion does not set out the details. It is a request that the government consider bringing in a measure, and if the government brought in that measure the details would have to be set out in that legislation.
I agree with the sponsor of the motion that it would be appropriate, when putting in the details, to set some age at which this would come into effect. I think he suggested age 60 or perhaps 55, and I think we would all agree that such an age would be a reasonable one at which it would be understood that the spouse of a pensioner would also get the pension.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) is not in the chamber, because that limits me somewhat in commenting on his speech today. I am always interested in speeches that he makes on pension matters. Today he did not quite give us all the history of pensions that he usually does, but really he travelled all over the world to find ways in which these people could have their needs met without the implementation of this motion. But the hon. member forgot a few things. He forgot about unemployment insurance. Maybe these young wives could qualify for unemployment insurance. Why didn't he try that one? He forgot about workmen's compensation, but maybe he will include that in his next pension speech. And he forgot about the special position of the wives and widows of Members of Parliament.
Why all this beating about the bush? Why not admit that this is a sensible, simple proposition that the hon. member has placed before the House and agree to it, namely, that if one member of a married couple is 65 and gets the pension, then the other member, whether at age 63, 58, or down as far as 55 ought to get the pension as well? I urge that this be done. I commend the hon. member for bringing the motion before the House, not

only for that reason but for one or two other reasons as well.
For one such other reason, I think it is a good idea to raise the pension question at every opportunity we can. I say that because when the government brought in a white paper last November and got a pension bill through the House in about 17 days, that was a strange form of participatory democracy. People are only now discovering what was in the white paper and how much of it was wrong. So we have to keep raising the pension question at every opportunity. This motion also provides an opportunity to make one or two other suggestions, but in view of the way the clock is moving I shall restrict myself to just one. I think that just as we have a provision like this in some other pieces of legislation, there ought to be a provision that when one partner of a married couple dies, both of them having been on pension, the pension should continue to the survivor at the married rate for a year or at least for six months. The problem people face in such a situation in getting adjusted, whether it be a widow or a widower, is an extremely difficult one. As a matter of fact the length of time that people live on alone is not so great that we could not continue the pension right along, but at least for a period of a year and certainly for not less than six months the pension should be continued at the married rate.
Mr. Speaker, if I end abruptly I do so deliberately because I wish to leave a few minutes during which a vote may be taken on the motion. I am sorry so much time has been spent in running all around the issue instead of facing up to the simple question involved. I support the motion.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to seize this opportunity to make a few comments on the notice of motion placed before the House by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). I might venture to suggest that even the erudite hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may have slightly missed emphasizing one of the attributes of the motion, in the sense that as I read it it simply refers to spouse, which can be either a husband or a wife, and it might well be that the motion would apply to situations where an older woman had married a younger man. Therefore, I assume that the hon. member for Abitibi would want, in circumstances when the elder of the two reached pensionable age, which at the moment is 65, that both would receive the pension.
I think it is important to raise a few questions and put them on the record at this time. I am assuming that according to the terms of the motion, when an elder partner in a marriage reached pensionable age the hon. member for Abitibi would want the younger partner to receive the benefits that accrue to the elder partner, regardless of the age of the younger partner, although he did make reference to the fact that we could set an age limit above which the younger partner must be. But it was to be regardless of the financial circumstances of the younger partner.
At face value it seems to me a good idea, as was suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thomp-
May 7, 1971

son). For example, a man who is 65 or older and who is married to a woman who is considerably younger could have several young dependent children and might well need extra assistance. Therefore, if he loses his source of income from his work by being pensioned off at 65, and if his wife is much younger, his income may take a drastic slump. In such circumstances this motion would have great merit. However, I think it is inadequate in certain respects.
If the motion were tightened up and made more realistic, I would support it, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I present two suggestions to improve it. The first is simply that the motion ought to be acted upon provided the spouse of the pensioner will have reached the age of 55 years and, in addition, provided that the first partner of a marriage to become a recipient of old age security will have been- this is the crucial point-the principal wage earner of the home over the five-year period immediately preceding. This would require a spouse to apply and that a family is in a position where both partners are forced to live on the income of one of them, all of which assumes-
Old Age Security Act

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order. The hour set aside for consideration of private members' business has now expired. As it is five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.

Because Sunday is Mother's Day I thought the following lines might be a gentle reminder:
They say that man is mighty He governs land and sea,
He wields a mighty sceptre O'er lesser powers that be But a sovereign-gentler, mightier,
Man from his throne has hurled-
For the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world.
Mother or ruler, no one can take her place. She is our provider of life and love. Thanks a million, mothers! God bless you and make us worthy sons.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. May 10, 1971